With the semester ending in two weeks, reflections on the value of our academic experience we paid $30,000 for are inevitable. Unfortunately, looking back, I can't help but be filled with a sense of disillusionment – I came to one of the best education schools in the world hoping for answers, and I'm leaving with the sick realization that perhaps, there aren't any answers to be had.
As we studied the history of educational reform, I realized that there are no truly original solutions, merely reiterations and evolutions of basic theories of change. And even if there were an original solution, the realities of educational politics means that it has to adapt and lose some of its boldness to gain the currency it needs to be implemented. And so standards for excellence become standards for minimum competency, bold pure choice systems become a tiny add-on to the existing system. While the names and taglines change, the substance within remain practically the same, and it all seems to be old wine in new bottles.
Ultimately, what happens within the classroom has changed little in comparison to the swirling changes at the policy level. And until what happens within the classroom changes, there will be true education reform. But how can we change instructional practice, when most policymakers and even some education researchers treat the classroom as a black box? How can we design effective reforms, when the people in charge of designing our policies barely know what goes on in the heart of education? How can we successfully implement change, without the buy-in of the people who are most crucial to the education of our children – our teachers?
Until we can trust our teachers – and until we manage to recruit teachers we can trust – any education reform that relies on teachers for implementation will have limited success.
Saturday, May 12, 2007
Friday, May 11, 2007
Accountability in Higher Education
Accountability has truly moved into the world of higher education. Not only are advocates pushing for more accountability of what students are actually learning in colleges, many are looking at Harvard as the example of what to do and waiting for their move (Wertheimer, 2007). Two recent articles show how Harvard is in the spotlight of accountability and standards: “Testing Harvard” in the Boston Globe (at http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/04/22/testing_harvard/) and “Harvard Task Force Calls for New Focus on Teaching and Not Just Research” in the New York times (at http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/10/education/10harvard.html?ex=1336449600&en=b78842d9d28a84c8&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss). While a move to know where students’ money is going when investing tens of thousands of dollars in higher education, the worries for what this type of focus on test results could do to higher education. Many worry that this would be the end of liberal education in that professors would be forced to ‘teach to the test’, much in the same way that is necessary in many of our K-12 schools at this time. Current and relevant issues are pushed aside in order to prep students for standardized tests. In addition, due to the huge diversity of studies going on, both at the undergraduate and graduate levels, at a institution like Harvard it may be hard to find a test that gives reliable and valid results on student progress and achievement (Rimer, 2007).
Tests that test problem solving and critical thinking are being suggested, and used in some parts of Harvard, in order to assess students. While many professors and educators feel that assessing students is a good move in order to see the value added of their teaching, the potential of making the results is troublesome(Wertheimer, 2007). Advocates for public results argue that the consumer would have more information while some educators argue that tests may be misleading as progress could not be measured for all students. Instead students would just be compared to other students at their level.
The federal government has done a poor job in instituting a standards and accountability movement in the area of K-12, so I think they should concentrate on improving this before tackling higher education, if at all. Also, in agreement with interim president of Harvard Bok, the potential for pressure to be put on the University may push the administration and education to preemptively start assessing and improving their teaching. This would be a happy result as many know that Harvard is not known for their undergraduate teaching satisfaction. While consumers may need may information about what goes on inside the black box of prestigious universities, I doubt government control over a such a system will lead to great changes. Similar to what happened in many schools with NCLB, institutions will most likely fulfill the requirements in a way that fits their needs and not really change anything about the way students are educated.
Tests that test problem solving and critical thinking are being suggested, and used in some parts of Harvard, in order to assess students. While many professors and educators feel that assessing students is a good move in order to see the value added of their teaching, the potential of making the results is troublesome(Wertheimer, 2007). Advocates for public results argue that the consumer would have more information while some educators argue that tests may be misleading as progress could not be measured for all students. Instead students would just be compared to other students at their level.
