One plant says to another plant, “The nerve of that botanist know it all. He isn’t a plant, how can he know anything about what we really are or the difficulties we face?” This is the problem isn’t it? The insiders (plants) have no respect for the opinion of the outsiders (botanists). Yet, the botanist has a much more complete picture of the plant world than any plant can ever have. This is because the botanist has studied the plant kingdom in its full breadth and depth providing a context that the individual plants or even families of plants cannot match. Each plant has a narrow experience of its own environment and has adapted itself to that reality without willingly considering if changing its position with respect to the environment might improve its lot or the yield of its fruits.
You knew since this is an education blog that I would relate this little example to education. You are right. I often hear that I would have more credibility with educators if I were one. And I will concede readily that it should be true. However, I want to discuss whether it would be true and with an example that shows that even if I were an insider it wouldn’t be true. My assertion is that I have a much more accurate view of what is going on in education than educators do. They work in an environment that suppresses the truth through ubiquitous use of political correctness and Group Think. I have studied the education empire intensely for over 5 years across multiple states. Because my motive has been to understand where the opportunities to improve the service our kids and society get from the education empire I have a much more objective view of the problems and possible solutions than any educator I have met or read.
Now to the example I promised about “insider” input being ignored, criticized or both; consider Arthur Levine. Dr. Levine could have been considered the ultimate insider as the President of Columbia Teachers College. Teachers College is what E.D. Hirsch Jr. called the “parent organism” of education schools. He asserts that the other education schools are basically clones of Teachers College. Arthur worked for a group of foundations to report on education school efforts in three key areas; Educating Leaders, Teachers, and Researchers. The first report came out in March 2005, Educating School Leaders. It was very critical based on his several year study of every education school degree granting institution in the country. His conclusions were many and they were not positive. He used such terms as “they are in a race to the bottom” and “they confer masters on those who display anything but mastery and doctorates in name only” and “engage superintendents and principals in studies irrelevant to their jobs.” The report is over a hundred pages in letter size format. It is well worth reading. Did it have the kind of impact that criticism from an insider should have had? NO! It has been totally ignored except perhaps causing the education schools to dig their ruts a little deeper. The conclusion to draw is that it isn’t whether you are an insider or outsider but whether you are criticizing or praising the education system. There is no interest at all among education school deans and faculties to reform to provide a quality product. They are raking in huge sums of money with the diploma mill approach they have taken. Because the larger universities they are part of use this excess money from the education schools for other “more worthy” projects they would be in trouble if they did anything that might reduce that flow of money. Thus, the low and falling admission and graduation standards, the reduction in time to degree, etc. all are an effort to stay ahead of the competition in Levine’s observed race to the bottom.
It is not whether criticism comes from an insider or outsider, educators will not listen and especially will not admit to themselves that they are doing anything less than a great job. While many educators are well-meaning and some even know the truth and are frustrated by its suppression, they work in an environment where political correctness disallows saying anything critical out loud. Those exceptions who do speak out usually find they are informed that their contract will not be renewed for the coming year. New educators are indoctrinated from the beginning of their careers, starting in the education schools.
E.D. Hirsch Jr. in The Knowledge Deficit defines the problem well. “The reason for this state of affairs – tragic for millions of students as well as for the nation – is that an army of American educators and reading experts are fundamentally wrong in their ideas about education. . . At the beginning of the twentieth century, the parent organism, Teachers College at Columbia University, exported professors and the romantic principles…resulting in an intellectual sameness across the nation’s education schools. Naturalism and Formalism are the two principles that constitute a kind of theology that is drilled into prospective teachers like a catechism. American education expertise (which is not the same as educational expertise in nations that perform better than we do) has a monolithic character in which dissent is stifled.”
So what can be done to break through the walls of insularity and delusion that keep the truth from penetrating the consciousness of educators?
• Competition is perhaps the best way. And that is why the education power groups fight the idea of vouchers and charter schools with a passion because they don’t want the competition which might force them to face reality and change.
• Demand that a rigorous program of retooling education leadership skill for current leaders is implemented immediately. It is the key to better performance and without it the future performance will mirror that of the past. This must not be something done by the education schools. They have proven they don’t know how to do it.
• Voting against every request for more money for educators to spend is another. They are clever at couching the argument that a vote against the money is voting against the kids but in reality it is the opposite. Voting against added money is a vote FOR the kids because it increases the pressure for better performance and reduced waste by the schools in serving our kids. Giving them more money allows them to continue ignoring the problems that must be addressed if performance is to improve.
• Voting out “rubber stamp” school boards and voting in board members who see the truth and are dedicated to making positive change in spite of the resistance.
• Using our votes to demand that the legislators specify results not process, putting in place rewards for positive results and penalties for poor results. As long as the practitioners are ethical and within the law, who cares what process they use to get improved results.
• Decouple certification from education school degrees and training, forcing the ed schools to reform or wither away.
• Of course, merit pay for educators would be great too but it can only happen well if the leaders are trained to lead more effectively. If implemented now it would be done poorly and add to the arguments against it.
Copyright © Paul Richardson 2009
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Monday, December 29, 2008
The Biggest Roadblocks Preventing the Education Improvement We Must Have
In the last blog post I outlined several problems with our education system. How do we change the education system to lay the foundation for the improved performance that we desperately need? It boils down to two basic changes in how we manage our education empire. The two changes are to retool our education leaders to be competent change leaders and to retool the way legislators and the bureaucracy they create specify the education process. I am convinced that with great leadership from a “retooled” leadership cadre much improvement can be made. Greatly improved leadership ability would allow the education system to take the initial improvement steps that can be done without other facilitating changes. Greatly improved leadership will also lay the foundation to take advantage of the changes I propose in how the legislators and education bureaucracy manage our education process. Removing these two roadblocks to improved performance would facilitate our attempt to leapfrog the global competition effectively preparing our kids to compete well in the “real world.”
We differ from most of our competitor nations in that they tend to have education “ministries” in the central government that call the shots on curricula, standards, etc. without much outside interference. For our strongest competitors there is a large commitment to improving performance at a rapid pace because they realize that educating their children well is a competitive factor in the global arena. They decide what to do and implement it quickly. We talk problems to death so that ideas are often obsolete before our extremely ponderous process gets around to doing anything. The current “triple jeopardy” approach to managing and funding our education endeavors creates a straightjacket that greatly limits the freedom of educators to address their own unique situations and to prioritize their efforts accordingly. The Federal government, State government and the local School Boards all have to get their two cents into the equation. And oh, the time it takes and the convoluted approaches that result. The laws and the regulations written by the bureaucracy are a danger to the future of our kids. I find it ridiculous that on the one hand we say to educators, for example, “You must fix the achievement gap problem” and then specify a process so tightly that they have no freedom to make the changes required to meet that demand. It is like telling a man wearing leg irons that he needs to win the Olympic hundred meter dash or be penalized severely. Of course in the “soft management” environment of our education system the penalty for the educators is akin to 50 lashes with a wet noodle. However, the penalty paid by the kids who are not educated to their potential is a huge due bill that is a blight on our society.
