I love the musical, The Music Man, especially the songs—Gary, Indiana, Til There Was You, 76 Trombones. . . And the story has a nice fairytale sort of basis. You remember I am sure the part at the beginning where the anvil salesman says, “But he doesn’t know the territory.” He is talking about “Professor Harold Hill” the boys’ band salesman who goes from town to town selling instruments, uniforms and lessons for a nice price and then skips town before the lessons can be given. Why? Professor Hill knows nothing about music. When he is backed into a corner in River City, he comes up with the “think system” of learning music. And gee, it works for him in a magical fairytale sort of way to give the play a nice happy ending. You know, “and they all lived happily ever after.”
I haven’t seen band teachers in elementary schools using the think method. Or high school music teachers using the think system. Come to think of it, I haven’t heard of any music teacher using the think system. Wonder why? Could it be that it wouldn’t work and that is the reason they don’t use it? You see, music teachers are pretty unique people in the world of American education. They actually have to know something about music. They can’t fake it. You might ask, “Why is that unusual?” Good, I will tell you. Teachers who teach math, especially in elementary schools, don’t need to know math because the curricula used stress discovery instead of teaching. That is good for the teachers because they have very little math knowledge. Math teachers in middle and high school who have some math knowledge but most not a lot, are left to cope with trying to “catch kids up” who didn’t get the foundation they should have from their elementary schools. This is basically a hopeless task.
When you look at the tenth grade CSAP results for math you see that the results are poor to awful. That is, at the last testing point where we can see the culmination of all of the effort to teach math up to tenth grade we see that the schools have failed miserably. That is further confirmed by the high remediation rates for college freshmen in math. Oh, some schools get rated “excellent” on their state accountability reports because they are “graded on the curve” but they have numbers of proficient and advanced that are far less than the NCLB requirement of 100% by 2014. If you extrapolate the trend of math scores you will see that no one apparently takes the NCLB goal seriously. One district I looked at recently would need 95 years at the current rate of “improvement” to get tenth grade proficient and advanced to the 100% level. Is anyone that patient? I am not.
It is obvious that a massive change in how math is taught is required if we are serious about preparing our kids to compete in the global meritocracy. But, gee, that might be hard and educators have no interest in doing that. It might require too much work to really learn math and how to teach it. Perhaps the hardest task of all would be to work to be really competent in math so it could be taught by people who know it, not by people who emulate Professor Hill’s “Think System.”
Another question to ask? If you need to fly to Europe, would you want a pilot who was taught by the “discovery” system and graduated because it was the school's policy to let no one fail? Or would you rather have one taught by a hard-nosed instructor who had years of experience as a pilot and really high expectations? Yes, I agree.
Lest you think this is only a math problem, it isn’t. While the CSAP results look better for reading than they do for math, on their own they are also unacceptable. It is time to realize that the status quo is not working and won’t work, no matter how much taxpayer money is thrown at the problem. We have to face reality and restructure how we teach our kids and it needs to happen now. Otherwise, our kids will be in such a deep hole competitively that they will face bleak futures compared to what they should be able to achieve if reality were able to penetrate the education fiefdom.
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Monday, August 17, 2009
The Kernel
At a time when Colorado is in the process of updating academic standards on several subjects; math, literature, etc. and the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers have both undertaken an effort to propose national standards it is important for the public to be concerned and involved. The national groups have deemed their deliberations to date as confidential so that there is no transparency to the process.
Why, you might ask, feeling that the educators are the experts and should be left to do the right thing. The crux of the matter is that the education insiders are not the experts and have failed miserably over and over to produce high quality standards. How could that happen? There are many reasons but most of all the educators are strongly opposed to any change in the status quo that might require real change on their parts or threaten their cushy status. While the problem that our nation’s children are being poorly prepared for the massive global competition that has arisen due to the proliferation of cheap and easy communication via the worldwide web is widely recognized (and has been for decades), the educators have refused to allow the needed change to happen.
The kernel referred to in the title is a hollow one in education for the most part. That is, the subject knowledge competence of the educators is “hollow.” You could call it a knowledge vacuum. They just don’t get the subject knowledge in their education school training that is required to successfully teach the children at the high level that our best foreign competitors are providing their kids. Every time that initiatives are proposed to fix this problem such as testing of teachers in subjects taught periodically during their career, the ed power groups especially the teachers unions have successfully bought enough political clout to block the changes. This is particularly a problem in math and science but also in grammar, social studies and other subjects.
These efforts to “upgrade” standards occur infrequently and since they never really improve things it is imperative that the public join together to demand a quality effort this time. What sorts of “tricks” are used to foist the poor “rewrites” off on the children?
• Prevent any substantive input from any outside education sources, but pretend to solicit input. This is similar to the schools universal assertion that they want parents’ involvement in their children’s education which really means “only if you are compliant and supportive of the educators.” They go through the motions, meeting with business people, etc. taking input which is conveniently ignored.
• Structure their communications to address public concerns positively even though there is no substance behind their assertions. This includes, for example, including reviews (always positive) by consultants who are presented as subject experts (math, science, etc.) but are only ed school degreed people with a paucity of subject knowledge.
• The standards, because the educators don’t understand the subject matter, are all designed to support processes they have been taught “catechism style” as E.D. Hirsch says in “The Knowledge Deficit.” Hirsch also points out that much of the process mantra taught in the ed schools doesn’t stand scientific scrutiny.
