This month the University of Maryland's University College has floated a bold new idea. Competency based education! Quite remarkable really, students will be able to earn credits based on the demonstration of content rather than just being able to repeat what the prof has said. University College is the arm of the University of Maryland whose mission has always been the reach out to non-traditional students. The backbone of their program has been the men and women of the armed forces who were serving overseas. They used to brag that the sun never set on University College. With the reduction in the armed forces, the College has seen a significant reduction in students so they are seeking to re-build enrollment by reaching out to the business community and trying to partner with that community to train and education current employees.
Of course, no good idea goes uncriticized. People are complaining that what it means to be competent is not clearly defined. Clearly defined has never been an issue in traditional course work. Each instructor "clearly defines" what is expected at the beginning of each course. Just ask students how often mind reading has been the most important skill when trying to get good grades.
There are so many just mind boggling ideas here. Such as students would finish the course in as much time as it took to master the content. Could be more or less than the typical semester. Just imagine the emphasis would be on student learning not hours in a classroom. One professor even had the courage to say out loud that he thought it was a good idea "so long as it does not lead to cutting faculty positions." Now that's putting it out there- student learning vs. jobs for the teachers. Throughout the discussion of whether or not the competency based approach was a good idea, was whether or not it would be financially beneficial to the College.
The Harbour School has been measuring student learning based on a competency based program for over 20 years. The approach is both so logical and intuitive that one cannot help but wonder 1) why every school doesn't use the approach and 2) why do schools keep acting like it is a remarkable new way to measure learning.
Truth is, with a very few exceptions, in the real world, you either can do the job or you can't do the job. If you aren't competent in the skill, you will either be trained or be released from those job responsibilities. Granted, teaching in a competency based program is harder work for the teacher. Responsibility shifts to student learning and away from teacher teaching. In the traditional program the teacher throws content out there and the student either makes the catch or not. The teacher is considered to have "taught well" if he or she adheres to quality accepted practices of what is good teaching. In the traditional model, good teaching can occur independent of student learning. Not so in the competency based approach. Of course the question of whether there can be good teaching without student learning is a discussion best left for another day.
Until then, let's hope that the University College of The University of Maryland follows the lead of The Harbour School and moves to competency based learning. It is a good idea whose time has long since come.
Thursday, July 31, 2014
Thursday, July 24, 2014
Where did all the children go?
I just returned from 17 days in China. Let me say first of all that the Chinese people could not have been kinder or more welcoming. They love to practice their English on Americans since their government's policy makes it unlikely that they will be able to travel to America. However, children do start to learn English from the very early grades and people do quite well considering the huge differences between English and Chinese. We could learn something there.
Among other places, I visited the four largest cities in China. China has 1.3 billion people- yep that's billion with a "B". It has 1/4th of the world's population. I mention this fact not because I want to show off what I learned but because of this next very curious experience.
In the seventeen days of my visit, including many standard tourist attractions, that were predominately frequented by Chinese not westerners, I saw not ONE, that is correct, not a single child with a disability.
My curiosity started with questions about how China does special education. I was met with quizzical and confused looks. Finally I was told that we do have some schools for deaf people. I believe they do but I did not see a single person sign to another. I was frequently asked to notice the strips of concrete tread engraved into sidewalks. I was told that these were to help the blind. But I never saw a single vision impaired person, no white canes, no guide dogs.
Then came the final question. What about people with learning problems or emotional problems. That was when the looks got really confused. Often people just said "we don't have any". Now granted with as many people as China has there are many jobs that can be managed with limited cognition. For example, people sweep the curbs of major highways with brooms made of bamboo. They wash down the road dividers with mop like hand tools. Things are clean in China that Americans have no expectation of being clean or expect a machine to come along and do the job.
But the people doing these jobs looked just like everyone else. We did not see a single person who was visibly disabled. By contrast, on the relatively short hop from Chicago to the east coast on our return, there was a boy who looked to be about 12. He also looked to be and acted as someone with autism. Right there, right away, barely back in our country was a person with a disability.