The hubris involved in legislators (advised by “experts” from the education power groups all with vested interests to protect) believing they can specify a top down process that will work effectively and efficiently in all situations is ludicrous. This cobbled together, top down approach hasn’t worked for anything but continuing the status quo with glacial changes for the past many decades. The idea that you can specify and control the education process before hand adequately to provide for all of the myriad impediments that arise and cause the need for a detour from the original plan is idiotic. William Oncken Jr., the famous management writer and trainer, observed that you can only control performance when and where it is happening. That is, you need competent leaders free to act to achieve the desired result. Yet, whenever pressure builds to “solve the education problem” the players all revert to the same failed process that virtually guarantees that no real progress will be made. Thus, they form task groups, take testimony, hold meetings around the state to get public input and then the legislature specifies more tight processes which won’t work in the real world. Einstein’s quote about doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result being insane comes to mind.
If we would think about it with objectivity, the laws need to specify results not process. You see, it is the results that matter, not the processes by which they were obtained as long as they are ethical and legal. It is very likely that any number of processes can work to meet the goals. The advantage of specifying results is that you unleash the organizations to use creativity to develop new processes some of which will be far superior to those “dictated in the past by the legislators and their bureaucratic minions.” This, if the laws specified the desired results coupled with appropriate performance incentives would free the system to make very large improvements quickly. Most organizations will gravitate quickly to the best processes developed by the “creative winners” because the penalties for not performing well will demand it. This is a much cleaner approach from an organizational hygiene perspective as well. That is, people freed to really perform well instead of being in a “robot, do this, do that” rut will have much higher morale and also more fun in doing their jobs. This transformation of education workplaces from “sociological zoos” to productive and fun places to work and succeed is vital to serving the mission of educating our kids to their potential.
This type of improved process development is impossible within the time-honored “we’ll set up a blue-ribbon panel to study the problem and recommend a solution” approach that has been tried unsuccessfully over many decades. Competition among practitioners in the real world will develop superior methods to achieve the desired results much more quickly. This is our big opportunity to finally develop the methods to start beating the competition because we could tap into the vast creative resource that is currently ignored and suppressed. While our global competitors have a focused top down process that is more effective than our current diffuse top down process, they will not be able to compete with an education system that is free to develop positive alternatives in thousands of different organizations across the land where competent change leaders manage the teams required to make the improvements we desire.
Therefore, it is imperative that we demand that the legislators move to a results orientation in the education laws they pass instead of the process approach they have been using ubiquitously. Also, because the retooling of education leaders to implant the skills and coaching needed to be truly effective change leaders is a prerequisite to leading that development of positive alternatives it must be done immediately as well. This two-pronged approach could make our education performance improve very quickly to the great benefit of the kids and our society.
Copyright ©Paul Richardson 2008
We differ from most of our competitor nations in that they tend to have education “ministries” in the central government that call the shots on curricula, standards, etc. without much outside interference. For our strongest competitors there is a large commitment to improving performance at a rapid pace because they realize that educating their children well is a competitive factor in the global arena. They decide what to do and implement it quickly. We talk problems to death so that ideas are often obsolete before our extremely ponderous process gets around to doing anything. The current “triple jeopardy” approach to managing and funding our education endeavors creates a straightjacket that greatly limits the freedom of educators to address their own unique situations and to prioritize their efforts accordingly. The Federal government, State government and the local School Boards all have to get their two cents into the equation. And oh, the time it takes and the convoluted approaches that result. The laws and the regulations written by the bureaucracy are a danger to the future of our kids. I find it ridiculous that on the one hand we say to educators, for example, “You must fix the achievement gap problem” and then specify a process so tightly that they have no freedom to make the changes required to meet that demand. It is like telling a man wearing leg irons that he needs to win the Olympic hundred meter dash or be penalized severely. Of course in the “soft management” environment of our education system the penalty for the educators is akin to 50 lashes with a wet noodle. However, the penalty paid by the kids who are not educated to their potential is a huge due bill that is a blight on our society.
The hubris involved in legislators (advised by “experts” from the education power groups all with vested interests to protect) believing they can specify a top down process that will work effectively and efficiently in all situations is ludicrous. This cobbled together, top down approach hasn’t worked for anything but continuing the status quo with glacial changes for the past many decades. The idea that you can specify and control the education process before hand adequately to provide for all of the myriad impediments that arise and cause the need for a detour from the original plan is idiotic. William Oncken Jr., the famous management writer and trainer, observed that you can only control performance when and where it is happening. That is, you need competent leaders free to act to achieve the desired result. Yet, whenever pressure builds to “solve the education problem” the players all revert to the same failed process that virtually guarantees that no real progress will be made. Thus, they form task groups, take testimony, hold meetings around the state to get public input and then the legislature specifies more tight processes which won’t work in the real world. Einstein’s quote about doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result being insane comes to mind.
If we would think about it with objectivity, the laws need to specify results not process. You see, it is the results that matter, not the processes by which they were obtained as long as they are ethical and legal. It is very likely that any number of processes can work to meet the goals. The advantage of specifying results is that you unleash the organizations to use creativity to develop new processes some of which will be far superior to those “dictated in the past by the legislators and their bureaucratic minions.” This, if the laws specified the desired results coupled with appropriate performance incentives would free the system to make very large improvements quickly. Most organizations will gravitate quickly to the best processes developed by the “creative winners” because the penalties for not performing well will demand it. This is a much cleaner approach from an organizational hygiene perspective as well. That is, people freed to really perform well instead of being in a “robot, do this, do that” rut will have much higher morale and also more fun in doing their jobs. This transformation of education workplaces from “sociological zoos” to productive and fun places to work and succeed is vital to serving the mission of educating our kids to their potential.
This type of improved process development is impossible within the time-honored “we’ll set up a blue-ribbon panel to study the problem and recommend a solution” approach that has been tried unsuccessfully over many decades. Competition among practitioners in the real world will develop superior methods to achieve the desired results much more quickly. This is our big opportunity to finally develop the methods to start beating the competition because we could tap into the vast creative resource that is currently ignored and suppressed. While our global competitors have a focused top down process that is more effective than our current diffuse top down process, they will not be able to compete with an education system that is free to develop positive alternatives in thousands of different organizations across the land where competent change leaders manage the teams required to make the improvements we desire.
Therefore, it is imperative that we demand that the legislators move to a results orientation in the education laws they pass instead of the process approach they have been using ubiquitously. Also, because the retooling of education leaders to implant the skills and coaching needed to be truly effective change leaders is a prerequisite to leading that development of positive alternatives it must be done immediately as well. This two-pronged approach could make our education performance improve very quickly to the great benefit of the kids and our society.
Copyright ©Paul Richardson 2008
Saturday, December 20, 2008
The Education Blizzard
If you are a typical busy person, you are bombarded with a blizzard of data on how our schools and especially the ones in your own neighborhood are performing. Occasionally you will see information on how our students do compared to their global peers, how well they are prepared for college, how our state compares to other states on the national achievement tests (NAEP), how certain curricula are “the answer” because they are “research-based” and on and on. This virtual blizzard of data makes it difficult to see the reality of our education performance unless you have the time and disposition to spend considerable effort working to boil down the mountain of data to information useful for understanding the reality of our education performance. I have been digging for over 5 years in great depth and believe I have a good “feel” for the reality of our education situation. Here are some truths I have uncovered:
• Education insiders virtually always put a positive slant on any information they provide on their performance and a negative slant on anything they use to justify less than stellar performance (their mantra is “we confess it is everyone else’s fault”). The “reports” from the educators contain errors of both commission and omission. That is, positive data are shown with a magnifying glass and negative data are ignored or suppressed.