• Use target implementation dates for the “new” standards to shorten the time for public input after the proposed standards are written. This rush to the wrong answer is not acceptable. Doing nothing is preferable to putting in place a new set of standards that are poor but succeed in casting things in concrete until the next cycle (years) for updating standards. Delaying new standards until they are truly a substantial improvement is the only sensible thing to do.
This list is not meant to be complete but to give a sense of the game being played with our kids’ futures. Without strong public involvement there is no hope of overcoming the anti-change inertia so strongly in place. So, please, learn what is going on and demand real change this time from our political and bureaucratic representatives.
Why, you might ask, feeling that the educators are the experts and should be left to do the right thing. The crux of the matter is that the education insiders are not the experts and have failed miserably over and over to produce high quality standards. How could that happen? There are many reasons but most of all the educators are strongly opposed to any change in the status quo that might require real change on their parts or threaten their cushy status. While the problem that our nation’s children are being poorly prepared for the massive global competition that has arisen due to the proliferation of cheap and easy communication via the worldwide web is widely recognized (and has been for decades), the educators have refused to allow the needed change to happen.
The kernel referred to in the title is a hollow one in education for the most part. That is, the subject knowledge competence of the educators is “hollow.” You could call it a knowledge vacuum. They just don’t get the subject knowledge in their education school training that is required to successfully teach the children at the high level that our best foreign competitors are providing their kids. Every time that initiatives are proposed to fix this problem such as testing of teachers in subjects taught periodically during their career, the ed power groups especially the teachers unions have successfully bought enough political clout to block the changes. This is particularly a problem in math and science but also in grammar, social studies and other subjects.
These efforts to “upgrade” standards occur infrequently and since they never really improve things it is imperative that the public join together to demand a quality effort this time. What sorts of “tricks” are used to foist the poor “rewrites” off on the children?
• Prevent any substantive input from any outside education sources, but pretend to solicit input. This is similar to the schools universal assertion that they want parents’ involvement in their children’s education which really means “only if you are compliant and supportive of the educators.” They go through the motions, meeting with business people, etc. taking input which is conveniently ignored.
• Structure their communications to address public concerns positively even though there is no substance behind their assertions. This includes, for example, including reviews (always positive) by consultants who are presented as subject experts (math, science, etc.) but are only ed school degreed people with a paucity of subject knowledge.
• The standards, because the educators don’t understand the subject matter, are all designed to support processes they have been taught “catechism style” as E.D. Hirsch says in “The Knowledge Deficit.” Hirsch also points out that much of the process mantra taught in the ed schools doesn’t stand scientific scrutiny.
• Use target implementation dates for the “new” standards to shorten the time for public input after the proposed standards are written. This rush to the wrong answer is not acceptable. Doing nothing is preferable to putting in place a new set of standards that are poor but succeed in casting things in concrete until the next cycle (years) for updating standards. Delaying new standards until they are truly a substantial improvement is the only sensible thing to do.
This list is not meant to be complete but to give a sense of the game being played with our kids’ futures. Without strong public involvement there is no hope of overcoming the anti-change inertia so strongly in place. So, please, learn what is going on and demand real change this time from our political and bureaucratic representatives.
Sunday, August 2, 2009
Solutions are the Problem in Education
This is the title of an online commentary for Teacher Magazine written by Mary Kennedy, education professor at Michigan State University. Her point is that educators are bombarded by a plethora of “improvement reforms” and that they cause teachers, especially, to lose focus on the overarching mission of educating children well.
One of the examples she uses is of a National Geographic science initiative that was presented as an opportunity to do “real science” in the field. The project involved having the students take samples from local waterways and contribute them to a national database. The teacher readily participated with his class but found when his students returned to the classroom they had “lost their place” in the curriculum and had to start over for the unit in question, causing less to be taught in the time allowed. She also mentions “inside” influences like “pullout” programs and changes in structure like hourly to block and then back to hourly that cause far too much time to be spent on tangential efforts orthogonal to the primary mission of teaching kids.
Ms. Kennedy, therefore concludes that the problem is too many distractions caused by the “reform mantra” that is bombarding educators constantly. My conclusion is that she couldn’t be further off the mark. It is not the avalanche of new initiatives that is the problem at all. It is the lack of a working environment where focus and discipline are reinforced continuously. Distractions such as she points out in education are common in all endeavors. Such is the way of the world where change is the only constant. A good leader will filter out the vast majority of the distractions allowing through only the very few that actually apply positively to fixing the top priority drag on performance that the team is currently working on. The leader must provide inertia dedicated to focus on the real mission that prevents bouncing about like a ping pong ball as every distraction is acted on. Leadership competence requires not only knowing what to do but what not to do.
A very common problem is that poor leaders say they are working on a long list of goals to improve their performance. In reality just as a ship’s captain can travel to only one port of call at a time, a leader who wants to travel to better performance is advised to work on one goal at a time. Ship’s captains have another trait that could be advantageously adopted by education leaders. That is, no matter how the winds direction or the currents change, they adjust their efforts to stay on the course needed to reach their desired port of call. Goals need to be worked in priority order starting with “killing” the biggest drag on your group’s performance first. I am not talking here about “maintenance goals” which are trying to preserve the current level of operating. The education folks are perhaps the world’s experts at preserving the status quo. Just look at their mired in a rut performance no matter how much talk or money is expended. I am talking about “breakthrough” goals that will take the organization’s performance to a significantly higher level.
The problem she talks about is a direct result of the lack of performance leadership in education. I have pointed out many times that education leaders do not have the proper training or skill to effectively lead to create a performance environment.