Where are they in China? Surely China must have its share of kids with disabling syndromes. Here is what is scary. China has a one child policy. There are severe sanctions for failure to adhere, even to the extreme in some areas of forced abortion. Are these children allowed to die at birth? Are they given up for adoption? China still has orphanages and still allows westerners to adopt out.
These children have to be born and they have to be somewhere- but where are they?
Among other places, I visited the four largest cities in China. China has 1.3 billion people- yep that's billion with a "B". It has 1/4th of the world's population. I mention this fact not because I want to show off what I learned but because of this next very curious experience.
In the seventeen days of my visit, including many standard tourist attractions, that were predominately frequented by Chinese not westerners, I saw not ONE, that is correct, not a single child with a disability.
My curiosity started with questions about how China does special education. I was met with quizzical and confused looks. Finally I was told that we do have some schools for deaf people. I believe they do but I did not see a single person sign to another. I was frequently asked to notice the strips of concrete tread engraved into sidewalks. I was told that these were to help the blind. But I never saw a single vision impaired person, no white canes, no guide dogs.
Then came the final question. What about people with learning problems or emotional problems. That was when the looks got really confused. Often people just said "we don't have any". Now granted with as many people as China has there are many jobs that can be managed with limited cognition. For example, people sweep the curbs of major highways with brooms made of bamboo. They wash down the road dividers with mop like hand tools. Things are clean in China that Americans have no expectation of being clean or expect a machine to come along and do the job.
But the people doing these jobs looked just like everyone else. We did not see a single person who was visibly disabled. By contrast, on the relatively short hop from Chicago to the east coast on our return, there was a boy who looked to be about 12. He also looked to be and acted as someone with autism. Right there, right away, barely back in our country was a person with a disability.
Where are they in China? Surely China must have its share of kids with disabling syndromes. Here is what is scary. China has a one child policy. There are severe sanctions for failure to adhere, even to the extreme in some areas of forced abortion. Are these children allowed to die at birth? Are they given up for adoption? China still has orphanages and still allows westerners to adopt out.
These children have to be born and they have to be somewhere- but where are they?
Tuesday, July 1, 2014
Lots of Sound and Fury...
The news was all abuzz in the last week about the connection of student test scores to teacher evaluation. Federal law, No Child Left Behind, required testing for almost every elementary school year and 3 high stakes tests in high school in English, math and science. Then along came Race to The Top, President Obama's contribution to the federal muddle of improving education. In order to get Race to the Top money a state had to link student test scores to teacher evaluation. The recommended percentage was a 50% linkage. In the beginning, teacher unions and local school systems went along with the game to get the money. Notably in Maryland, Montgomery County and Frederick County refused to play. So when Maryland got 250 mil, they got zip.
But now the piper must be paid and folks are having lots of second thoughts. Principal's are recommending a new evaluation processes, some of which do not include the linkage to testing. In Maryland the State Board recently approved counting test scores as 20% of the teacher's evaluation. Whatever happened to the 50%? Reality and push back.
Now there comes a pledge by unions, the local school boards and the state school board to agree to work together to come up with a new plan. Some principals and school systems have gone so far as to having principals and teachers establish learning objectives at the beginning of the school year and evaluate teachers based on the achievement of those objectives. But here's the rub. Many of those objectives are so innocuous that they would be almost impossible NOT to achieve, as in raising overall math achievement by x% without naming the measuring stick nor doing pre and post testing.
The fact is, what are all these people jumping and shouting about. Unfortunately a teacher's evaluation has zip to do with the salary the teacher will receive each year. That is determined by the extra degrees a person has and the years of service. And by the way, research has shown that those extra degrees are expensive in salary but do not provide a commensurate improvement in teaching ability. But they do look nice in the statistics of staff education.