• The education schools started with a bias emphasizing process or method and basically show very little concern for preparing their graduates to have a competent grasp of the subject matter to be taught. Any subject courses within education schools are so weak that they have little or no value. This has been going on for decades and won’t change as long as teacher certification is predicated on ed school training as the main requirement.
• School districts espouse fancy mission statements, long laundry lists of what they call goals but aren’t because they set no timeline or tight metrics to measure success or failure. These are often posted prominently in board meeting venues and on district websites but are ignored when it comes to acting to bring them about. For example, one local district with lots of “excellent” rated schools in the State Accountability Reports says, “The mission of . . . School District . . . , dedicated to national and international standards of excellence, is to educate every student through a comprehensive and academically challenging curriculum taught in a safe and nurturing environment. We challenge students to pursue dreams, succeed with integrity, and contribute meaningfully to a diverse society.” Being the best in Colorado is not good enough. Does being “among the best of the poor” in international terms fulfill the stated mission? Hardly.
• Colorado CSAP standards are very weak compared to the achievement test standards of many other states. Thus, we use a very short yardstick to measure performance. If you download The Proficiency Illusion, from the Fordham Institute and Assessing the Role of K-12 Academic Standards in States: Workshop Summary from the National Academies Press Online you will get access to information on how poorly Colorado ranks as to the rigor of our state achievement testing.
• Nationally our kids, as mentioned in the previous blog post, Walking in Place, do poorly versus their global competitors. When you couple that with the CSAP low standard you have a huge gap between what Colorado kids need in their education and what they are being provided.
• The State Accountability Reports give Excellent ratings to many schools. This is a “graded on the curve” approach which only says they are in the top tier of schools in Colorado. This says nothing about how they do compared to the “real” global standard our kids face today because that report would not be pleasant to behold and would generate pressure to improve greatly.
• The research-based assertion has to be treated with suspicion. As I mentioned in an earlier blog, the What Works Clearinghouse at the US Dept of Education reports on all sorts of problems with education research. The two main categories in their findings are slanted studies to the benefit of the research sponsor (provider of book, curricula, etc.) and poorly done from a statistical rigor point of view. But the biggest problem I see (and one that I have seen no one else talk about) is that most education research starts with a poorly conceived research question which is the foundation upon which any research rests. For example, the constructivist math curricula I wrote about earlier does pass the test of the research question asked, “Do constructivist math curricula for elementary level students train students to be able to do simple math operations (with the help of a calculator) such as addition, subtraction, multiplication and division?” The answer is yes, however, the research question that wasn’t asked but should have been is, “Do the constructivist math curricula train students in doing the simple math operations while providing a strong foundation for the further study of higher levels of math, starting with algebra? In other words is the new curriculum an improvement over the one that has been optimized over hundreds of years to provide a seamless transition to higher and higher levels of math study? The answer there is a resounding NO! One thing the constructivist math curricula do though is to mask the lack of math subject knowledge present in too many teachers which makes it a popular choice among the “education professional experts” because it is less demanding of them. Thus, my assertion is that the slant in education research is worst in slanting the research question.
Okay, we have some problems that if not addressed mean our kids will not be able to compete well in the global economy. If it were up to me there are several things I would change immediately. However, it isn’t up to me, but it is up to us. I recommend as a first step that we demand that Colorado set the CSAP standards to the level of the state doing the best on the NAEP tests immediately. We don’t need another time wasting task force to determine what to do. Of course, the whining from the education establishment would be very loud. However, not taking the action because it might inconvenience some educators for the benefit of the kids is not acceptable to me and shouldn’t be to you.
Many other steps should be taken but the above is a good first step and by itself would cause lots of other problems to be faced objectively for the first time.
Copyright ©Paul Richardson 2008
• Education insiders virtually always put a positive slant on any information they provide on their performance and a negative slant on anything they use to justify less than stellar performance (their mantra is “we confess it is everyone else’s fault”). The “reports” from the educators contain errors of both commission and omission. That is, positive data are shown with a magnifying glass and negative data are ignored or suppressed.
• The education schools started with a bias emphasizing process or method and basically show very little concern for preparing their graduates to have a competent grasp of the subject matter to be taught. Any subject courses within education schools are so weak that they have little or no value. This has been going on for decades and won’t change as long as teacher certification is predicated on ed school training as the main requirement.
• School districts espouse fancy mission statements, long laundry lists of what they call goals but aren’t because they set no timeline or tight metrics to measure success or failure. These are often posted prominently in board meeting venues and on district websites but are ignored when it comes to acting to bring them about. For example, one local district with lots of “excellent” rated schools in the State Accountability Reports says, “The mission of . . . School District . . . , dedicated to national and international standards of excellence, is to educate every student through a comprehensive and academically challenging curriculum taught in a safe and nurturing environment. We challenge students to pursue dreams, succeed with integrity, and contribute meaningfully to a diverse society.” Being the best in Colorado is not good enough. Does being “among the best of the poor” in international terms fulfill the stated mission? Hardly.
• Colorado CSAP standards are very weak compared to the achievement test standards of many other states. Thus, we use a very short yardstick to measure performance. If you download The Proficiency Illusion, from the Fordham Institute and Assessing the Role of K-12 Academic Standards in States: Workshop Summary from the National Academies Press Online you will get access to information on how poorly Colorado ranks as to the rigor of our state achievement testing.
• Nationally our kids, as mentioned in the previous blog post, Walking in Place, do poorly versus their global competitors. When you couple that with the CSAP low standard you have a huge gap between what Colorado kids need in their education and what they are being provided.
• The State Accountability Reports give Excellent ratings to many schools. This is a “graded on the curve” approach which only says they are in the top tier of schools in Colorado. This says nothing about how they do compared to the “real” global standard our kids face today because that report would not be pleasant to behold and would generate pressure to improve greatly.
• The research-based assertion has to be treated with suspicion. As I mentioned in an earlier blog, the What Works Clearinghouse at the US Dept of Education reports on all sorts of problems with education research. The two main categories in their findings are slanted studies to the benefit of the research sponsor (provider of book, curricula, etc.) and poorly done from a statistical rigor point of view. But the biggest problem I see (and one that I have seen no one else talk about) is that most education research starts with a poorly conceived research question which is the foundation upon which any research rests. For example, the constructivist math curricula I wrote about earlier does pass the test of the research question asked, “Do constructivist math curricula for elementary level students train students to be able to do simple math operations (with the help of a calculator) such as addition, subtraction, multiplication and division?” The answer is yes, however, the research question that wasn’t asked but should have been is, “Do the constructivist math curricula train students in doing the simple math operations while providing a strong foundation for the further study of higher levels of math, starting with algebra? In other words is the new curriculum an improvement over the one that has been optimized over hundreds of years to provide a seamless transition to higher and higher levels of math study? The answer there is a resounding NO! One thing the constructivist math curricula do though is to mask the lack of math subject knowledge present in too many teachers which makes it a popular choice among the “education professional experts” because it is less demanding of them. Thus, my assertion is that the slant in education research is worst in slanting the research question.