The federal government has done a poor job in instituting a standards and accountability movement in the area of K-12, so I think they should concentrate on improving this before tackling higher education, if at all. Also, in agreement with interim president of Harvard Bok, the potential for pressure to be put on the University may push the administration and education to preemptively start assessing and improving their teaching. This would be a happy result as many know that Harvard is not known for their undergraduate teaching satisfaction. While consumers may need may information about what goes on inside the black box of prestigious universities, I doubt government control over a such a system will lead to great changes. Similar to what happened in many schools with NCLB, institutions will most likely fulfill the requirements in a way that fits their needs and not really change anything about the way students are educated.
Sunday, April 29, 2007
Politics: The Problem (Not the Solution)
The Gates/Broad campaign program, Ed in ’08 is a double-edged sword. It will no doubt encourage candidates to make education a major campaign platform. If successful, the voters will clamor for stronger curriculums, better teachers, and longer school days beyond the 2008 elections, and the issues of education will be as important as healthcare costs and national security.
As an educator, this scares me to death. Don’t get me wrong. I am all for a political push for education. I think that education should be a central part of every campaign. That being said, those elected officials aren’t being held accountable for what actually happens. Voters aren’t being told about the enormous money the test-makers give legislators, to encourage more testing. Voters aren’t being told about the enormous amount of work that goes into a “good” teacher's day. Voters aren’t being told about the difficulties of being a teacher in a highly politicized system. Voters aren’t being told about the turnover of leadership related to school board elections. My guess is that this campaign will probably increase the number of fired urban superintendents over the next few years. The "ED in ’08" campaign will lead to candidate spin that holds teachers, not the politicians, at fault.
Let’s look at the platform for longer school days. Will they increase test scores? There is some research supporting that assertion. Will they increase learning? That point is in contention. If the school day is extended, there is even more time to prepare students for the mindless basic knowledge tests used in most states. Teachers will give students more practice test exercises, more rubrics, more practice writing prompts. The test-makers will get to fill this time with more preparation materials and new diagnostic tests. Teachers (via their new stronger curriculums) will become more discouraged, exhausted, and bitter.
Let’s face it. We have two systems of education in this country and the urban teachers are going to be the hardest hit by the "ED in ’08" campaign. The voters don’t just need to hear about teachers can work harder and do a better job. They need to hear about how political interest supersedes educational outcomes. They need to hear about the high-paying patronage jobs that suck at school budgets. They need to hear about athletic coaches being paid two or three times as much as academic teachers. They need to hear about janitors that don’t show up. They need to hear about union rules that preclude a classroom from being painted. Instead of asking why Japanese students do better, maybe they could be shown a video of Japanese students working out math problems in a gymnasium, climbing ropes, and running around in managed chaos. They need to hear that that Japanese teachers aren’t afraid of being sued if an accident happens.
I wish that I could be overjoyed at the news of Bill Gates and Eli Broad’s efforts. But in all truth, I don’t think adding politicians to the mess of education is going to make it any better. $60 million could help a lot of teachers. There are a ton of teachers that wish they could take a year off and study at Harvard. A bunch of them would like to just have the money to think about continuing their education. Some of them would like to quit their second job, so they could spend more time lesson planning. Everyone would like someone else to pay for the markers, pencils, erasers, books, paper, copies, and curriculum materials they are forced to buy to help out their students. At my school, they really need paper for the copier (the mandatory test prep materials have left a paper shortage).
I agree that the American education is in a terrible spot right now. But making the school day longer, adding professional development, and stronger curriculums aren’t going to do the trick. The public needs to know who is really at fault in their education system. If we want to be honest about education, is a political campaign the place to start?
As an educator, this scares me to death. Don’t get me wrong. I am all for a political push for education. I think that education should be a central part of every campaign. That being said, those elected officials aren’t being held accountable for what actually happens. Voters aren’t being told about the enormous money the test-makers give legislators, to encourage more testing. Voters aren’t being told about the enormous amount of work that goes into a “good” teacher's day. Voters aren’t being told about the difficulties of being a teacher in a highly politicized system. Voters aren’t being told about the turnover of leadership related to school board elections. My guess is that this campaign will probably increase the number of fired urban superintendents over the next few years. The "ED in ’08" campaign will lead to candidate spin that holds teachers, not the politicians, at fault.
