A recent Gallup poll investigated how engaged todays high school student are. The results were in some ways comforting. Students are looking for teachers who make them feel exited about the future and schools that are committed to their individual strengths. The poll assessed feelings about friendships, a feeling of safety and praise for good work. In response to these questions, researchers concluded that 55% of the student surveyed were actively engaged in their schools and school work.
The most exciting things about these data is that there is a high correlation between feeling engaged and being a successful learner. The downside is that the increased emphasis on test scores and higher standards can force teachers to neglect individual needs in favor of boosting those scores.
But here is the really sad news. Among the general public, a different Gallup poll found that 30% of workers feel engaged in their work. One might think that teachers would be even more engaged given what they do and the importance of their sense of engagement to kids' learning. Unfortunately that is not the case. Teachers were polled at 31% as engaged in their work. This difference is not even a statistical difference. What is really bad, is that of ALL the occupations surveyed teachers fell dead last when it came to feeling that their opinions mattered at work. And given recent events their feelings are probably an accurate impression or reality.
There is a serious disconnect here. As a nation we need students to feel engaged. We need them to be high achievers and we know that engagement correlates to high achievement. Right now we think that test scores measure high achievement. Hence teachers are pushed to ensure high achievement on test scores. Their teaching is even evaluated by the test scores.
On the other hand, we are cutting teachers out of all the important stuff. We have allowed people who do not teach, have not a clue HOW to teach, to make the rules of engagement for those who are teaching and know how to do it. Why don't the teachers' unions take up this call for teacher empowerment and lay off of salaries and benefits for just a few minutes.
Tuesday, May 27, 2014
Tuesday, May 20, 2014
Chicago Teachers weigh in on Common Core
The Chicago teacher's union has weighed in on Common Core and it is not good. Teachers around the country have issued concerns about Common Core, some valid and some not so much. Of course, the first concern is a holdover from Race to the Top. In order for states to get Race to the Top money they had to link teacher evaluations to some sort of objective student achievement measurement. That link alone caused concern among teachers.
The along came Common Core with its, depending on your viewpoint, very high standards or developmentally inappropriate standards. It didn't take very long for independent organizations to ramp up the issues by developing tests that would measure achievement on Common Core standards.
It was the perfect storm. No Child Left Behind gave us high stakes testing, Race to the Top linked that testing to teacher evaluation and then Common Core set a very high bar for that testing and linkage.
In passing its resolution against Common Core, the Chicago teacher's union does not differentiate between the standards and their implementation. The American Federation of Teachers and the National Education Association have both supported the standards but not the implementation. In voting against the standards, the Union has said that they "contain numerous developmentally inappropriate expectations", "reflect the interests and priorities of corporate education reformers" and "emphasize pedagogical techniques, such as close reading, out of proportion to the actual value of the methods".
In my view two out of three isn't bad. I completely agree that the standards are extremely inappropriate for children's developmental level and also agree some of the methods emphasized are out of synch with reality. Once these standards are fully implemented I think that situation will become even more evident. You cannot decree development. However, I think it is a good idea to align education with the workplace if we have any hope of preparing a work force that is ready for the work place.
The along came Common Core with its, depending on your viewpoint, very high standards or developmentally inappropriate standards. It didn't take very long for independent organizations to ramp up the issues by developing tests that would measure achievement on Common Core standards.
It was the perfect storm. No Child Left Behind gave us high stakes testing, Race to the Top linked that testing to teacher evaluation and then Common Core set a very high bar for that testing and linkage.
In passing its resolution against Common Core, the Chicago teacher's union does not differentiate between the standards and their implementation. The American Federation of Teachers and the National Education Association have both supported the standards but not the implementation. In voting against the standards, the Union has said that they "contain numerous developmentally inappropriate expectations", "reflect the interests and priorities of corporate education reformers" and "emphasize pedagogical techniques, such as close reading, out of proportion to the actual value of the methods".
In my view two out of three isn't bad. I completely agree that the standards are extremely inappropriate for children's developmental level and also agree some of the methods emphasized are out of synch with reality. Once these standards are fully implemented I think that situation will become even more evident. You cannot decree development. However, I think it is a good idea to align education with the workplace if we have any hope of preparing a work force that is ready for the work place.