Okay, we have some problems that if not addressed mean our kids will not be able to compete well in the global economy. If it were up to me there are several things I would change immediately. However, it isn’t up to me, but it is up to us. I recommend as a first step that we demand that Colorado set the CSAP standards to the level of the state doing the best on the NAEP tests immediately. We don’t need another time wasting task force to determine what to do. Of course, the whining from the education establishment would be very loud. However, not taking the action because it might inconvenience some educators for the benefit of the kids is not acceptable to me and shouldn’t be to you.
Many other steps should be taken but the above is a good first step and by itself would cause lots of other problems to be faced objectively for the first time.
Copyright ©Paul Richardson 2008
Saturday, December 13, 2008
Walking in Place
Two reports on our K-12 education performance have come out in the last few days. The first was the report on the latest round of TIMSS testing. That is, the Trends in International Math and Science Study test assesses the performance of students in 4th and 8th grades providing an international comparison allowing us to compare how American children are doing against their peers in 35 other countries that participate. TIMSS classifies student into four categories: advanced, high, intermediate, and low. On the surface the results look good; for 4th grade 10% of our kids scored advanced which is twice the rate for the median, for 8th grade 6 percent of our kids were advanced, our scores were significantly higher than in the last test cycle. Sounds pretty good, right? The other international test of significance is the PISA which includes the OECD countries who are our biggest trading partners and also our biggest competitors. The TIMSS testing includes other countries both at the high end and at the low end. On the high side; Chinese Taipei, Singapore and Hong Kong SAR, but also includes less developed countries like Jordan, Romania, Morocco, and South Africa and only about a dozen of the 30 OECD countries.
What difference do we see between the tests? Our 8th graders scored 508 on TIMSS math versus the average of 500. On the PISA, though, our 15 year-olds were 24 points below the OECD average math score. Thus, the overall competition in the OECD countries (those that matter most if we are to compete effectively) is tougher. A couple more stats to round out the picture include that the 90th percentile of 23 of the 30 countries is higher than for our kids. Also, only 1.3% of U.S. students were in the highest proficiency level in 2006 PISA math (the last time it was given). This was half the OECD average, in the same range as Greece, Mexico, Portugal and Turkey.
Mark Schneider of the American Institute for Research computed effect sizes for some of the education performance of different entities. Effect size as he uses it is the “standardized difference” between the means of the distributions of different groups. It is expressed in standard deviation terms. Thus, when he reports an effect size of 1.1 for U.S. versus Hong Kong for 4th grade math he means that the mean of Hong Kong 4th grade math scores is 1.1 standard deviations above the mean of the U.S. students. This is a huge difference meaning that 86.4% of Hong Kong students score above the mean U.S. score. Other comparisons for 4th grade he gives are the effect size for Massachusetts vs. Mississippi of 0.8 based on the NAEP, effect size for U.S. public schools with lowest levels of poverty vs. U.S. schools with the highest levels of poverty is 1.5 based on TIMSS data. This means that in the lowest poverty schools 93.3% of kids would score above the mean score for those in the highest poverty schools. He gives other examples for 4th and 8th grade students but you get the picture. We have a huge amount of improvement to make to prepare our kids to compete with their global peers.
The second big report coming out this week was the college remediation report from The Colorado Commission on Higher Education. The title of the press release, “College remediation rates stuck at 30 percent” well summarizes the report's finding that remediation levels are not improving. This report gives lots of data from both 2 year and 4 year colleges. “At two-year schools, 53 percent of students had to take at least one remedial course. The overall rate was about 21 percent at four-year schools. The biggest remediation required is for math although reading and writing have significant levels as well. The report also tabulates remediation rates by where students went to high school. The lowest rate was 5.6 percent at Jefferson County’s D’Evelyn High School; the highest was 80.8 percent at Denver’s West High. Also, remember that the report probably doesn’t capture the full extent of the remediation problem. The document notes “the data do not include recent graduates who enrolled in an out-of-state college, delayed entry into higher education for at least one year after completing high school, were not assessed [for remedial needs],” or for whom data was missing.”
For more data on your own school district and high schools you can download the full report “2008 LEGISLATIVE REPORT ON REMEDIAL EDUCATION December 11, 2008” The best performing high schools in the Pikes Peak Region appear to be in the 15% range for remediation while the rest range significantly higher.
Should we be satisfied with either the international testing results or the remediation results? NO! It is difficult to sort through the School Accountability Report "excellent" ratings for some local schools and realize that the criteria are weak compared to the "real world" that our kids face when they get out of school. But it is clear that until the public demands better the huge inertia in the education establishment will make any improvements at a walking pace which might barely maintain our poor place in the global education comparisons. We will need to make our pace of change much faster if we hope to gain on the competition. The current ostrich mentality of “maybe if we ignore it, the problem will go away” isn’t working.
What difference do we see between the tests? Our 8th graders scored 508 on TIMSS math versus the average of 500. On the PISA, though, our 15 year-olds were 24 points below the OECD average math score. Thus, the overall competition in the OECD countries (those that matter most if we are to compete effectively) is tougher. A couple more stats to round out the picture include that the 90th percentile of 23 of the 30 countries is higher than for our kids. Also, only 1.3% of U.S. students were in the highest proficiency level in 2006 PISA math (the last time it was given). This was half the OECD average, in the same range as Greece, Mexico, Portugal and Turkey.
Mark Schneider of the American Institute for Research computed effect sizes for some of the education performance of different entities. Effect size as he uses it is the “standardized difference” between the means of the distributions of different groups. It is expressed in standard deviation terms. Thus, when he reports an effect size of 1.1 for U.S. versus Hong Kong for 4th grade math he means that the mean of Hong Kong 4th grade math scores is 1.1 standard deviations above the mean of the U.S. students. This is a huge difference meaning that 86.4% of Hong Kong students score above the mean U.S. score. Other comparisons for 4th grade he gives are the effect size for Massachusetts vs. Mississippi of 0.8 based on the NAEP, effect size for U.S. public schools with lowest levels of poverty vs. U.S. schools with the highest levels of poverty is 1.5 based on TIMSS data. This means that in the lowest poverty schools 93.3% of kids would score above the mean score for those in the highest poverty schools. He gives other examples for 4th and 8th grade students but you get the picture. We have a huge amount of improvement to make to prepare our kids to compete with their global peers.
The second big report coming out this week was the college remediation report from The Colorado Commission on Higher Education. The title of the press release, “College remediation rates stuck at 30 percent” well summarizes the report's finding that remediation levels are not improving. This report gives lots of data from both 2 year and 4 year colleges. “At two-year schools, 53 percent of students had to take at least one remedial course. The overall rate was about 21 percent at four-year schools. The biggest remediation required is for math although reading and writing have significant levels as well. The report also tabulates remediation rates by where students went to high school. The lowest rate was 5.6 percent at Jefferson County’s D’Evelyn High School; the highest was 80.8 percent at Denver’s West High. Also, remember that the report probably doesn’t capture the full extent of the remediation problem. The document notes “the data do not include recent graduates who enrolled in an out-of-state college, delayed entry into higher education for at least one year after completing high school, were not assessed [for remedial needs],” or for whom data was missing.”