Let’s look at the platform for longer school days. Will they increase test scores? There is some research supporting that assertion. Will they increase learning? That point is in contention. If the school day is extended, there is even more time to prepare students for the mindless basic knowledge tests used in most states. Teachers will give students more practice test exercises, more rubrics, more practice writing prompts. The test-makers will get to fill this time with more preparation materials and new diagnostic tests. Teachers (via their new stronger curriculums) will become more discouraged, exhausted, and bitter.
Let’s face it. We have two systems of education in this country and the urban teachers are going to be the hardest hit by the "ED in ’08" campaign. The voters don’t just need to hear about teachers can work harder and do a better job. They need to hear about how political interest supersedes educational outcomes. They need to hear about the high-paying patronage jobs that suck at school budgets. They need to hear about athletic coaches being paid two or three times as much as academic teachers. They need to hear about janitors that don’t show up. They need to hear about union rules that preclude a classroom from being painted. Instead of asking why Japanese students do better, maybe they could be shown a video of Japanese students working out math problems in a gymnasium, climbing ropes, and running around in managed chaos. They need to hear that that Japanese teachers aren’t afraid of being sued if an accident happens.
I wish that I could be overjoyed at the news of Bill Gates and Eli Broad’s efforts. But in all truth, I don’t think adding politicians to the mess of education is going to make it any better. $60 million could help a lot of teachers. There are a ton of teachers that wish they could take a year off and study at Harvard. A bunch of them would like to just have the money to think about continuing their education. Some of them would like to quit their second job, so they could spend more time lesson planning. Everyone would like someone else to pay for the markers, pencils, erasers, books, paper, copies, and curriculum materials they are forced to buy to help out their students. At my school, they really need paper for the copier (the mandatory test prep materials have left a paper shortage).
I agree that the American education is in a terrible spot right now. But making the school day longer, adding professional development, and stronger curriculums aren’t going to do the trick. The public needs to know who is really at fault in their education system. If we want to be honest about education, is a political campaign the place to start?
Gordian Knots and Hidden Themes
Every week I find that the stories which motivate my blogs, however specific or unusual the particulars, end up having threads of several heavy themes running through them. This week is no different.
A story in the New York Times caught my eye recently (read it here) and when I followed it back I found a tale of incompetent school boards, uninvolved parents, heavy-handed government, and questionable professionals. The surface story details a lack of involvement in the parent councils of NYC schools where in many districts as few as four or five parents are on the ballot for a board with nine elected positions. But the real story is about the ongoing struggle over schools that is occurring in many of the country's major cities. According to the article the number of parents running has gone from about 1,200 in the first parent council election in 2004 to 744 candidates this year. What has caused such a drastic decline in parental involvement? Some cite a feeling of uselessness and lack of power stating that the councils are ineffective and often ignored. Others claim there's not enough information, that many parents who are approached about running are unaware of what the council does, how long the terms last, and what, ultimately, they as council members would be expected to do. Curious to learn more about the situation in NYC and mayor Michael Bloomberg's 2002 takeover of the city's school system I found this article from the Washington Post: NYC School Takeover Inspires Fenty, but Critics Abound. There are three particular points of interest from the article that I would like to highlight although time and space keep me from fully examining these themes as they relate to the situation in NYC. In any case the "hidden themes" are accountability, professionalism, and urban contexts.
Between the two articles I found the question of who's accountable to whom answered in very different ways. The parents were concerned that Bloomberg and his appointed Chancellor of Education, Klein, were not accountable to anyone, didn't listen to the parent councils, and were exercising "complete dictatorial powers" in the words of one parent. Later in the article Bloomberg speaks to the "culture of patronage" and making educators accountable for results basically through hiring and firing mechanisms. In essence it appears that Bloomberg's position is that only by making the management unaccountable can the professionals be held truly accountable. It seems that accountability for all is not a feasible position; an interesting question but one which I happen to disagree with. On a related note Bloomberg also had several members of the city's Panel on Education Policy (the committee that replaced the school board) whom he himself had appointed, dismissed when they disagreed with him over the issue of social promotion. And these members aren't your average community member either, but are all leaders in their respective fields; professionals if you will. This leads into professionalism; the second hidden thread. Bloomberg makes a rather provocative statement regarding professionalism which reads as follows: "Parents know about their kids, but they're not professional educators. There is no reason to think they should be designing a school system or running a school system. Do you want parents to make medical decisions? I don't think so." There are two issues here the first being a distrust of parents and the second being a distrust of professionals. While Bloomberg bases his distrust of parents on their lack of professional knowledge he seems to also mistrust professionals as evidenced by his replacement of the board members.