In my experience in industry I used the continuous improvement process to maintain focus everyday on improving my team’s performance. To be effective the leader needs a lot of skills and knowledge but most of all needs coaching during the initial implementation of the concepts. Sadly, because the leaders in education don’t have these skills there are no role models to learn from.
Yes, the education school leadership programs claim to fill this need by having graduate students “shadow” an administrator in the field. What good does it do to shadow someone who isn’t doing it well or at all? Also the class work in the ed school leadership programs does not convey the knowledge or skills needed to be a performance leader.
Retooling the education leadership is not the only priority in fixing education but it gets my vote for being the one with the biggest positive leverage on improved performance. It will have to be done by outside trainers who can also coach the leaders through the initial implementation phase when applying the new techniques. The ed schools do not have this skill set in their inventory and could not be effective. I strongly believe that the training should be given to leadership teams at each district on site with the coaching to follow. This allows a robust knowledge base among the team [what one forgets another will remember], works well for team building and for tailoring the training to the priorities of the district’s problems. Sending leaders off to classes at varying ed schools to get exposed to more incoherent drivel is not going to work any better than the current “Race to the Bottom” approach Levine pointed out in his “Educating School Leaders” report (March 2005).
Competent leadership would overcome so many problems that go unaddressed today because leaders have no clue how to solve them. It would be like putting a rudder on the education ship so that progress could finally be “steered toward.” Having leaders who know how to raise the anchor would also help. The sad thing is that working in a well led performance environment is fun and very good for group morale which is missing in today’s education setting.
While it is very clear what must be done, don’t hold your breath until it happens. Only public pressure for real performance improvements will force action in addressing real problems as opposed to the current approach of talking about things with no intent of really changing anything. If you believe the propaganda touting “excellent” performance by local school districts when in fact they are doing very poorly compared to the world’s best performers, you will not be motivated to demand real change. That is the comparison that counts. Anyone can look good if they use a short enough ruler to measure results.
One of the examples she uses is of a National Geographic science initiative that was presented as an opportunity to do “real science” in the field. The project involved having the students take samples from local waterways and contribute them to a national database. The teacher readily participated with his class but found when his students returned to the classroom they had “lost their place” in the curriculum and had to start over for the unit in question, causing less to be taught in the time allowed. She also mentions “inside” influences like “pullout” programs and changes in structure like hourly to block and then back to hourly that cause far too much time to be spent on tangential efforts orthogonal to the primary mission of teaching kids.
Ms. Kennedy, therefore concludes that the problem is too many distractions caused by the “reform mantra” that is bombarding educators constantly. My conclusion is that she couldn’t be further off the mark. It is not the avalanche of new initiatives that is the problem at all. It is the lack of a working environment where focus and discipline are reinforced continuously. Distractions such as she points out in education are common in all endeavors. Such is the way of the world where change is the only constant. A good leader will filter out the vast majority of the distractions allowing through only the very few that actually apply positively to fixing the top priority drag on performance that the team is currently working on. The leader must provide inertia dedicated to focus on the real mission that prevents bouncing about like a ping pong ball as every distraction is acted on. Leadership competence requires not only knowing what to do but what not to do.
A very common problem is that poor leaders say they are working on a long list of goals to improve their performance. In reality just as a ship’s captain can travel to only one port of call at a time, a leader who wants to travel to better performance is advised to work on one goal at a time. Ship’s captains have another trait that could be advantageously adopted by education leaders. That is, no matter how the winds direction or the currents change, they adjust their efforts to stay on the course needed to reach their desired port of call. Goals need to be worked in priority order starting with “killing” the biggest drag on your group’s performance first. I am not talking here about “maintenance goals” which are trying to preserve the current level of operating. The education folks are perhaps the world’s experts at preserving the status quo. Just look at their mired in a rut performance no matter how much talk or money is expended. I am talking about “breakthrough” goals that will take the organization’s performance to a significantly higher level.
The problem she talks about is a direct result of the lack of performance leadership in education. I have pointed out many times that education leaders do not have the proper training or skill to effectively lead to create a performance environment.
In my experience in industry I used the continuous improvement process to maintain focus everyday on improving my team’s performance. To be effective the leader needs a lot of skills and knowledge but most of all needs coaching during the initial implementation of the concepts. Sadly, because the leaders in education don’t have these skills there are no role models to learn from.
Yes, the education school leadership programs claim to fill this need by having graduate students “shadow” an administrator in the field. What good does it do to shadow someone who isn’t doing it well or at all? Also the class work in the ed school leadership programs does not convey the knowledge or skills needed to be a performance leader.
Retooling the education leadership is not the only priority in fixing education but it gets my vote for being the one with the biggest positive leverage on improved performance. It will have to be done by outside trainers who can also coach the leaders through the initial implementation phase when applying the new techniques. The ed schools do not have this skill set in their inventory and could not be effective. I strongly believe that the training should be given to leadership teams at each district on site with the coaching to follow. This allows a robust knowledge base among the team [what one forgets another will remember], works well for team building and for tailoring the training to the priorities of the district’s problems. Sending leaders off to classes at varying ed schools to get exposed to more incoherent drivel is not going to work any better than the current “Race to the Bottom” approach Levine pointed out in his “Educating School Leaders” report (March 2005).
Competent leadership would overcome so many problems that go unaddressed today because leaders have no clue how to solve them. It would be like putting a rudder on the education ship so that progress could finally be “steered toward.” Having leaders who know how to raise the anchor would also help. The sad thing is that working in a well led performance environment is fun and very good for group morale which is missing in today’s education setting.