Why don't we just start with getting rid of bad teachers. Every principal knows who they are. And so does every union because they are protecting them from losing their jobs. Data seem to show that roughly 10% of all teachers are ineffective. If the unions cared about something besides their own health and welfare benefits they would want to clean up the profession as well. But they don't.
So the bottom line is 20%, 50% who cares about degree- it's evaluation that no one is really interested in doing anything about. We just keep throwing up straw men to argue about. Keeps us occupied and away from the real issues.
But now the piper must be paid and folks are having lots of second thoughts. Principal's are recommending a new evaluation processes, some of which do not include the linkage to testing. In Maryland the State Board recently approved counting test scores as 20% of the teacher's evaluation. Whatever happened to the 50%? Reality and push back.
Now there comes a pledge by unions, the local school boards and the state school board to agree to work together to come up with a new plan. Some principals and school systems have gone so far as to having principals and teachers establish learning objectives at the beginning of the school year and evaluate teachers based on the achievement of those objectives. But here's the rub. Many of those objectives are so innocuous that they would be almost impossible NOT to achieve, as in raising overall math achievement by x% without naming the measuring stick nor doing pre and post testing.
The fact is, what are all these people jumping and shouting about. Unfortunately a teacher's evaluation has zip to do with the salary the teacher will receive each year. That is determined by the extra degrees a person has and the years of service. And by the way, research has shown that those extra degrees are expensive in salary but do not provide a commensurate improvement in teaching ability. But they do look nice in the statistics of staff education.
Why don't we just start with getting rid of bad teachers. Every principal knows who they are. And so does every union because they are protecting them from losing their jobs. Data seem to show that roughly 10% of all teachers are ineffective. If the unions cared about something besides their own health and welfare benefits they would want to clean up the profession as well. But they don't.
So the bottom line is 20%, 50% who cares about degree- it's evaluation that no one is really interested in doing anything about. We just keep throwing up straw men to argue about. Keeps us occupied and away from the real issues.
Tuesday, June 24, 2014
And then there were 15...
Originally the idea behind the Common Core curriculum was to establish some sort of national baseline for curriculum so that all states would in essence march to the same drummer. The idea for Common Core came from the governors of the individual states. It has never been a federal mandated program.
Next came the idea to assess whether or not students had mastered the skill set of Common Core. In Maryland Common Core has gotten such a bad reputation that administrators took the label off the can and changed it to College and Career Readiness. Please note we are still sticking with the CC :)
It didn't take long for the idea of a common assessment to fall away. Most of the west coast states and the northern tier went with a group called Smarter Balance Consortium. There are 22 states in that collection. Some of the New England and Great Lake states went with a consortium known as PARCC, Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers. One state, Pennsylvania, uses both. Not sure how that is going to work out.
States have been dropping out of PARCC on a consistent basis. The latest to go is Tennessee. Its legislature didn't exactly drop PARCC, it just decreed that Tennessee would stay with its own state assessments. With Tennessee dropping out PARCC is down to 14 states and the District of Columbia.
Fifteen of these United States are choosing none of the above. The tests are not supposed to be widely used until the 2014-15 school year. However, this past school year has been the pilot year and there were a number of issues that turned up.
There are multiple reasons advanced for the various state behaviors. Some states are insisting that they do not want to spend the money on the consortia assessments. This approach totally ignores the economies of scale that are clear in the group development. Others are saying that states like Tennessee will be embarrassed when their students are compared to students in Maryland and Massachusetts whose school systems are routinely highly ranked in the country.
All of this begs the question: Do these assessments, state developed or consortia developed truly measure learning? That is the big question and so far no one has answered it.