Tuesday, May 13, 2014
US students and Problem Solving
The headline read: "US Students Score Above Average on New Problem Solving Test". Well that certainly sounded very good. However, it didn't take very long to realize that "above average" was really not so hot. The test is the Program for International Student Assessment or PISA. It has sub tests for reading, math and science. In the U.S. 1,273 15 year old students were tested in 162 schools. The opening report states that in modern life all success is based on problem solving. One could hardly disagree with that.
The mean score for the test for 2012 is 500. The U.S. mean was 508. We were outscored by ten countries that participated in the assessment; including Singapore, Korea, Japan, Canada, the United Kingdom, Estonia, France, Italy and Germany. So while our scores were above average, we were hardly stellar among the most advanced countries. We did beat out Austria, Ireland and Sweden but not by a great deal.
So why is that. First of all the countries with the highest scores are hardly known for the advancement of creativity. American students did do much better on tasks that required they scout out some information before they could respond to the problem's solution as opposed to other tasks where all the information was given but students had to use the given information to solve the problem.
There was some good news in the report. In the US, girls scores equaled those of boys, even though the highest scores went to boys. Another interesting result that occurred with most countries was that socio-economic status did not differentiate high and low scores to the extent that it did with academic areas.
All of this information should inform how we teach students and measure what they have learned. Unfortunately I doubt that it will. We will go on measuring facts and knowledge. This test in the problem solving area is interactive and requires students to use information to solve problems, not simply repeat what they have been told. To my mind this test measures the fruits of learning.
The mean score for the test for 2012 is 500. The U.S. mean was 508. We were outscored by ten countries that participated in the assessment; including Singapore, Korea, Japan, Canada, the United Kingdom, Estonia, France, Italy and Germany. So while our scores were above average, we were hardly stellar among the most advanced countries. We did beat out Austria, Ireland and Sweden but not by a great deal.
So why is that. First of all the countries with the highest scores are hardly known for the advancement of creativity. American students did do much better on tasks that required they scout out some information before they could respond to the problem's solution as opposed to other tasks where all the information was given but students had to use the given information to solve the problem.
There was some good news in the report. In the US, girls scores equaled those of boys, even though the highest scores went to boys. Another interesting result that occurred with most countries was that socio-economic status did not differentiate high and low scores to the extent that it did with academic areas.
All of this information should inform how we teach students and measure what they have learned. Unfortunately I doubt that it will. We will go on measuring facts and knowledge. This test in the problem solving area is interactive and requires students to use information to solve problems, not simply repeat what they have been told. To my mind this test measures the fruits of learning.
Tuesday, May 6, 2014
Running out of control
We keep hearing that it is important for our teachers to be smart and competent. We want them to be leaders! We want them to be able to teach challenging curriculum. We want them to be knowledgeable. We want a lot!
Then we assign them to a classroom. We give them a curriculum for which they had no input whatsoever. We give them a "pacing guide". The pacing guide "guides" the pace at which they teach the children. It is as much guidance as a train schedule is guidance for the train conductor. Teachers had better be on the right page at the right day. The so-called good curricula even tell the teachers how to teach the content over which they have no control.
Of course, teachers also belong to a union. The union contract spells out the hours they are to work and what they will be paid. They can work brilliantly or not and what they will be paid will be the same.
OK, so we want smart, competent leaders in our classrooms. Exactly what would these smart competent leaders do in a classroom. They don't have much to lead. The methodology, the curriculum, and the pace of their tasks have been predetermined by other leaders. The have no opportunity to increase their income by working smarter or harder.
If a teacher is smart and competent, she might want to change the pace of the curriculum delivery depending on the knowledge and skills of her students. Sorry can't do that, pacing "guide" does not allow that. If a teacher is a leader, she might want to add some curriculum that meets the needs of a particular area or community. Sorry can't do that either, the curriculum does not allow that.
If a teacher is ambitious she might want to work harder and achieve more so she can earn more money. Sorry she can't do that because the union contract spells out what she will earn independent of skill or performance.