For more data on your own school district and high schools you can download the full report “2008 LEGISLATIVE REPORT ON REMEDIAL EDUCATION December 11, 2008” The best performing high schools in the Pikes Peak Region appear to be in the 15% range for remediation while the rest range significantly higher.
Should we be satisfied with either the international testing results or the remediation results? NO! It is difficult to sort through the School Accountability Report "excellent" ratings for some local schools and realize that the criteria are weak compared to the "real world" that our kids face when they get out of school. But it is clear that until the public demands better the huge inertia in the education establishment will make any improvements at a walking pace which might barely maintain our poor place in the global education comparisons. We will need to make our pace of change much faster if we hope to gain on the competition. The current ostrich mentality of “maybe if we ignore it, the problem will go away” isn’t working.
Friday, November 28, 2008
Reviewing the leadership research for business and education
If you are familiar with the major developments in leadership/management practice over the last hundred years you will see that the best techniques have evolved greatly over that time. A hundred years ago you had the top down, directive, “scientific” style espoused by the likes of Taylor, Gantt and others. Since then those interested in performing well but also offering much higher levels of satisfaction for those in the organization have morphed into a participative leadership style where all inputs are valued and people have the chance to fully contribute to organizational excellence in its mission accomplishment. This participatory approach is vital to being able to effectively pursue a continuous improvement approach. The research suggests that in most organizations there is distrust for management and there is a call for a different kind of leadership--one that spreads the power (however one defines it) and responsibilities among the workforce.
Following are some excerpts from various writings about the research and conclusions of the journey from the old beliefs to the more modern and liberating ones of today.
Peters and Waterman [In Search of Excellence] (1982) stated the complaints against American management seem to fall into 5 main categories:
1. The business schools [and education schools] are perpetuating a top-down mentality;
2. Managers lack the right perspective;
3. Managers do not personally identify with what their companies do;
4. Managers do not take enough interest in their people; and
5. Top managers have become isolated from line workers.
They concluded, “Far too many managers have lost sight of the basics, in our opinion: quick action, service to customers, practical innovation, and the fact that you can’t get any of these without virtually everyone’s commitment”.
William Abernathy, in a Forbes interview, shared: “The Japanese seem to have a tremendous cost advantage. . . . They have developed a ‘people’ approach . . . . They have a work force that’s turned on, willing to work, and is excited about making cars”. Economists and sociologists warned American businessmen, as far back as the late 1940’s, that its adherence to specialized division of labor and aloof leadership would ultimately reduce productivity and result in the loss of a competitive edge. It wasn’t until Japan emerged as a formidable competitor that businesses started to re-examine the nature of and structure for leadership (Lewis, 1993).
Lewin and associates concluded that companies that have a more democratic attitude where workers actively participate in decisions are more productive and are more satisfied with their work as compared to groups under a more authoritarian structure.
Selznick, Barnard, and Follett, in addition to having a tremendous effect in moving management theory from the classical to a more social, “humanistic” approach, were probably collectively responsible for the introduction of the bottom-up or “participatory” style of management. This would influence the theory, which followed in what is called the “Participatory Management Model”
According to Argyris, “Following bureaucratic or pyramidal values leads to poor, shallow, and mistrustful relationships. Because these relationships do not permit the natural and free expression of feelings, they are phony or nonauthentic and result in decreased interpersonal competence” Argyris believed that in a humanistic-democratic value system, trusting, authentic relationships will develop among people and will result in increased interpersonal competence, intergroup cooperation, and flexibility, which will result in increased organizational effectiveness.
Sergiovanni takes the concept a step further and suggests, “When moral authority transcends bureaucratic leadership . . . the outcomes in terms of commitment and performance far exceed expectations”. Sergiovanni believes neither bureaucratic nor personal authority create innate reasons for people to follow leaders. Rather, he states: We ought to follow our leaders because they’re people of substance, because they have compelling ideas, because they’re able to share with us insights. Those who make a commitment to ideas and ideals together then have a moral obligation to meet . . . commitments to those ideas.
Gaining insight from the studies of Mayo, Barnard, McGregor, Argyris, Likert, Ouchi, Deming, and others, theorists of the nineties are defending the turn from bureaucratic, top-down managerial attitudes to a philosophy that provides individuals a greater voice in the work that affects their lives. In recent years, there have been many authors expressing dissatisfaction with top-down, autocratic methods of managing organizations and its workforce.
Peters and Waterman researched successful American companies and concluded that there are eight attributes that characterize innovative companies. They:
1. Have a bias for action--when a problem presents itself, this company acts quickly to move forward;
2. Are close to the customer--products are the result of customer satisfaction;
3. Foster autonomy and entrepreneurship among all workers--individuals are encouraged to make a contribution that will benefit the customer and the company;
4. Consider productivity results through the efforts of people--workers are empowered to do their job and to build-in quality up front;
5. Are “hands-on” and value-driven companies that care about their people and not only doing the right thing, but doing it the right way;
6. Stay close to what they know and build upon their strengths;
7. Have simple organization and lean bureaucratic structures--matrix organizational structures are too complex; and
8. Are both centralized and decentralized--autonomy is centered on the workforce.
Jim Collins in his seminal work Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap…and Others Don’t suggests great leaders are “level 5” leaders. These individuals build “enduring greatness through a paradoxical blend of personal humility and professional will.” Collins further stated: We were surprised, shocked really, to discover the type of leadership required for turning a good company into a great one. Compared to high-profile leaders with big personalities who make headlines and become celebrities, the good-to-great leaders seem to have come from Mars. Self-effacing, quiet, reserved, even shy—these leaders are a paradoxical blend of humility and professional will. They are more like Lincoln and Socrates than Patton or Caesar.
Further, Level 5 leaders “channel their ego needs away from themselves and into a larger goal of building a great company. Collins explains that Level 5 leaders have ego and ambition, “but their ambition is first and foremost for the institution, not themselves.” In his opinion, “Humility + will = Level 5” leaders. “Good-to-Great” leaders and companies share the following characteristics. They:
1. Hire the right people and assemble a competent team. “The old adage People are the most important asset” turns out to be wrong. People are not your most important asset. The right people are.”
2. Maintain an unwavering faith that you can and will prevail. In support of this Norman Vincent Peal, in his popular book titled The Power of Positive Thinking (1952) once stated: “Believe in yourself! Have faith in your abilities! Without a humble but reasonable confidence in your own powers you cannot be successful or happy. But with sound self-confidence you can succeed.”
3. Confront the “brutal facts” about your current reality. Level 5 leaders take an objective view of the company’s strengths and weaknesses and base decisions on data.
4. Transcend the curse of incompetence. Great companies are never satisfied to be good in their status with success. They continually seek to build quality in their product and by seeking input from the workers and the customers their products continue to meet the current and emerging needs.
5. Having a culture of discipline is imperative. “When you have disciplined people, you don’t need hierarchy. When you have disciplined thought, you don’t need bureaucracy. When you have disciplined action, you don’t need excessive controls. When you combine a culture of discipline with an ethic of entrepreneurship, you get the magical alchemy of great performance.”