Next came the idea to assess whether or not students had mastered the skill set of Common Core. In Maryland Common Core has gotten such a bad reputation that administrators took the label off the can and changed it to College and Career Readiness. Please note we are still sticking with the CC :)
It didn't take long for the idea of a common assessment to fall away. Most of the west coast states and the northern tier went with a group called Smarter Balance Consortium. There are 22 states in that collection. Some of the New England and Great Lake states went with a consortium known as PARCC, Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers. One state, Pennsylvania, uses both. Not sure how that is going to work out.
States have been dropping out of PARCC on a consistent basis. The latest to go is Tennessee. Its legislature didn't exactly drop PARCC, it just decreed that Tennessee would stay with its own state assessments. With Tennessee dropping out PARCC is down to 14 states and the District of Columbia.
Fifteen of these United States are choosing none of the above. The tests are not supposed to be widely used until the 2014-15 school year. However, this past school year has been the pilot year and there were a number of issues that turned up.
There are multiple reasons advanced for the various state behaviors. Some states are insisting that they do not want to spend the money on the consortia assessments. This approach totally ignores the economies of scale that are clear in the group development. Others are saying that states like Tennessee will be embarrassed when their students are compared to students in Maryland and Massachusetts whose school systems are routinely highly ranked in the country.
All of this begs the question: Do these assessments, state developed or consortia developed truly measure learning? That is the big question and so far no one has answered it.
Tuesday, June 17, 2014
Tenure: Love it or Leave it
Depending on whom you ask, tenure is either saving the teaching field or killing it. A California court has just ruled that the California tenure law is unconstitutional because it deprives children of good teachers. Personally I think tenure has lived a good long life and now it is time for it to slip peacefully into its grave.
First, some history. Tenure came at a time when teachers were hired and fired based on lots of things, many of them having nothing to do with the ability to help children learn. A teacher could be hired because the right political party was in local power and a contribution had been made to the winning candidate. A teacher could be hired because she (and almost always a woman) belonged to the right church or had "good" family background. Likewise, teachers could be fired for being in the "family way" or even just getting married. If the parties switched control teachers would be fired. If a teacher taught a lesson that was thought to be against the mores of that community, out she went. So teachers needed the protection of tenure to make sure their jobs were not sustained by the whims of those currently in power.
Fast forward to today. Between tenure and the teachers' unions it is almost impossible to terminate a teacher. The procedures are long and arduous and if even one step is skipped, administrators must go back to step one. Add to that the fact that a teacher can request a transfer to another principal who might not be as methodical in following all the steps. I could tell you some stories of tenured teachers that would make your taxpayer dollars curl up into a crumbled ball, yet on they stay, getting raises year after year for just living and breathing. Teacher quality has no current place in teacher salary. Tenure protects the good teachers and the bad teachers. But let's be honest, there is a shortage of good teachers and there are very few great teachers- these people hardly need protection.
There is no longer any issue of firing someone because of marriage, religion, pregnancy or even in most places sexual orientation. We don't need to worry about teaching blasphemous curriculum or protecting academic freedom because curriculum is so controlled in public schools teachers complain about how few choices they do have. Did anyone say Common Core.
So what is the remaining purpose of tenure today? Simply to protect the weakest links from being removed from the teaching force. Somewhere along the line we have totally lost sight of the purpose of schools and teaching. It is for children to learn. Clearly children learn better with good teachers. It is unconscionable that we are using tenure to protect the weakest teachers while sacrificing children's learning.
I am sure the teacher unions have other reasons for tenure, I just can't think of them
First, some history. Tenure came at a time when teachers were hired and fired based on lots of things, many of them having nothing to do with the ability to help children learn. A teacher could be hired because the right political party was in local power and a contribution had been made to the winning candidate. A teacher could be hired because she (and almost always a woman) belonged to the right church or had "good" family background. Likewise, teachers could be fired for being in the "family way" or even just getting married. If the parties switched control teachers would be fired. If a teacher taught a lesson that was thought to be against the mores of that community, out she went. So teachers needed the protection of tenure to make sure their jobs were not sustained by the whims of those currently in power.