We can't even keep our teachers safe. Zero tolerance policies for physical aggression, drugs and alcohol have been determined to be politically incorrect and have been discarded in the interest of being more PC. We aren't helping these kids with these problems, if we don't treat the problem while still protecting the rest of the student body and staff.
Why don't we just admit that teaching today has become a pink collar occupation. Of course, even those women who used to work in secretarial positions have the opportunity to move into administrative assistant positions where they have more degrees of freedom than teachers do. Once we accept what we have done to the teaching profession, and acknowledge that it is no longer a profession, we might do a better hiring job. Right now we snow young grads into believing they are entering a profession where they have some control. Once they find out the truth, they leave in droves. Perhaps if we did truth in job advertising we might not be losing 3 out of 5 new teachers in the first 5 years.
Then we assign them to a classroom. We give them a curriculum for which they had no input whatsoever. We give them a "pacing guide". The pacing guide "guides" the pace at which they teach the children. It is as much guidance as a train schedule is guidance for the train conductor. Teachers had better be on the right page at the right day. The so-called good curricula even tell the teachers how to teach the content over which they have no control.
Of course, teachers also belong to a union. The union contract spells out the hours they are to work and what they will be paid. They can work brilliantly or not and what they will be paid will be the same.
OK, so we want smart, competent leaders in our classrooms. Exactly what would these smart competent leaders do in a classroom. They don't have much to lead. The methodology, the curriculum, and the pace of their tasks have been predetermined by other leaders. The have no opportunity to increase their income by working smarter or harder.
If a teacher is smart and competent, she might want to change the pace of the curriculum delivery depending on the knowledge and skills of her students. Sorry can't do that, pacing "guide" does not allow that. If a teacher is a leader, she might want to add some curriculum that meets the needs of a particular area or community. Sorry can't do that either, the curriculum does not allow that.
If a teacher is ambitious she might want to work harder and achieve more so she can earn more money. Sorry she can't do that because the union contract spells out what she will earn independent of skill or performance.
We can't even keep our teachers safe. Zero tolerance policies for physical aggression, drugs and alcohol have been determined to be politically incorrect and have been discarded in the interest of being more PC. We aren't helping these kids with these problems, if we don't treat the problem while still protecting the rest of the student body and staff.
Why don't we just admit that teaching today has become a pink collar occupation. Of course, even those women who used to work in secretarial positions have the opportunity to move into administrative assistant positions where they have more degrees of freedom than teachers do. Once we accept what we have done to the teaching profession, and acknowledge that it is no longer a profession, we might do a better hiring job. Right now we snow young grads into believing they are entering a profession where they have some control. Once they find out the truth, they leave in droves. Perhaps if we did truth in job advertising we might not be losing 3 out of 5 new teachers in the first 5 years.
Tuesday, April 29, 2014
Where oh where will a superintendent be found?
There is a new approach to leadership that has been happening in the last 5-10 years in this country. A school system needs a new superintendent. In the good old days, the Board of Education looked at the current system leadership and picked the next leader. It was also not unusual for that next leader to have been groomed by the previous leader. Such a quaint system, but it made for the orderly transition of leadership and the system itself was protected from upheaval. And, of course, each new superintendent added his or her stamp to the way the system was run but there were not any huge breaks from the past.
Then came a time, when the common wisdom became we need to get someone from outside the system, we need new ideas, we need a shake up wizard. Along with that notion came the present era of rock star superintendents. These are folks who wander the country ever moving up the salary and system size ladder. Their only interest in the new employer is how it will help them to climb to the next rung of the ladder. When they finally get to whatever is the top of their ladder, they leave the aggravation of being a system superintendent and go to work for a big foundation or educational media company from whence they can sell products to former colleagues.
You will notice that rock star superintendents rarely stay more than 3-4 years in each new post. Their goal is to make a short term splash so they can tout these achievements to the next system position they are seeking. They certainly are not there when the fall-out comes from their mistakes. Oh and be sure you note that each new superintendent says how much the system means to them and they are there for the duration. What they do not say is just how long that duration will be.