6. Apply technology carefully and never use it as the primary means of eliciting transformation. “We learned that technology by itself is never a primary, root cause of either greatness or decline.”
7. Success is not based on a quick fix, but rather organized sustained effort, that gradually reaches such a momentum as to create a great cultural change
Educational leadership theory seems to be lagging behind business in its grasp and implementation of leadership theories that are proven effective. Similar to the frustration Deming must have felt when he tried to convince American business leaders following World War II, enlightened business leaders, having heeded the suggestions of Deming and Peters and Waterman, are now growing increasingly impatient with the indifference of public schools. There is some evidence in literature that educational leaders have been unaware or uninterested in the benefits of a change in leadership style. Robert Greenleaf, in particular, stated, “I have spent a great deal of time and energy trying to persuade educators to accept the obligation, and I am certain that, generally, they recognize neither the obligation nor the opportunity. Thus far in my experience, they appear unpersuadable”. The confidence level in public education and its leadership is decreasing according to such notables as Philip Schlechty who suggests private partnerships may result if public educational leadership will not listen and respond to the current needs of the customers.
Lessons from exemplary companies as outlined by Peters and Waterman and the reform measures suggested by Deming serve as a “call to action” for public education. The call is out for a more human-centered leadership style that has a clear understanding of its purpose and its customer, basing its foundation in providing quality service, not in being served.
Conyers and Ewy in their book Charting Your Course: Lessons Learned During the Journey Toward Performance Excellence suggest two important characteristics of educational leaders are will and courage. Peter Block stated of these two characteristics:
We need to stop asking how? We now have all the knowledge, the skills, the methods, the tools, the capacity, and the freedom to do whatever is required to serve all students well. All that is needed is the will and courage to choose and move on.
Educational leaders need to accept the model of their peers in business by observing forecasts (trends) for the future and meet the emerging demands. Educational leaders will need skills beyond their training. Reviewing trends and research and remaining current with what is effective is necessary for any leader wishing to be great.
Following are some excerpts from various writings about the research and conclusions of the journey from the old beliefs to the more modern and liberating ones of today.
Peters and Waterman [In Search of Excellence] (1982) stated the complaints against American management seem to fall into 5 main categories:
1. The business schools [and education schools] are perpetuating a top-down mentality;
2. Managers lack the right perspective;
3. Managers do not personally identify with what their companies do;
4. Managers do not take enough interest in their people; and
5. Top managers have become isolated from line workers.
They concluded, “Far too many managers have lost sight of the basics, in our opinion: quick action, service to customers, practical innovation, and the fact that you can’t get any of these without virtually everyone’s commitment”.
William Abernathy, in a Forbes interview, shared: “The Japanese seem to have a tremendous cost advantage. . . . They have developed a ‘people’ approach . . . . They have a work force that’s turned on, willing to work, and is excited about making cars”. Economists and sociologists warned American businessmen, as far back as the late 1940’s, that its adherence to specialized division of labor and aloof leadership would ultimately reduce productivity and result in the loss of a competitive edge. It wasn’t until Japan emerged as a formidable competitor that businesses started to re-examine the nature of and structure for leadership (Lewis, 1993).
Lewin and associates concluded that companies that have a more democratic attitude where workers actively participate in decisions are more productive and are more satisfied with their work as compared to groups under a more authoritarian structure.
Selznick, Barnard, and Follett, in addition to having a tremendous effect in moving management theory from the classical to a more social, “humanistic” approach, were probably collectively responsible for the introduction of the bottom-up or “participatory” style of management. This would influence the theory, which followed in what is called the “Participatory Management Model”
According to Argyris, “Following bureaucratic or pyramidal values leads to poor, shallow, and mistrustful relationships. Because these relationships do not permit the natural and free expression of feelings, they are phony or nonauthentic and result in decreased interpersonal competence” Argyris believed that in a humanistic-democratic value system, trusting, authentic relationships will develop among people and will result in increased interpersonal competence, intergroup cooperation, and flexibility, which will result in increased organizational effectiveness.
Sergiovanni takes the concept a step further and suggests, “When moral authority transcends bureaucratic leadership . . . the outcomes in terms of commitment and performance far exceed expectations”. Sergiovanni believes neither bureaucratic nor personal authority create innate reasons for people to follow leaders. Rather, he states: We ought to follow our leaders because they’re people of substance, because they have compelling ideas, because they’re able to share with us insights. Those who make a commitment to ideas and ideals together then have a moral obligation to meet . . . commitments to those ideas.
Gaining insight from the studies of Mayo, Barnard, McGregor, Argyris, Likert, Ouchi, Deming, and others, theorists of the nineties are defending the turn from bureaucratic, top-down managerial attitudes to a philosophy that provides individuals a greater voice in the work that affects their lives. In recent years, there have been many authors expressing dissatisfaction with top-down, autocratic methods of managing organizations and its workforce.
Peters and Waterman researched successful American companies and concluded that there are eight attributes that characterize innovative companies. They:
1. Have a bias for action--when a problem presents itself, this company acts quickly to move forward;
2. Are close to the customer--products are the result of customer satisfaction;
3. Foster autonomy and entrepreneurship among all workers--individuals are encouraged to make a contribution that will benefit the customer and the company;
4. Consider productivity results through the efforts of people--workers are empowered to do their job and to build-in quality up front;
5. Are “hands-on” and value-driven companies that care about their people and not only doing the right thing, but doing it the right way;
6. Stay close to what they know and build upon their strengths;
7. Have simple organization and lean bureaucratic structures--matrix organizational structures are too complex; and
8. Are both centralized and decentralized--autonomy is centered on the workforce.
Jim Collins in his seminal work Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap…and Others Don’t suggests great leaders are “level 5” leaders. These individuals build “enduring greatness through a paradoxical blend of personal humility and professional will.” Collins further stated: We were surprised, shocked really, to discover the type of leadership required for turning a good company into a great one. Compared to high-profile leaders with big personalities who make headlines and become celebrities, the good-to-great leaders seem to have come from Mars. Self-effacing, quiet, reserved, even shy—these leaders are a paradoxical blend of humility and professional will. They are more like Lincoln and Socrates than Patton or Caesar.
Further, Level 5 leaders “channel their ego needs away from themselves and into a larger goal of building a great company. Collins explains that Level 5 leaders have ego and ambition, “but their ambition is first and foremost for the institution, not themselves.” In his opinion, “Humility + will = Level 5” leaders. “Good-to-Great” leaders and companies share the following characteristics. They:
1. Hire the right people and assemble a competent team. “The old adage People are the most important asset” turns out to be wrong. People are not your most important asset. The right people are.”
2. Maintain an unwavering faith that you can and will prevail. In support of this Norman Vincent Peal, in his popular book titled The Power of Positive Thinking (1952) once stated: “Believe in yourself! Have faith in your abilities! Without a humble but reasonable confidence in your own powers you cannot be successful or happy. But with sound self-confidence you can succeed.”
3. Confront the “brutal facts” about your current reality. Level 5 leaders take an objective view of the company’s strengths and weaknesses and base decisions on data.
4. Transcend the curse of incompetence. Great companies are never satisfied to be good in their status with success. They continually seek to build quality in their product and by seeking input from the workers and the customers their products continue to meet the current and emerging needs.