While it is very clear what must be done, don’t hold your breath until it happens. Only public pressure for real performance improvements will force action in addressing real problems as opposed to the current approach of talking about things with no intent of really changing anything. If you believe the propaganda touting “excellent” performance by local school districts when in fact they are doing very poorly compared to the world’s best performers, you will not be motivated to demand real change. That is the comparison that counts. Anyone can look good if they use a short enough ruler to measure results.
Friday, July 31, 2009
Considering the impact of the new “Race to the Top” Initiative
Late last week, Obama and Duncan announced a new $4.35 billion education initiative to encourage states to improve their K-12 schools. While $4 billion is certainly a lot of money it isn’t big compared to the total spending on education in America. A Wall Street Journal article on the new initiative provides data needed to put it into context. “The Department of Education estimates that the U.S. as a whole spent $667 billion on K-12 education in the 2008-09 school year alone, up from $553 billion in 2006-07 [a 21% increase in only 2 years]. The stimulus bill from earlier this year includes some $100 billion more in federal education spending—an unprecedented amount. The tragedy is that nearly all of this $100 billion is being dispensed to the states by formula, which allows school districts to continue resisting reform while risking very little in overall federal funding.”
The Journal goes on to comment, “It’s also worth noting that the U.S. has been trying without much success to spend its way to education excellence for decades. Between 1970 and 2004, per-pupil outlays more than doubled in real terms, and the federal portion of that spending nearly tripled. Yet reading scores on national standardized tests have remained relatively flat. Black and Hispanic students are doing better, but they continue to lag far behind white students in both test scores and graduation rates.”
The states would be evaluated on 19 criteria from how friendly they are to charter schools to whether they cut k-12 funding this year. Education Week noted the new program included must provisions that any state hoping to land a grant must allow student test scores to be used in decisions about teacher and principal compensation and evaluation and that the state had been approved for stabilization funds from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (most already have been).
This whiff of merit pay is in opposition to the unions [NEA and AFT] longstanding stance that teacher pay be based only on years of service and credentials. So lots of promises will be made but the unions will effectively make any compliance of the “show” type only. Note too that the wording is that the state must not have any laws in place that prohibit using student achievement data in the evaluation of teachers and principals. This is a far cry from a law that requires the data to be actually used in teacher and principal pay and evaluation decisions.
So what is the result of this likely to be? It is definitely another “stir the pot” to look like you are doing something positive education initiative. If spending more money alone would solve anything the problem would have been solved long ago.
Why isn’t the system getting better? Because . . .
• Education leaders don’t know how to lead. They are trained for a fantasy job, not one that needs to be done or even exists.
• The adults in the education system believe they deserve more and are more important than the kids.
• The legislators and bureaucrats specify process when they should specify results with rewards for making it happen and penalties for not making the required improvements.
• The education system is infected with a high level of truth suppression. That is, political correctness and group think are ubiquitous in their effect of preventing the required intellectual honesty to face shortcomings squarely and deal with them.
• Educators believe they don’t need to change. After all they have avoided it for decades by using techniques such as wheel spinning exercises that “look” like action when they aren’t. They believe that “we tried” is an acceptable excuse. As Yoda told Luke Skywalker in Empire Strikes Back, “Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.”
• Educators believe that they should be paid based on years experience and diplomas they have. Performance organizations pay based on results not background or age and they actually perform. Funny how that works.
This list is not meant to be exhaustive but to show examples of problems that could and should be fixed. One key that is part of the “talk” is that educators need to manage the education process with data. I say they need a closed loop, short cycle, data driven, participative management style. Education entities I have studied who have tried to implement the continuous quality improvement process have failed miserably. Why? Because they do everything that counts wrong. They hire a bunch of consultants, facilitators, data clerks, trainers, etc. and the “leaders” take a hands-off approach to the process. Because they don’t do their jobs, i.e. lead, the process turns into a “go through the motions” exercise that is seen as a distasteful burden to the teachers and others expected to do the process. Leaders need to facilitate, involve themselves in the data and actively expect the best participation of the group in problem solving based on priorities developed from analyzing the data. That is, they can’t delegate the leadership responsibility.
The Race to the Top initiative has a very high probability of being another “throw money at the problem and hope something good happens.” Doing the same thing over and expecting a different result should result in a realization after it doesn’t work for a hundred or more times in a row that this is the wrong approach. Of course you have to be able to look objectively at the truth to realize what is actually happening. Hard to do when the truth is so well hidden.
The Journal goes on to comment, “It’s also worth noting that the U.S. has been trying without much success to spend its way to education excellence for decades. Between 1970 and 2004, per-pupil outlays more than doubled in real terms, and the federal portion of that spending nearly tripled. Yet reading scores on national standardized tests have remained relatively flat. Black and Hispanic students are doing better, but they continue to lag far behind white students in both test scores and graduation rates.”
The states would be evaluated on 19 criteria from how friendly they are to charter schools to whether they cut k-12 funding this year. Education Week noted the new program included must provisions that any state hoping to land a grant must allow student test scores to be used in decisions about teacher and principal compensation and evaluation and that the state had been approved for stabilization funds from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (most already have been).
This whiff of merit pay is in opposition to the unions [NEA and AFT] longstanding stance that teacher pay be based only on years of service and credentials. So lots of promises will be made but the unions will effectively make any compliance of the “show” type only. Note too that the wording is that the state must not have any laws in place that prohibit using student achievement data in the evaluation of teachers and principals. This is a far cry from a law that requires the data to be actually used in teacher and principal pay and evaluation decisions.