The most recent Baltimore City superintendent extorted a huge contract from the Board AND an assurance that he would stay as long as they wanted him and that the Board, his employer, could not challenge or question what he did. The Board, for whatever reason, bought into the idea. Of course, he broke his contract and left after 4 years to be on the faculty at a university. But the Board did not learn from experience and hired his successor also from an outside district.
So now we have situations where schools systems are routinely thrown into upheaval by new leadership, each new leader working fast and furiously to leave a footprint for the next job. Existing leaders who have given their professional lives to the system are routinely marginalized.
No new curriculum is going to fix this problem.
Then came a time, when the common wisdom became we need to get someone from outside the system, we need new ideas, we need a shake up wizard. Along with that notion came the present era of rock star superintendents. These are folks who wander the country ever moving up the salary and system size ladder. Their only interest in the new employer is how it will help them to climb to the next rung of the ladder. When they finally get to whatever is the top of their ladder, they leave the aggravation of being a system superintendent and go to work for a big foundation or educational media company from whence they can sell products to former colleagues.
You will notice that rock star superintendents rarely stay more than 3-4 years in each new post. Their goal is to make a short term splash so they can tout these achievements to the next system position they are seeking. They certainly are not there when the fall-out comes from their mistakes. Oh and be sure you note that each new superintendent says how much the system means to them and they are there for the duration. What they do not say is just how long that duration will be.
The most recent Baltimore City superintendent extorted a huge contract from the Board AND an assurance that he would stay as long as they wanted him and that the Board, his employer, could not challenge or question what he did. The Board, for whatever reason, bought into the idea. Of course, he broke his contract and left after 4 years to be on the faculty at a university. But the Board did not learn from experience and hired his successor also from an outside district.
So now we have situations where schools systems are routinely thrown into upheaval by new leadership, each new leader working fast and furiously to leave a footprint for the next job. Existing leaders who have given their professional lives to the system are routinely marginalized.
No new curriculum is going to fix this problem.
Tuesday, April 22, 2014
People for the ethical treatment of kids
I am told that cheating is on the rise in all schools. Students are accessing term papers online, are texting each other during tests, giving other students a heads up re: upcoming questions on quizzes. I am not sure that we are seeing a spate of poor ethics or if the tools for being dishonest have just become so much more efficient that more people are using them.
Whatever the reason it bothers me. Years ago when high stakes testing became part of No Child Left Behind, I mentioned to someone that the higher stakes would cause more cheating by kids and staff. People seemed stunned that I would have such a low opinion of my professional colleagues, not to mention the students. Turned out I was correct. My problem is I think we are teaching the wrong thing in the way we handle testing.
First of all, every survey will tell you that the traits employers value most is cooperation among team members, problem solving and multi-cultural acceptance.
Yet our testing system rewards just the opposite. Students are tested alone. If you ask for help, that is cheating and not allowed. You may NOT ask for any help. If you are weak in one area and a classmate is strong in that area, you may not ask that person to team with you in doing the test. Yet that is certainly what you would do in the workplace and your employer would value that effort.
Tests are mostly designed for knowledge recall. Here is an area where technology soars. Why bother to store all that information in your head when you can find facts on the internet faster than a heartbeat. Instead wouldn't it be better if we taught the kids WHERE to look for the answers and HOW to evaluate the information found. Wouldn't it be ever so much better if we gave students a problem to solve, had them pick some team members and then present their solution to the problem.
That approach would do a couple of things. First of all, it is hard to find a pre-done paper when there is no paper involved. Since each assignment would be unique, it would be more difficult to find the complete answer online and finding the facts you needed to work with would be quite ok. Secondly, this "test" would mimic the "tests" students would find on the job when they are employees.
One of the things we have learned in this information age is that facts are not immutable for long. All of us need to learn to work in a changing world and deal with new information. We need to work with others to solve problems. We need to get along. With the new Common Core testing, the situation is going to get even more out of synch with the real world waiting for today's students. Let's prepare them now and make school relevant to where they will be, not where they are.
Whatever the reason it bothers me. Years ago when high stakes testing became part of No Child Left Behind, I mentioned to someone that the higher stakes would cause more cheating by kids and staff. People seemed stunned that I would have such a low opinion of my professional colleagues, not to mention the students. Turned out I was correct. My problem is I think we are teaching the wrong thing in the way we handle testing.