5. Having a culture of discipline is imperative. “When you have disciplined people, you don’t need hierarchy. When you have disciplined thought, you don’t need bureaucracy. When you have disciplined action, you don’t need excessive controls. When you combine a culture of discipline with an ethic of entrepreneurship, you get the magical alchemy of great performance.”
6. Apply technology carefully and never use it as the primary means of eliciting transformation. “We learned that technology by itself is never a primary, root cause of either greatness or decline.”
7. Success is not based on a quick fix, but rather organized sustained effort, that gradually reaches such a momentum as to create a great cultural change
Educational leadership theory seems to be lagging behind business in its grasp and implementation of leadership theories that are proven effective. Similar to the frustration Deming must have felt when he tried to convince American business leaders following World War II, enlightened business leaders, having heeded the suggestions of Deming and Peters and Waterman, are now growing increasingly impatient with the indifference of public schools. There is some evidence in literature that educational leaders have been unaware or uninterested in the benefits of a change in leadership style. Robert Greenleaf, in particular, stated, “I have spent a great deal of time and energy trying to persuade educators to accept the obligation, and I am certain that, generally, they recognize neither the obligation nor the opportunity. Thus far in my experience, they appear unpersuadable”. The confidence level in public education and its leadership is decreasing according to such notables as Philip Schlechty who suggests private partnerships may result if public educational leadership will not listen and respond to the current needs of the customers.
Lessons from exemplary companies as outlined by Peters and Waterman and the reform measures suggested by Deming serve as a “call to action” for public education. The call is out for a more human-centered leadership style that has a clear understanding of its purpose and its customer, basing its foundation in providing quality service, not in being served.
Conyers and Ewy in their book Charting Your Course: Lessons Learned During the Journey Toward Performance Excellence suggest two important characteristics of educational leaders are will and courage. Peter Block stated of these two characteristics:
We need to stop asking how? We now have all the knowledge, the skills, the methods, the tools, the capacity, and the freedom to do whatever is required to serve all students well. All that is needed is the will and courage to choose and move on.
Educational leaders need to accept the model of their peers in business by observing forecasts (trends) for the future and meet the emerging demands. Educational leaders will need skills beyond their training. Reviewing trends and research and remaining current with what is effective is necessary for any leader wishing to be great.
Monday, November 17, 2008
Needed—skilled cross country race drivers
Whether you are talking about the famous Baja races or the ones run in other parts of the world (Sahara desert, etc.) these races put a premium on driving skill. The drivers need to be prepared to deal with any condition that arises from torrential rain, to wind driven sandstorms, to mud, to ruts, to rocky terrain, to crossing streams, to rutty suspension breaking roads, etc. Every race offers a different set of circumstances that the drivers must face and cope with. The winner is most often the most skilled but luck and educated risk-taking play a role in determining the winner in each race.
The above is a good analogy to being a leader in any organization that must perform against its competition. In today’s increasingly competitive global environment leadership skill can make the difference between surviving or not. While every good leader spends significant time planning their road to success, they know that they must be prepared to alter their plan to fit the unanticipated situations that arise in any endeavor.
When you look at our education system we have a “programmed to fail” situation. Processes are specified rigorously. Follow the recipe or you will be penalized by loss of funds or other sanctions. The whole enterprise is one of legislators and the bureaucracy they create with their legislation creating a lockstep army of educators who are not allowed to deviate from their process even if they are about to march over a cliff. The concept that anyone can specify the detailed operational regimen of such a large and complex operation is ludicrous. Of course, it isn’t funny at all, because it designates a process that is ineffective in providing the results that are imperative to serving our kids and our society well. The approach used in education has created a system where change is not allowed unless it is specified from on high. It is like the race driver in the above example getting to a river with a bridge washed out. In the education process example he would have to wait until the bridge was repaired because deviations from the process plan were not allowed. In an organization where the race driver (leader) has the end goal as the driving force there is freedom to detour to the nearest bridge to solve the problem that wasn’t anticipated when the plan was made.
If we were as serious as we say we are about improving education performance, we would do two things. Greatly improve the skill level of education leaders (retool them as Levine says is needed in his Educating School Leaders), AND take away much of the bureaucratic Gordian Knot approach of specifying process to nine decimal places, replacing it with a system that specifies desired results with incentives and penalties based on achieving those results.
The above is a good analogy to being a leader in any organization that must perform against its competition. In today’s increasingly competitive global environment leadership skill can make the difference between surviving or not. While every good leader spends significant time planning their road to success, they know that they must be prepared to alter their plan to fit the unanticipated situations that arise in any endeavor.
When you look at our education system we have a “programmed to fail” situation. Processes are specified rigorously. Follow the recipe or you will be penalized by loss of funds or other sanctions. The whole enterprise is one of legislators and the bureaucracy they create with their legislation creating a lockstep army of educators who are not allowed to deviate from their process even if they are about to march over a cliff. The concept that anyone can specify the detailed operational regimen of such a large and complex operation is ludicrous. Of course, it isn’t funny at all, because it designates a process that is ineffective in providing the results that are imperative to serving our kids and our society well. The approach used in education has created a system where change is not allowed unless it is specified from on high. It is like the race driver in the above example getting to a river with a bridge washed out. In the education process example he would have to wait until the bridge was repaired because deviations from the process plan were not allowed. In an organization where the race driver (leader) has the end goal as the driving force there is freedom to detour to the nearest bridge to solve the problem that wasn’t anticipated when the plan was made.
If we were as serious as we say we are about improving education performance, we would do two things. Greatly improve the skill level of education leaders (retool them as Levine says is needed in his Educating School Leaders), AND take away much of the bureaucratic Gordian Knot approach of specifying process to nine decimal places, replacing it with a system that specifies desired results with incentives and penalties based on achieving those results.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Perfect Storm of Bad Educational Ideas
I wrote this in July 2006 after reading "The Knowledge Deficit" by Hirsch. It is still very timely. It contains direct quotes from his work.
The Infamous Four
They Sound Good But They Don’t Work
Why Johnny Can’t Read
E. D. Hirsch Jr. in his new book, The Knowledge Deficit, points out why American education is not succeeding in educating our kids well and why the achievement gap between minority and low income students is not responding to the current methods.
Hirsch calls the current situation a “perfect storm” of Bad Educational Ideas. The Four on his list include:
• Naturalism—“The reason for this state of affairs – tragic for millions of students as well as for the nation – is that an army of American educators and reading experts are fundamentally wrong in their ideas about education and especially about reading comprehension. Their well-intentioned yet mistaken views are the significant reason (more than other constantly blamed factors, even poverty) that many of our children are not attaining reading proficiency, thus crippling their later schooling. …[A] complacent faith in the benefits of nature. …reading is or should be natural.” Other names that are synonymous are romanticism, transcendentalism, progressive as in John Dewey. Caused Hirsch to write Cultural Literacy which pointed out that reading comprehension – literacy itself – depends on specific background knowledge. “The dominant ideas in American education are virtually unchallenged within the educational community. American education expertise (which is not the same as educational expertise in nations that perform better than we do) has a monolithic character in which dissent is stifled. This is because of the history of American education schools…the history of these schools, which are institutions that train almost all of the teachers and administrators who must carry out the provisions of NCLB, is the history of intellectual cloning. At the beginning of the twentieth century, the parent organism, Teachers College at Columbia University, exported professors and the romantic principles…resulting in an intellectual sameness across the nation’s education schools. Even today criticism of those fundamental ideas is hard to find in these institutions.”