So what is the result of this likely to be? It is definitely another “stir the pot” to look like you are doing something positive education initiative. If spending more money alone would solve anything the problem would have been solved long ago.
Why isn’t the system getting better? Because . . .
• Education leaders don’t know how to lead. They are trained for a fantasy job, not one that needs to be done or even exists.
• The adults in the education system believe they deserve more and are more important than the kids.
• The legislators and bureaucrats specify process when they should specify results with rewards for making it happen and penalties for not making the required improvements.
• The education system is infected with a high level of truth suppression. That is, political correctness and group think are ubiquitous in their effect of preventing the required intellectual honesty to face shortcomings squarely and deal with them.
• Educators believe they don’t need to change. After all they have avoided it for decades by using techniques such as wheel spinning exercises that “look” like action when they aren’t. They believe that “we tried” is an acceptable excuse. As Yoda told Luke Skywalker in Empire Strikes Back, “Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.”
• Educators believe that they should be paid based on years experience and diplomas they have. Performance organizations pay based on results not background or age and they actually perform. Funny how that works.
This list is not meant to be exhaustive but to show examples of problems that could and should be fixed. One key that is part of the “talk” is that educators need to manage the education process with data. I say they need a closed loop, short cycle, data driven, participative management style. Education entities I have studied who have tried to implement the continuous quality improvement process have failed miserably. Why? Because they do everything that counts wrong. They hire a bunch of consultants, facilitators, data clerks, trainers, etc. and the “leaders” take a hands-off approach to the process. Because they don’t do their jobs, i.e. lead, the process turns into a “go through the motions” exercise that is seen as a distasteful burden to the teachers and others expected to do the process. Leaders need to facilitate, involve themselves in the data and actively expect the best participation of the group in problem solving based on priorities developed from analyzing the data. That is, they can’t delegate the leadership responsibility.
The Race to the Top initiative has a very high probability of being another “throw money at the problem and hope something good happens.” Doing the same thing over and expecting a different result should result in a realization after it doesn’t work for a hundred or more times in a row that this is the wrong approach. Of course you have to be able to look objectively at the truth to realize what is actually happening. Hard to do when the truth is so well hidden.
Friday, July 24, 2009
Between a Rock and a Soft Place
“Racial quotas and preferences are a Soft system: blacks and members of other preferred groups are not being held accountable to the same standards as others. Not being held accountable, they do not achieve as much. John McWhorter, who is black and now a linguistics professor at Berkeley, remembers that in high school he ‘quite deliberately refrained from working to my highest potential because I knew I would be accepted to top universities without doing so.’ He goes on: ‘Imagine telling a Martian who expressed an interest in American education policy: We allow whites in only if they have a GPA of 3.7 and an SAT of 1300 or above. We let blacks in with a GPA of 3.0 and an SAT of 900. Now, what we have been pondering for years is why black students continue to submit higher grades and scores than this so rarely.’ Well, mercy me—what a perplexing problem!’’ This quote is from Michael Barone’s Hard America Soft America, Competition vs. Coddling and the Battle for the Nation’s Future. It is worth reading. The point here is that people perform to the expectations. Placing low expectations on a group is essentially “killing them with kindness.” These low expectations are the worst sort of discrimination because they start with the assumption that the people from the group can’t perform to “normal” expectations so we will be kind and expect less of them.
The “Well, mercy me—what a perplexing problem” is a sarcastic way of saying that the foundational issue affecting the achievement gap which we as a society SAY we want to fix is that because educators believe in their heart of hearts that “those” people can’t perform to high levels they don’t expect them to. I believe that this self-fulfilling prophecy has been more responsible than any other factor in making the achievement gap so unaffected by the decades of work and billions of dollars thrown into the effort.
Barone’s book discusses more issues than education although he does have some interesting things to say on the subject. One point he makes is that the percentage of kids working while attending high school is much higher than it was in the 1950s when the average standard of living was lower. He cites research that found that the kids said it wasn’t the money but the structure and discipline provided by the job that they sought. They commented that the soft, low expectation environment of the education system was unfulfilling.
The sad thing is that the expectations of all students are far too low. In Colorado we have very low achievement test standards compared to most if not all other states. When you realize that American kids as a group do poorly in comparisons to their best international peers you have to accept that our Colorado kids are in a system that ranks as the poorest of the poor.
Am I advocating that we install Singapore math standards for our Colorado kids immediately. NO. I chose the Singapore example because they are the acknowledged world leader in math education. The process I envision is to base our standards on the best in the world but in a realistic way. That is, we need to realize that Singapore and the other competitors are not standing still, they are improving constantly. Being the best is a moving target.
A sensible approach would be to set a target for say 10 years out that is at a level 10 to 20% better than the performance of the best competition by subject area. Then develop “ramped standards” that increase 10% of the way to those targets each year. This would be a rigorous and demanding challenge but could be done. It would definitely require changes in many areas of the education system to accomplish.
I know our educators on a whole have become satisfied with the status quo and believe they are doing about as well as can be done. I don’t buy that at all. Our kids as a whole can learn as well as those elsewhere in the world if they are expected to in a system that supports that learning. As I have said in the past the most important element of positive change is leadership. The opportunity here is huge but the leaders need to be retooled quickly and the training of new leaders has to be retooled as well. The current ed school leadership training is inadequate and unacceptable. [See Levine, Educating School Leaders] If the current leadership cadre were race drivers they would be out of a job. You see the real world cares not what training certificate you have framed on the wall, it cares only if you perform well enough to win. The American education system isn’t winning and it is harming our kids and our country.