First of all, every survey will tell you that the traits employers value most is cooperation among team members, problem solving and multi-cultural acceptance.
Yet our testing system rewards just the opposite. Students are tested alone. If you ask for help, that is cheating and not allowed. You may NOT ask for any help. If you are weak in one area and a classmate is strong in that area, you may not ask that person to team with you in doing the test. Yet that is certainly what you would do in the workplace and your employer would value that effort.
Tests are mostly designed for knowledge recall. Here is an area where technology soars. Why bother to store all that information in your head when you can find facts on the internet faster than a heartbeat. Instead wouldn't it be better if we taught the kids WHERE to look for the answers and HOW to evaluate the information found. Wouldn't it be ever so much better if we gave students a problem to solve, had them pick some team members and then present their solution to the problem.
That approach would do a couple of things. First of all, it is hard to find a pre-done paper when there is no paper involved. Since each assignment would be unique, it would be more difficult to find the complete answer online and finding the facts you needed to work with would be quite ok. Secondly, this "test" would mimic the "tests" students would find on the job when they are employees.
One of the things we have learned in this information age is that facts are not immutable for long. All of us need to learn to work in a changing world and deal with new information. We need to work with others to solve problems. We need to get along. With the new Common Core testing, the situation is going to get even more out of synch with the real world waiting for today's students. Let's prepare them now and make school relevant to where they will be, not where they are.
Tuesday, April 15, 2014
Common Core Uniting the Right and the Left
Can anything more be written about the Common Core that will further enlighten anyone. Well maybe the civil disobedience it has stoked. But one thing is sure, it has united the right and the left in clear opposition but for different reasons.
The right, particularly the Tea Party, denounces the Common Core as yet another opportunity for a federal take over of our schools. Of course, they are wrong about that as they are wrong about so many things. Common Core is not a federal program, it came from an attempt by the nation's governors to standardize what is taught across our country. It is true that federal funds have supported the development of the testing programs that Common Core has spawned. Nonetheless, right wing legislators across the country are trying to dismantle CC through direct legislative mandates to defunding any efforts to develop curriculum and/or testing.
The left wing is also opposed to Common Core. Teachers and their unions do not like the link to their evaluations and testing. Race to the Top, a federal funding voluntary program, required that teacher evaluations be linked to testing programs. And the Common Core testing programs are what we have now. Folks who are just anti-testing in general are also opposed to the program.
Oh and then there are just ordinary families who do not like to see the melt-downs that their kids are experiencing when testing season begins. They are also not happy with the preparation for the tests. Anecdotal evidence seems to be that families are so unhappy that they are organizing civil disobedience stay at home during test days. Sort of like, "hell no, we won't go" on test days.
This year's testing is really more about testing the test than the kids. But the children still need to go through the experience for the test to get tested. It will be interesting to see what form this whole program looks like after all the stake holders weigh in. More to come, I am sure.
The right, particularly the Tea Party, denounces the Common Core as yet another opportunity for a federal take over of our schools. Of course, they are wrong about that as they are wrong about so many things. Common Core is not a federal program, it came from an attempt by the nation's governors to standardize what is taught across our country. It is true that federal funds have supported the development of the testing programs that Common Core has spawned. Nonetheless, right wing legislators across the country are trying to dismantle CC through direct legislative mandates to defunding any efforts to develop curriculum and/or testing.
The left wing is also opposed to Common Core. Teachers and their unions do not like the link to their evaluations and testing. Race to the Top, a federal funding voluntary program, required that teacher evaluations be linked to testing programs. And the Common Core testing programs are what we have now. Folks who are just anti-testing in general are also opposed to the program.
Oh and then there are just ordinary families who do not like to see the melt-downs that their kids are experiencing when testing season begins. They are also not happy with the preparation for the tests. Anecdotal evidence seems to be that families are so unhappy that they are organizing civil disobedience stay at home during test days. Sort of like, "hell no, we won't go" on test days.
This year's testing is really more about testing the test than the kids. But the children still need to go through the experience for the test to get tested. It will be interesting to see what form this whole program looks like after all the stake holders weigh in. More to come, I am sure.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)