Although Bloomberg's tactics have raised the hackles of many, this sort of mayoral takeover is catching on in many large cities which face dire educational situations. I believe that there are two main contributors to this trend. The first is that larger cities have larger bureaucracies and therefore the easiest solution may be to cut through the red tape with one fell swoop. The second and related feature is that the scope of the problem seems so much bigger in urban areas that it appears unmanageable by ordinary means and the city may on the whole beg for heroic intervention even while those on the ground complain.
While cutting the Gordian Knot proves a quick, and perhaps easy solution, it remains less clear whether or not it is a good one. Like other emergency powers perhaps such takeovers should only be temporary. In fact Bloomberg's management will be reevaluated in 2009. But on the other hand will the ultimate costs of a temporary fix be worth any benefits gained?
A story in the New York Times caught my eye recently (read it here) and when I followed it back I found a tale of incompetent school boards, uninvolved parents, heavy-handed government, and questionable professionals. The surface story details a lack of involvement in the parent councils of NYC schools where in many districts as few as four or five parents are on the ballot for a board with nine elected positions. But the real story is about the ongoing struggle over schools that is occurring in many of the country's major cities. According to the article the number of parents running has gone from about 1,200 in the first parent council election in 2004 to 744 candidates this year. What has caused such a drastic decline in parental involvement? Some cite a feeling of uselessness and lack of power stating that the councils are ineffective and often ignored. Others claim there's not enough information, that many parents who are approached about running are unaware of what the council does, how long the terms last, and what, ultimately, they as council members would be expected to do. Curious to learn more about the situation in NYC and mayor Michael Bloomberg's 2002 takeover of the city's school system I found this article from the Washington Post: NYC School Takeover Inspires Fenty, but Critics Abound. There are three particular points of interest from the article that I would like to highlight although time and space keep me from fully examining these themes as they relate to the situation in NYC. In any case the "hidden themes" are accountability, professionalism, and urban contexts.
Between the two articles I found the question of who's accountable to whom answered in very different ways. The parents were concerned that Bloomberg and his appointed Chancellor of Education, Klein, were not accountable to anyone, didn't listen to the parent councils, and were exercising "complete dictatorial powers" in the words of one parent. Later in the article Bloomberg speaks to the "culture of patronage" and making educators accountable for results basically through hiring and firing mechanisms. In essence it appears that Bloomberg's position is that only by making the management unaccountable can the professionals be held truly accountable. It seems that accountability for all is not a feasible position; an interesting question but one which I happen to disagree with. On a related note Bloomberg also had several members of the city's Panel on Education Policy (the committee that replaced the school board) whom he himself had appointed, dismissed when they disagreed with him over the issue of social promotion. And these members aren't your average community member either, but are all leaders in their respective fields; professionals if you will. This leads into professionalism; the second hidden thread. Bloomberg makes a rather provocative statement regarding professionalism which reads as follows: "Parents know about their kids, but they're not professional educators. There is no reason to think they should be designing a school system or running a school system. Do you want parents to make medical decisions? I don't think so." There are two issues here the first being a distrust of parents and the second being a distrust of professionals. While Bloomberg bases his distrust of parents on their lack of professional knowledge he seems to also mistrust professionals as evidenced by his replacement of the board members.
Although Bloomberg's tactics have raised the hackles of many, this sort of mayoral takeover is catching on in many large cities which face dire educational situations. I believe that there are two main contributors to this trend. The first is that larger cities have larger bureaucracies and therefore the easiest solution may be to cut through the red tape with one fell swoop. The second and related feature is that the scope of the problem seems so much bigger in urban areas that it appears unmanageable by ordinary means and the city may on the whole beg for heroic intervention even while those on the ground complain.
While cutting the Gordian Knot proves a quick, and perhaps easy solution, it remains less clear whether or not it is a good one. Like other emergency powers perhaps such takeovers should only be temporary. In fact Bloomberg's management will be reevaluated in 2009. But on the other hand will the ultimate costs of a temporary fix be worth any benefits gained?