Fast forward to today. Between tenure and the teachers' unions it is almost impossible to terminate a teacher. The procedures are long and arduous and if even one step is skipped, administrators must go back to step one. Add to that the fact that a teacher can request a transfer to another principal who might not be as methodical in following all the steps. I could tell you some stories of tenured teachers that would make your taxpayer dollars curl up into a crumbled ball, yet on they stay, getting raises year after year for just living and breathing. Teacher quality has no current place in teacher salary. Tenure protects the good teachers and the bad teachers. But let's be honest, there is a shortage of good teachers and there are very few great teachers- these people hardly need protection.
There is no longer any issue of firing someone because of marriage, religion, pregnancy or even in most places sexual orientation. We don't need to worry about teaching blasphemous curriculum or protecting academic freedom because curriculum is so controlled in public schools teachers complain about how few choices they do have. Did anyone say Common Core.
So what is the remaining purpose of tenure today? Simply to protect the weakest links from being removed from the teaching force. Somewhere along the line we have totally lost sight of the purpose of schools and teaching. It is for children to learn. Clearly children learn better with good teachers. It is unconscionable that we are using tenure to protect the weakest teachers while sacrificing children's learning.
I am sure the teacher unions have other reasons for tenure, I just can't think of them
Tuesday, June 10, 2014
What really counts in student achievement
School systems have struggled for ages on how to get kids to achieve more in school. Excessive absenteeism, failure to learn to read at an early age and teen pregnancy have all ranked right at the top. Now that these issues are being addressed in a strong manner, why is it that some kids are still not achieving.
Turns out that the most common reason for dropping out of school is that kids are just not motivated to stay. The question of what drives one student to stick out the 4 years of high school while another equally talented kid does not has just seemed really elusive.
Education Week did a survey of teachers and school-based administrators as to what they thought was the difference between those who graduate and those who quit. Overwhelmingly, the respondents felt that student engagement and motivation were the key reasons students stayed to graduate. Teacher quality and school climate were second and third respectively. Family background came in dead last.
So the question remains what do schools do to create that motivation and engagement. Once we acknowledge that they are partly wired into the human DNA at creation, how do we as educators manage the areas we can influence.
It would seem to me that this current drumbeat on test scores and the heavy emphasis on reading and math is going to beat the joy out of kids whose reason for being in school is something other than academic achievement. If we take away sports, performing arts, studio art, and other hands on activities we have taken away the "carrot" and schools are left with only the stick to beat in academic skills. Once students reach the quitting age they can get away from that stick.
We need to return to the time when comprehensive schools really meant comprehensive. We need to motivate kids with many thing and understand that each of us are drawn to different thing. Then we will get the motivation and engagement we need to make kids stick around to complete their high school education.
Turns out that the most common reason for dropping out of school is that kids are just not motivated to stay. The question of what drives one student to stick out the 4 years of high school while another equally talented kid does not has just seemed really elusive.
Education Week did a survey of teachers and school-based administrators as to what they thought was the difference between those who graduate and those who quit. Overwhelmingly, the respondents felt that student engagement and motivation were the key reasons students stayed to graduate. Teacher quality and school climate were second and third respectively. Family background came in dead last.
So the question remains what do schools do to create that motivation and engagement. Once we acknowledge that they are partly wired into the human DNA at creation, how do we as educators manage the areas we can influence.
It would seem to me that this current drumbeat on test scores and the heavy emphasis on reading and math is going to beat the joy out of kids whose reason for being in school is something other than academic achievement. If we take away sports, performing arts, studio art, and other hands on activities we have taken away the "carrot" and schools are left with only the stick to beat in academic skills. Once students reach the quitting age they can get away from that stick.
We need to return to the time when comprehensive schools really meant comprehensive. We need to motivate kids with many thing and understand that each of us are drawn to different thing. Then we will get the motivation and engagement we need to make kids stick around to complete their high school education.