This is pertinent because Colorado is in the process of “updating” its standards in several subject areas. The standards will have public review in state board of education meetings in the fall. I have looked at them and can tell you that I believe the proposed standards are just a continuation of the status quo and not worth even considering. They certainly don’t facilitate better performance against the international competition. The best they could do is to improve our standing among the states which is not enough. There is little consolation in moving up to a higher place in the pack of poor performers. If we allow another round of poor standards to be put in place with a multi-year life we are further delaying the needed improvement in performance.
To become world class education performers will take facing the truth fully and working very hard to overcome the problems identified. In the current politically correct, Group Think system the truth is suppressed and the necessary changes are prevented. This is unacceptable.
The “Well, mercy me—what a perplexing problem” is a sarcastic way of saying that the foundational issue affecting the achievement gap which we as a society SAY we want to fix is that because educators believe in their heart of hearts that “those” people can’t perform to high levels they don’t expect them to. I believe that this self-fulfilling prophecy has been more responsible than any other factor in making the achievement gap so unaffected by the decades of work and billions of dollars thrown into the effort.
Barone’s book discusses more issues than education although he does have some interesting things to say on the subject. One point he makes is that the percentage of kids working while attending high school is much higher than it was in the 1950s when the average standard of living was lower. He cites research that found that the kids said it wasn’t the money but the structure and discipline provided by the job that they sought. They commented that the soft, low expectation environment of the education system was unfulfilling.
The sad thing is that the expectations of all students are far too low. In Colorado we have very low achievement test standards compared to most if not all other states. When you realize that American kids as a group do poorly in comparisons to their best international peers you have to accept that our Colorado kids are in a system that ranks as the poorest of the poor.
Am I advocating that we install Singapore math standards for our Colorado kids immediately. NO. I chose the Singapore example because they are the acknowledged world leader in math education. The process I envision is to base our standards on the best in the world but in a realistic way. That is, we need to realize that Singapore and the other competitors are not standing still, they are improving constantly. Being the best is a moving target.
A sensible approach would be to set a target for say 10 years out that is at a level 10 to 20% better than the performance of the best competition by subject area. Then develop “ramped standards” that increase 10% of the way to those targets each year. This would be a rigorous and demanding challenge but could be done. It would definitely require changes in many areas of the education system to accomplish.
I know our educators on a whole have become satisfied with the status quo and believe they are doing about as well as can be done. I don’t buy that at all. Our kids as a whole can learn as well as those elsewhere in the world if they are expected to in a system that supports that learning. As I have said in the past the most important element of positive change is leadership. The opportunity here is huge but the leaders need to be retooled quickly and the training of new leaders has to be retooled as well. The current ed school leadership training is inadequate and unacceptable. [See Levine, Educating School Leaders] If the current leadership cadre were race drivers they would be out of a job. You see the real world cares not what training certificate you have framed on the wall, it cares only if you perform well enough to win. The American education system isn’t winning and it is harming our kids and our country.
This is pertinent because Colorado is in the process of “updating” its standards in several subject areas. The standards will have public review in state board of education meetings in the fall. I have looked at them and can tell you that I believe the proposed standards are just a continuation of the status quo and not worth even considering. They certainly don’t facilitate better performance against the international competition. The best they could do is to improve our standing among the states which is not enough. There is little consolation in moving up to a higher place in the pack of poor performers. If we allow another round of poor standards to be put in place with a multi-year life we are further delaying the needed improvement in performance.
To become world class education performers will take facing the truth fully and working very hard to overcome the problems identified. In the current politically correct, Group Think system the truth is suppressed and the necessary changes are prevented. This is unacceptable.
Sunday, July 12, 2009
BREAKING NEWS!!! High School Sports Restrictions Enacted
Today the state legislature passed and the governor signed landmark legislation aimed at upgrading the educational experience of the state’s children. In a surprising landslide vote both houses passed the measure by large majorities.
The central thrust of the legislation is to force educators to face facts that their process emphasis stance has served our children poorly for decades. The bill requires that by the start of the next school year all districts that use constructivist or discovery curricula will be forced to certify, subject to random audits by the state, that they are not using direct instruction and drill approaches in any sport program in the district. Practices would only involve general conditioning and allowing the team members to play around trying to discover the best techniques on their own without the facilitator’s direct influence. Violations would require a lost season in the sport found to be noncompliant. If the districts take swift action to replace their constructivist curricula with direct instruction curricula by the start of the upcoming school year the sports sanctions will not apply. In a move to encourage swift action by districts the law requires a two year added no-sports penalty for each year of delay. That is, for each year delay in implementing direct instruction the district will lose the right to participate in sports of any kind for two years.
The speed with which the legislature and governor moved indicates that the frustration of decades of higher and higher spending on education without commensurate improvement in results had reached a point where the legislators who have been hearing rising complaint levels from constituents were fed up with the glacial pace of change in education improvement. This was seen as especially critical due to the ineffectiveness in addressing the achievement gap between poor and minority children and the other children.
The governor who ran on a promise to dramatically improve education commented at the bill signing that he was sick of the educators’ refusal to address core issues preventing improvement while using the research-based and best-practices mantras coupled with constant whining about the need for more money. He said it seemed to him that the educators would feed arsenic to the kids if the bottle was labeled “research based. He commented that if the educators are so convinced that the constructivist curricula are the way to go in spite of evidence from the countries like Finland and Singapore that do far better at educating their kids than we do, let them apply it to sports. Then they will see when using the constructivist approach you can’t be competitive in sports as well as in global achievement testing.”