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Brand Identity.......Is it Market Failure?
While brand identity is an essential element of many industries, there is a question as to whether this helps or hurts the consumer in the market of education. In many industries, brand identity is used to establish a niche in the market and to differentiate that company from others that are providing similar services (or the exact same service). Interestingly, in the market of education it is not always apparent that the brand identity matches the quality assumption that comes with the name.
Information is an essential component for a market to function well. In situations such as the stock market, companies that are publicly traded are required make a large amount of information public, regarding profits and corporate compensation and such, in order for participants in the market to make well-founded decisions. In the current market for education, which is severely regulated in some ways but still has aspects of free market (such as charter schools), there is not enough information for parents to make reasonable decisions regarding their parents education. Many parents and students rely on such ranking as US News and World Report to pick their colleges, when in fact these surveys may not measure the elements that are important to the particular student or are potentially inaccurate. Rankings and test scores for k-12 are provided by many states, but there are also states who refuse to make this information public despite the public tax dollars going to finance their education system.
In this information-starved environment, there is the opportunity for schools to develop brands based a few elements of their school that do not truly encapsulate the experience and quality at said school. Without the proper information regarding schools across the grades and information letting parents know the markers of quality and the results of surveys based on sound indicators, the current market for education is flawed. Even though the education system in our country is not fully market-based, information is imperative for proper functioning and outcomes.
In the current education system, from Kindergarten to college there is a market failure as far as brand identity is concerned because there are not reliable and accurate sources of information for parents to make decisions. Without this, parents are at the mercy of the brand name which does not necessarily guarantee the level of quality expected. Where there is better information, it is not freely distributed to parents in a way that makes sense to them or that is available to all socioeconomic groups, regardless of whether they can afford a computer or whether the parents only speak Spanish.
Information is an essential component for a market to function well. In situations such as the stock market, companies that are publicly traded are required make a large amount of information public, regarding profits and corporate compensation and such, in order for participants in the market to make well-founded decisions. In the current market for education, which is severely regulated in some ways but still has aspects of free market (such as charter schools), there is not enough information for parents to make reasonable decisions regarding their parents education. Many parents and students rely on such ranking as US News and World Report to pick their colleges, when in fact these surveys may not measure the elements that are important to the particular student or are potentially inaccurate. Rankings and test scores for k-12 are provided by many states, but there are also states who refuse to make this information public despite the public tax dollars going to finance their education system.
In this information-starved environment, there is the opportunity for schools to develop brands based a few elements of their school that do not truly encapsulate the experience and quality at said school. Without the proper information regarding schools across the grades and information letting parents know the markers of quality and the results of surveys based on sound indicators, the current market for education is flawed. Even though the education system in our country is not fully market-based, information is imperative for proper functioning and outcomes.
In the current education system, from Kindergarten to college there is a market failure as far as brand identity is concerned because there are not reliable and accurate sources of information for parents to make decisions. Without this, parents are at the mercy of the brand name which does not necessarily guarantee the level of quality expected. Where there is better information, it is not freely distributed to parents in a way that makes sense to them or that is available to all socioeconomic groups, regardless of whether they can afford a computer or whether the parents only speak Spanish.
Monday, April 23, 2007
Replicating Good Practice: Schools and Starbucks
One of the most troubling aspects of school reform over the past 30 years has been the inability to replicate good schools at scale. Since the mid 1970s, researchers have been able to identify the characteristics of effective schools—high expectations, clear standards, strong leadership—but no one has been able to identify a similar strategy for replicating such schools. The systemic standards movement has been the primary response to this problem within the public system, while entrepreneurs seeking to spread charter schools or model curricula face similar challenges from a different angle.
Why is this so difficult? After all, I'd bet the Starbucks on my block looks pretty similar to the Starbucks on yours. Over the past week, I've had the chance to hear two presentation on the challenges of creating effective schools at scale: one from within the system and one from without. Despite their differences as insiders and outsiders, the two had startlingly similar stories to tell about the challenges of creating good practice at scale.