Tuesday, June 3, 2014
What happens after graduation
It is the season for graduation. All over the country we are launching our kids out into the big wide world. What happens then?
Well if you are a person on the autism spectrum (ASD) your hopes don't look quite as high. In fact, recent studies show that 35% of people with autism are just sitting at home. Not employed, not attending post-secondary education- just sitting at home.
Why is that since a majority of people on the spectrum are high functioning and should be able to handle college and/or a job. I think there are several reasons.
One of the most defining elements of people with autism is lack of social skills. Whereas the majority of people pick up social skills by watching the habits of others, people with autism do not. So they may have difficulty sticking with a conversation and interjecting their own topic that has nothing to do with what is being discussed. They often appear to be very self-centered, having a great deal of difficulty taking another's perspective. Their idea of person space can get confused causing them to stand too close to the person with whom they are speaking. All of these deficits need to be overcome if they are to successfully move into a work place.
Another reason I believe they are underemployed is the failure to capitalize on a special interest. Many people with ASD have a particular interest. Sometimes it is very difficult to get them to move off the topic to discuss anything else. But that special interest can often be a pathway to a job. And it will be a job about which they are passionate. Too much energy is spent getting the individual to move past the special interest rather than capitalizing on it.
Failure to look at the benefits of having autism and matching those benefits to the job at hand. People with autism do better in a work environment that does not demand a great deal of sociability. As noted above they are weak in social skills. People with ASD may also appear rigid and in some ways they are. Being rigid about doing something the same way all the time can be a work benefit if a proper match has been made between job requirements and personal skills.
A good transition program in high school is critical to the post secondary success of a person with autism. Too often this program is not available to students in the public schools. There is a one size fits all approach and if the student gets admitted to a college, then everyone seems to be content that the job has been done. This is not so and the same problems that existed in high school pop up again in 4-5 years or sooner than that if the student drops out of college.
Families must work VERY hard to get that transition program and to make sure that the skill deficits of a child with autism are addressed before the entitlement to a free and appropriate education expires.
Well if you are a person on the autism spectrum (ASD) your hopes don't look quite as high. In fact, recent studies show that 35% of people with autism are just sitting at home. Not employed, not attending post-secondary education- just sitting at home.
Why is that since a majority of people on the spectrum are high functioning and should be able to handle college and/or a job. I think there are several reasons.
One of the most defining elements of people with autism is lack of social skills. Whereas the majority of people pick up social skills by watching the habits of others, people with autism do not. So they may have difficulty sticking with a conversation and interjecting their own topic that has nothing to do with what is being discussed. They often appear to be very self-centered, having a great deal of difficulty taking another's perspective. Their idea of person space can get confused causing them to stand too close to the person with whom they are speaking. All of these deficits need to be overcome if they are to successfully move into a work place.
Another reason I believe they are underemployed is the failure to capitalize on a special interest. Many people with ASD have a particular interest. Sometimes it is very difficult to get them to move off the topic to discuss anything else. But that special interest can often be a pathway to a job. And it will be a job about which they are passionate. Too much energy is spent getting the individual to move past the special interest rather than capitalizing on it.
Failure to look at the benefits of having autism and matching those benefits to the job at hand. People with autism do better in a work environment that does not demand a great deal of sociability. As noted above they are weak in social skills. People with ASD may also appear rigid and in some ways they are. Being rigid about doing something the same way all the time can be a work benefit if a proper match has been made between job requirements and personal skills.
A good transition program in high school is critical to the post secondary success of a person with autism. Too often this program is not available to students in the public schools. There is a one size fits all approach and if the student gets admitted to a college, then everyone seems to be content that the job has been done. This is not so and the same problems that existed in high school pop up again in 4-5 years or sooner than that if the student drops out of college.
Families must work VERY hard to get that transition program and to make sure that the skill deficits of a child with autism are addressed before the entitlement to a free and appropriate education expires.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)