Education leaders immediately attacked the lack of understanding of the “non expert” legislators dictating to them when the educators are the true experts who should continue to make all education decisions. They said it is a travesty that the politicians are holding the sports programs of the schools hostage to their uninformed beliefs.
Senator I.M. Fedup commented that this was a warning shot across the bow of the educators that expectations were changing dramatically. The educators have used up all of their credibility in wheel-spinning that has benefited no one but the educators as the demands for more and more money have been met over and over. He further commented that they will perform better, much better, and quickly or be replaced by vouchers and other alternatives.
Coaches of high school sports were threatening to cancel the sports seasons hoping that public outrage would cause the legislators to flinch. That doesn’t seem likely as several legislators commented that it was time to get educational priorities straight and put the proper amount of concentration on curricular activities as opposed to overemphasizing extra-curricular activities.
The state administrators association in conjunction with the NEA and the AFT unions put out a joint press release condemning the meddling of the uneducated in education decisions better left to the experts.
A sampling of education experts we spoke to are saying that the legislation will cause a rethinking of education school curricula to address the lack of rigorous subject knowledge training. Also, the long held tradition of virtual brainwashing of prospective teachers in naturalism [progressivism, romanticism, transcendentalism] ideas that don’t stand scientific scrutiny will be under increasing pressure. We should begin to see a move toward balance between the pedagogy and subject knowledge aspects of education school training in the near future.
MORE TO FOLLOW . . .
The central thrust of the legislation is to force educators to face facts that their process emphasis stance has served our children poorly for decades. The bill requires that by the start of the next school year all districts that use constructivist or discovery curricula will be forced to certify, subject to random audits by the state, that they are not using direct instruction and drill approaches in any sport program in the district. Practices would only involve general conditioning and allowing the team members to play around trying to discover the best techniques on their own without the facilitator’s direct influence. Violations would require a lost season in the sport found to be noncompliant. If the districts take swift action to replace their constructivist curricula with direct instruction curricula by the start of the upcoming school year the sports sanctions will not apply. In a move to encourage swift action by districts the law requires a two year added no-sports penalty for each year of delay. That is, for each year delay in implementing direct instruction the district will lose the right to participate in sports of any kind for two years.
The speed with which the legislature and governor moved indicates that the frustration of decades of higher and higher spending on education without commensurate improvement in results had reached a point where the legislators who have been hearing rising complaint levels from constituents were fed up with the glacial pace of change in education improvement. This was seen as especially critical due to the ineffectiveness in addressing the achievement gap between poor and minority children and the other children.
The governor who ran on a promise to dramatically improve education commented at the bill signing that he was sick of the educators’ refusal to address core issues preventing improvement while using the research-based and best-practices mantras coupled with constant whining about the need for more money. He said it seemed to him that the educators would feed arsenic to the kids if the bottle was labeled “research based. He commented that if the educators are so convinced that the constructivist curricula are the way to go in spite of evidence from the countries like Finland and Singapore that do far better at educating their kids than we do, let them apply it to sports. Then they will see when using the constructivist approach you can’t be competitive in sports as well as in global achievement testing.”
Education leaders immediately attacked the lack of understanding of the “non expert” legislators dictating to them when the educators are the true experts who should continue to make all education decisions. They said it is a travesty that the politicians are holding the sports programs of the schools hostage to their uninformed beliefs.
Senator I.M. Fedup commented that this was a warning shot across the bow of the educators that expectations were changing dramatically. The educators have used up all of their credibility in wheel-spinning that has benefited no one but the educators as the demands for more and more money have been met over and over. He further commented that they will perform better, much better, and quickly or be replaced by vouchers and other alternatives.
Coaches of high school sports were threatening to cancel the sports seasons hoping that public outrage would cause the legislators to flinch. That doesn’t seem likely as several legislators commented that it was time to get educational priorities straight and put the proper amount of concentration on curricular activities as opposed to overemphasizing extra-curricular activities.
The state administrators association in conjunction with the NEA and the AFT unions put out a joint press release condemning the meddling of the uneducated in education decisions better left to the experts.
A sampling of education experts we spoke to are saying that the legislation will cause a rethinking of education school curricula to address the lack of rigorous subject knowledge training. Also, the long held tradition of virtual brainwashing of prospective teachers in naturalism [progressivism, romanticism, transcendentalism] ideas that don’t stand scientific scrutiny will be under increasing pressure. We should begin to see a move toward balance between the pedagogy and subject knowledge aspects of education school training in the near future.
MORE TO FOLLOW . . .
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
To Drill or Not To Drill, That Is the Question
The traditional belief is that students must drill to learn facts they will need in the future over and over again is the only way to ensure understanding. This is especially true in areas like math where the past approach was to drill students in math facts so that they knew without thinking about it that 7 X 8 = 56.
Today teachers think that students view drill as demotivating and the opposite of fun. Of course, I have seen no school mission statements that put “having fun” ahead of learning. You see, learning is hard work. The knowledge and skill learned are the payoff. As with anything you get rewarded commensurately with the effort you put into it. It is interesting how much fun it is to look back on a difficult learning process that you successfully completed.