Former Boston superintendent Tom Payzant talked about the challenges of bringing high quality new practice to scale in a recent HUGSE accountability workshop. Speaking from the perspective of the superintendent he used to be, he emphasized the role of trained intermediaries--coaches, district superintendents, and, of course, principals--as the key components to creating the capacity for system-wide improvement. In one sense, the vision here is unavoidably top-down, as the direction comes from the center and moves outward into the districts and schools. But at the same time, Payzant stressed creating opportunities, within this larger vision, for schools to shape the programs to their needs, to choose curricula that fit their missions, and to avoid overly prescriptive programs that denied talented teachers the room to work. If the flaw of “tight on ends/loose on means” was that schools, given the freedom to innovate, didn’t know how to improve the quality of their instruction, the coaching-heavy strategy seeks to remedy the problem by providing external support and expertise for how to improve their practice.
At the same time, Payzant acknowledged that there were some significant challenges to this model. Finding knowledgeable and skilled coaches can be just as difficult as finding high quality principals and teachers. Some schools are much quicker than others to take advantage of new opportunities (such as new curricula for reading), and the lowest performing schools are, not surprisingly, the least likely to do so (more on this in the next post). And a fair number of teachers, particularly those in middle schools and high schools (not to mention universities) are highly resistant to the idea that an external coach should work with them on their teaching, which they see as a core part of their professional expertise.
Approaching similar questions from a different angle, Eastern Michigan researcher Donald Peurach gave an AERA presentation on the efforts of Success for All (SFA), a Baltimore-based reading model, to replicate their efforts at scale. Drawing on his 10 year study of SFA and a literature on organizational replication, he challenged the idea that replication was achieved through developing “best practices” in a hub and then transferring this knowledge to field sites. Rather, he argued, field sites needed to find ways to take what was offered from the hub and make it their own, and the hub needed to learn how to revise its core set of knowledge on the basis of feedback from the field. In this notion of interactive learning, as opposed to transferring knowledge, Peurach’s findings mirror earlier research on the limitations of top-down implementation, and are consistent with a broader constructivist approach to organizational learning and change.
Peurach argues that the challenges to replication are found in four central places: the model, the outlets, the environment, and the hub. Among the barriers he cites: the difficulty of knowing exactly what it is about a successful model that makes it work (the model); field sites that lacked the leadership or previous knowledge needed to make sense of the reform (the outlet); cultural resistance among teachers to the introduction of external routines into their work (also the outlet); a policy and funding environment that was too uncertain to ensure long-term continuity (the environment); and the many managerial challenges facing the hub as it seeks to address the problems in the model, in the outlets, and with the broader environment (the hub). While this analysis is of a program sponsored by an external academic entrepreneur, he argues that similar problems would face state or district efforts to boost capacity. Judging by Payzant’s analysis, he is not wrong.
So where does this leave us? Peurach places his faith in “routines,” which he sees as the key building blocks of organizational replication, tools that encompass both knowledge and tacit skill and can be standardized for widespread usage. The analogy here is a familiar medical one: that doctors are not mavericks who risk patients’ lives in the name of professional discretion, but rather a profession governed by standards of care that serve to ensure a certain consistency in the quality of practice. There is something appealing here, in that it points to the longstanding weakness of teachers’ individualistic notion of professionalism, a vision that is more about being free from oversight and less about working together to achieve quality practice. At the same time, there is something unappealing about applying “routines” to teaching, because teaching, as a form of collective thinking, is most alive when it is open to new or unforeseen possibilities. A middle ground (often proposed but infrequently implemented) might combine the best elements of both: teachers would be given pedagogical strategies but not routines, and other teachers, coaches and principals would consistently observe classroom practice and offer ongoing feedback about how to improve practice. Such a strategy would not solve all the problems of hub, model, outlets or environment, but it would be a start towards spreading quality practice in professional work. Starbucks might learn a thing or two.
Crossed posted at Usable Knowledge.
Why is this so difficult? After all, I'd bet the Starbucks on my block looks pretty similar to the Starbucks on yours. Over the past week, I've had the chance to hear two presentation on the challenges of creating effective schools at scale: one from within the system and one from without. Despite their differences as insiders and outsiders, the two had startlingly similar stories to tell about the challenges of creating good practice at scale.