• Formalism—“A lot of dead information is to be replaced by all-purpose, how-to knowledge (formalism). Naturalism and Formalism are the two principles that constitute a kind of theology that is drilled into prospective teachers like a catechism. In practice the two principles are not always compatible. …the how-to notion of reading comprehension that stresses clarifying, summarizing, questioning - will inevitably lead to drill-like activities which will be anathematized by the naturalistic principle that learning should be an engaging activity. The dominant principles of naturalism and formalism, being opposed to the systematic teaching of a great deal of information, are deadly enemies of the reading goals of NCLB. Advances in reading will depend on students gaining a great deal of information. This conflict of ideas is, then, the root cause of the impasse between the NCLB law and the schools, for the only way to improve scores in reading comprehension and to narrow the reading gap between groups is systematically to provide children with the wide-ranging, specific background knowledge they need to comprehend what they read.”
• Determinism—the belief that demographics determine ability to learn. “Determinism is nonetheless a flawed and dismal theory, which, while conveniently exculpating the schools, undermines the founding principles of democratic education.”
• Localism--"Along with the terrible trinity of naturalism, formalism, and determinism, localism deserves a dishonored place in American education. Among the wider public it may be the most powerful educational idea of all. On the surface it just implies that our state or our town will decide what should be taught in our schools. It says nothing about what those things should be, so localism is another content-free idea, and as a practical matter it powerfully reinforces an approach that is short on content. It brings liberals and conservatives together to collaborate in support of anti-content, process oriented ideas about education."
"This suspicion fed collaboration between liberals and conservatives helps explain why the process point of view has persisted despite its inability to raise achievement or attain fairness. Educationist, process ideas thrive on the liberal-conservative standoff, and our schools and school boards operate under a gentleman's agreement that unites these groups behind the process-oriented creed."
“The failure of romantic [naturalism, progressivism, constructivism, etc] ideas to improve educational achievement is an inevitable result of their scientific inadequacy and inaccuracy. Reading is not, as romantics hold, either a natural acquisition or a formal skill. But mere scientific inadequacy can be a practical irrelevance in American education. Professors, including those who teach our teachers, do not easily give up their long-asserted ideas, even under the pressure of unfavorable scientific evidence.” Thus, the professors blame society because they won’t face the lie they are telling themselves by ignoring the scientific evidence.
“Old people grow blunt; they haven’t time for slow niceties. Let me be blunt about the implication of the intellectual history I have traced…If its recommendations are followed, reading scores will rise for all groups of children, and so will scores in math and science, because, as common sense would predict, reading is strongly correlated with ability to learn in all subjects. Equally important, social justice will be served, because the reading gap between social groups will be greatly narrowed by following the …pro-knowledge recommendations.”
The Infamous Four
They Sound Good But They Don’t Work
Why Johnny Can’t Read
E. D. Hirsch Jr. in his new book, The Knowledge Deficit, points out why American education is not succeeding in educating our kids well and why the achievement gap between minority and low income students is not responding to the current methods.
Hirsch calls the current situation a “perfect storm” of Bad Educational Ideas. The Four on his list include:
• Naturalism—“The reason for this state of affairs – tragic for millions of students as well as for the nation – is that an army of American educators and reading experts are fundamentally wrong in their ideas about education and especially about reading comprehension. Their well-intentioned yet mistaken views are the significant reason (more than other constantly blamed factors, even poverty) that many of our children are not attaining reading proficiency, thus crippling their later schooling. …[A] complacent faith in the benefits of nature. …reading is or should be natural.” Other names that are synonymous are romanticism, transcendentalism, progressive as in John Dewey. Caused Hirsch to write Cultural Literacy which pointed out that reading comprehension – literacy itself – depends on specific background knowledge. “The dominant ideas in American education are virtually unchallenged within the educational community. American education expertise (which is not the same as educational expertise in nations that perform better than we do) has a monolithic character in which dissent is stifled. This is because of the history of American education schools…the history of these schools, which are institutions that train almost all of the teachers and administrators who must carry out the provisions of NCLB, is the history of intellectual cloning. At the beginning of the twentieth century, the parent organism, Teachers College at Columbia University, exported professors and the romantic principles…resulting in an intellectual sameness across the nation’s education schools. Even today criticism of those fundamental ideas is hard to find in these institutions.”
• Formalism—“A lot of dead information is to be replaced by all-purpose, how-to knowledge (formalism). Naturalism and Formalism are the two principles that constitute a kind of theology that is drilled into prospective teachers like a catechism. In practice the two principles are not always compatible. …the how-to notion of reading comprehension that stresses clarifying, summarizing, questioning - will inevitably lead to drill-like activities which will be anathematized by the naturalistic principle that learning should be an engaging activity. The dominant principles of naturalism and formalism, being opposed to the systematic teaching of a great deal of information, are deadly enemies of the reading goals of NCLB. Advances in reading will depend on students gaining a great deal of information. This conflict of ideas is, then, the root cause of the impasse between the NCLB law and the schools, for the only way to improve scores in reading comprehension and to narrow the reading gap between groups is systematically to provide children with the wide-ranging, specific background knowledge they need to comprehend what they read.”
• Determinism—the belief that demographics determine ability to learn. “Determinism is nonetheless a flawed and dismal theory, which, while conveniently exculpating the schools, undermines the founding principles of democratic education.”
• Localism--"Along with the terrible trinity of naturalism, formalism, and determinism, localism deserves a dishonored place in American education. Among the wider public it may be the most powerful educational idea of all. On the surface it just implies that our state or our town will decide what should be taught in our schools. It says nothing about what those things should be, so localism is another content-free idea, and as a practical matter it powerfully reinforces an approach that is short on content. It brings liberals and conservatives together to collaborate in support of anti-content, process oriented ideas about education."
"This suspicion fed collaboration between liberals and conservatives helps explain why the process point of view has persisted despite its inability to raise achievement or attain fairness. Educationist, process ideas thrive on the liberal-conservative standoff, and our schools and school boards operate under a gentleman's agreement that unites these groups behind the process-oriented creed."
“The failure of romantic [naturalism, progressivism, constructivism, etc] ideas to improve educational achievement is an inevitable result of their scientific inadequacy and inaccuracy. Reading is not, as romantics hold, either a natural acquisition or a formal skill. But mere scientific inadequacy can be a practical irrelevance in American education. Professors, including those who teach our teachers, do not easily give up their long-asserted ideas, even under the pressure of unfavorable scientific evidence.” Thus, the professors blame society because they won’t face the lie they are telling themselves by ignoring the scientific evidence.
“Old people grow blunt; they haven’t time for slow niceties. Let me be blunt about the implication of the intellectual history I have traced…If its recommendations are followed, reading scores will rise for all groups of children, and so will scores in math and science, because, as common sense would predict, reading is strongly correlated with ability to learn in all subjects. Equally important, social justice will be served, because the reading gap between social groups will be greatly narrowed by following the …pro-knowledge recommendations.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