Daniel Willingham, cognitive scientist, in his book “Why Don’t Students Like School?” weighs in on this debate saying, “The bottleneck in our cognitive system is the extent to which we can juggle several ideas in our mind simultaneously. For example, it’s easy to multiply 19 X 6 in your head, but nearly impossible to multiply 184,930 x 34,004. The processes are the same but in the latter case you ‘run out of room’ in your head to keep track of the numbers. The mind has a few tricks for working around this problem. One of the most effective is practice, because it reduces the amount of “room” that mental work requires. The cognitive principle that guides this . . . is ‘It is virtually impossible to become proficient at a mental task without extended practice.’ “
He uses as an example that you can’t become a good soccer player if as you are dribbling, you still focus on how hard to hit the ball, which surface of your foot to use, etc. Low level processes need to become automatic so that you can focus on higher level concerns.
This relates to the often discussed brain model that sees it partitioned into long-term memory (facts and procedures) and working memory (awareness and thinking). If you wonder what I am driving at, it is just this, “the most popular (among educators) process for educating our kids is one that avoids practice (drill) because it isn’t fun. The problem is that the process results in kids who aren’t educated well and can’t compete as a group with their most competent foreign peers. Thus you have constructivist or discovery math curricula taking over the education marketplace in an effort to make it more fun for the teachers and the kids in the earlier years but resulting in the failure to lay the necessary foundational learning for the study of algebra which is now a requirement for all students virtually everywhere. One of the sad results of the lack of foundation is an emerging number of “algebra light” classes being offered to mask the failure to prepare kids for real algebra.
A friend of mine and I met recently with a group of educators to discuss the Everyday Math (constructivist) curriculum they were using in a large school district. The meeting of approximately an hour and a half was very interesting and very frustrating. I came prepared with charts showing the most recent performance on the state achievement tests among others. The district had a combined proficient and advanced percentage of 32 for 10th grade math. Thus, the other two-thirds were below proficient. As you would expect with a process that fails to lay the foundation for algebra and beyond, the results get worse by grade as the kids progress to higher grades.
The educators were interested in the graphs and I let them keep them but it really made no impact on them at all. They stated over and over that curricula didn’t matter; only the pedagogical process mattered. This is a good reminder that the education schools’ brainwashing technique for educators is alive and well. They cannot face the objective truth because they have been told over and over that it doesn’t count, only the processes they were taught in ed school count. If that were true everything would be great but it isn't true as E.D. Hirsch and others have so often pointed out.
This is a sad situation for our kids and the educator cadre who are chained to a set of beliefs that don’t and won’t work. I plan to discuss how we can work to overcome this mired in the mud situation in a future post.
Today teachers think that students view drill as demotivating and the opposite of fun. Of course, I have seen no school mission statements that put “having fun” ahead of learning. You see, learning is hard work. The knowledge and skill learned are the payoff. As with anything you get rewarded commensurately with the effort you put into it. It is interesting how much fun it is to look back on a difficult learning process that you successfully completed.
Daniel Willingham, cognitive scientist, in his book “Why Don’t Students Like School?” weighs in on this debate saying, “The bottleneck in our cognitive system is the extent to which we can juggle several ideas in our mind simultaneously. For example, it’s easy to multiply 19 X 6 in your head, but nearly impossible to multiply 184,930 x 34,004. The processes are the same but in the latter case you ‘run out of room’ in your head to keep track of the numbers. The mind has a few tricks for working around this problem. One of the most effective is practice, because it reduces the amount of “room” that mental work requires. The cognitive principle that guides this . . . is ‘It is virtually impossible to become proficient at a mental task without extended practice.’ “
He uses as an example that you can’t become a good soccer player if as you are dribbling, you still focus on how hard to hit the ball, which surface of your foot to use, etc. Low level processes need to become automatic so that you can focus on higher level concerns.
This relates to the often discussed brain model that sees it partitioned into long-term memory (facts and procedures) and working memory (awareness and thinking). If you wonder what I am driving at, it is just this, “the most popular (among educators) process for educating our kids is one that avoids practice (drill) because it isn’t fun. The problem is that the process results in kids who aren’t educated well and can’t compete as a group with their most competent foreign peers. Thus you have constructivist or discovery math curricula taking over the education marketplace in an effort to make it more fun for the teachers and the kids in the earlier years but resulting in the failure to lay the necessary foundational learning for the study of algebra which is now a requirement for all students virtually everywhere. One of the sad results of the lack of foundation is an emerging number of “algebra light” classes being offered to mask the failure to prepare kids for real algebra.
A friend of mine and I met recently with a group of educators to discuss the Everyday Math (constructivist) curriculum they were using in a large school district. The meeting of approximately an hour and a half was very interesting and very frustrating. I came prepared with charts showing the most recent performance on the state achievement tests among others. The district had a combined proficient and advanced percentage of 32 for 10th grade math. Thus, the other two-thirds were below proficient. As you would expect with a process that fails to lay the foundation for algebra and beyond, the results get worse by grade as the kids progress to higher grades.
The educators were interested in the graphs and I let them keep them but it really made no impact on them at all. They stated over and over that curricula didn’t matter; only the pedagogical process mattered. This is a good reminder that the education schools’ brainwashing technique for educators is alive and well. They cannot face the objective truth because they have been told over and over that it doesn’t count, only the processes they were taught in ed school count. If that were true everything would be great but it isn't true as E.D. Hirsch and others have so often pointed out.
This is a sad situation for our kids and the educator cadre who are chained to a set of beliefs that don’t and won’t work. I plan to discuss how we can work to overcome this mired in the mud situation in a future post.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