Former Boston superintendent Tom Payzant talked about the challenges of bringing high quality new practice to scale in a recent HUGSE accountability workshop. Speaking from the perspective of the superintendent he used to be, he emphasized the role of trained intermediaries--coaches, district superintendents, and, of course, principals--as the key components to creating the capacity for system-wide improvement. In one sense, the vision here is unavoidably top-down, as the direction comes from the center and moves outward into the districts and schools. But at the same time, Payzant stressed creating opportunities, within this larger vision, for schools to shape the programs to their needs, to choose curricula that fit their missions, and to avoid overly prescriptive programs that denied talented teachers the room to work. If the flaw of “tight on ends/loose on means” was that schools, given the freedom to innovate, didn’t know how to improve the quality of their instruction, the coaching-heavy strategy seeks to remedy the problem by providing external support and expertise for how to improve their practice.
At the same time, Payzant acknowledged that there were some significant challenges to this model. Finding knowledgeable and skilled coaches can be just as difficult as finding high quality principals and teachers. Some schools are much quicker than others to take advantage of new opportunities (such as new curricula for reading), and the lowest performing schools are, not surprisingly, the least likely to do so (more on this in the next post). And a fair number of teachers, particularly those in middle schools and high schools (not to mention universities) are highly resistant to the idea that an external coach should work with them on their teaching, which they see as a core part of their professional expertise.
Approaching similar questions from a different angle, Eastern Michigan researcher Donald Peurach gave an AERA presentation on the efforts of Success for All (SFA), a Baltimore-based reading model, to replicate their efforts at scale. Drawing on his 10 year study of SFA and a literature on organizational replication, he challenged the idea that replication was achieved through developing “best practices” in a hub and then transferring this knowledge to field sites. Rather, he argued, field sites needed to find ways to take what was offered from the hub and make it their own, and the hub needed to learn how to revise its core set of knowledge on the basis of feedback from the field. In this notion of interactive learning, as opposed to transferring knowledge, Peurach’s findings mirror earlier research on the limitations of top-down implementation, and are consistent with a broader constructivist approach to organizational learning and change.
Peurach argues that the challenges to replication are found in four central places: the model, the outlets, the environment, and the hub. Among the barriers he cites: the difficulty of knowing exactly what it is about a successful model that makes it work (the model); field sites that lacked the leadership or previous knowledge needed to make sense of the reform (the outlet); cultural resistance among teachers to the introduction of external routines into their work (also the outlet); a policy and funding environment that was too uncertain to ensure long-term continuity (the environment); and the many managerial challenges facing the hub as it seeks to address the problems in the model, in the outlets, and with the broader environment (the hub). While this analysis is of a program sponsored by an external academic entrepreneur, he argues that similar problems would face state or district efforts to boost capacity. Judging by Payzant’s analysis, he is not wrong.
So where does this leave us? Peurach places his faith in “routines,” which he sees as the key building blocks of organizational replication, tools that encompass both knowledge and tacit skill and can be standardized for widespread usage. The analogy here is a familiar medical one: that doctors are not mavericks who risk patients’ lives in the name of professional discretion, but rather a profession governed by standards of care that serve to ensure a certain consistency in the quality of practice. There is something appealing here, in that it points to the longstanding weakness of teachers’ individualistic notion of professionalism, a vision that is more about being free from oversight and less about working together to achieve quality practice. At the same time, there is something unappealing about applying “routines” to teaching, because teaching, as a form of collective thinking, is most alive when it is open to new or unforeseen possibilities. A middle ground (often proposed but infrequently implemented) might combine the best elements of both: teachers would be given pedagogical strategies but not routines, and other teachers, coaches and principals would consistently observe classroom practice and offer ongoing feedback about how to improve practice. Such a strategy would not solve all the problems of hub, model, outlets or environment, but it would be a start towards spreading quality practice in professional work. Starbucks might learn a thing or two.
Crossed posted at Usable Knowledge.
Saturday, April 21, 2007
What should education do for building a world full of love and peace?
416 in Virginia Tech shocked the whole world. Our society needs love and peace, but what should education do for it?
I think first we should educate our children to love the current society they live. That is, to educate the children to take responsibility for development of the world, or at least his/her own family. In order to achieve that, children would be taught how to use and create kinds of necessary tools for subsistence in this world. Consequently academic skills become the first thing for children to learn, which give children basic tools, such as calculation and communication, to live in this society.
However, paying attention to academic skills doesn’t mean we should ask our children achieve exactly equally and similarly. Just as what Charles W. Eliot said, “promote pupils not by battalions, but in the most irregular and individual way possible.” The highest level of civilization is to respect. As for education, to respect our children is to admit they are gifted differently. That is the first reason for concentrating basic academic skills. A child will not know what interested him, mathematics or history, until he learned basic subjects to some basic extent. So learning broad academic skills will be helpful for children’s choice and for realizing society’s diversity. And the second reason can be expounded borrowing a metaphor. The area of triangular base of a pyramid determines the height the pyramid reach. In this way, a person’s knowledge seems like the area of the triangular base, and his contribution seems like the height of the pyramid: the broader his knowledge is, the more he might contribute to the society. Consequently, it is essential to let children learn broad academic skills.
Secondly, children should be educated to love themselves. To wit, children should know what their rights are and how to enjoy their rights, which was also illustrated in “Report of the Commissioners Appointed to Fix the Site of the University of Virginia” .
Thirdly and finally, children should learn to love and educate their offspring. Nowadays we are arguing about education and schooling, and in the argument almost everyone knows education should not only include school education, but also include factors from family, community and society. For example, if a child grew up in a society full of discrimination towards minorities, the possibility for him to treat others equally after he grew up would be almost zero. So in this way, environment affects children’s growth greatly. As illustrated in the former example, the child’s consciousness of discrimination probably came from public opinions, even though his school is integrated. Consequently, if we want to get a society without discrimination, it is essential to educate our children to respect and love others; and the starting point to achieve that is that adults should respect and love every other members in the society especially when they are together with their children. That is, any adults should “realize” their responsibility for educating children. Adults in current society cannot achieve that, but we should do our best to let our children achieve that “realization” when they became adults.
I think first we should educate our children to love the current society they live. That is, to educate the children to take responsibility for development of the world, or at least his/her own family. In order to achieve that, children would be taught how to use and create kinds of necessary tools for subsistence in this world. Consequently academic skills become the first thing for children to learn, which give children basic tools, such as calculation and communication, to live in this society.
However, paying attention to academic skills doesn’t mean we should ask our children achieve exactly equally and similarly. Just as what Charles W. Eliot said, “promote pupils not by battalions, but in the most irregular and individual way possible.” The highest level of civilization is to respect. As for education, to respect our children is to admit they are gifted differently. That is the first reason for concentrating basic academic skills. A child will not know what interested him, mathematics or history, until he learned basic subjects to some basic extent. So learning broad academic skills will be helpful for children’s choice and for realizing society’s diversity. And the second reason can be expounded borrowing a metaphor. The area of triangular base of a pyramid determines the height the pyramid reach. In this way, a person’s knowledge seems like the area of the triangular base, and his contribution seems like the height of the pyramid: the broader his knowledge is, the more he might contribute to the society. Consequently, it is essential to let children learn broad academic skills.
Secondly, children should be educated to love themselves. To wit, children should know what their rights are and how to enjoy their rights, which was also illustrated in “Report of the Commissioners Appointed to Fix the Site of the University of Virginia” .
Thirdly and finally, children should learn to love and educate their offspring. Nowadays we are arguing about education and schooling, and in the argument almost everyone knows education should not only include school education, but also include factors from family, community and society. For example, if a child grew up in a society full of discrimination towards minorities, the possibility for him to treat others equally after he grew up would be almost zero. So in this way, environment affects children’s growth greatly. As illustrated in the former example, the child’s consciousness of discrimination probably came from public opinions, even though his school is integrated. Consequently, if we want to get a society without discrimination, it is essential to educate our children to respect and love others; and the starting point to achieve that is that adults should respect and love every other members in the society especially when they are together with their children. That is, any adults should “realize” their responsibility for educating children. Adults in current society cannot achieve that, but we should do our best to let our children achieve that “realization” when they became adults.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)