Policy & Reform

Matthew Lynch published in Policy & Reform

Does school choice help or hurt students?

Last week over 10,000 schools and organizations across the country celebrated National School Choice Week with yellow scarves, marches on state capitols and a variety of independently planned events in all 50 states.

In some instances, these gatherings were met with resistance from teacher’s unions who accuse the organizers of the week of trying to create a hostile environment for traditional public schools by touting a family’s ability to choose other options. I don’t know the official motives of the week itself but it does bring up a point I’ve discussed before: Does the school choice movement hurt public schools?

Mississippi, which ranks last in student achievement in the nation, does not have charter school options just yet. It seems to me that any attempt to offer solutions to this cycle of student non-achievement would be welcomed, especially since public charter and magnet schools have shown some success in other low-performing states. On the other hand, by essentially privatizing education are we taking away precious resources from public school reform and hurting the students who stay in them?

National School Choice Week does not just emphasize magnet and charter schools. The official releases from the organization call it an all-inclusive “celebration of educational opportunity” that encompasses traditional public schools, magnet schools, charter schools, private schools, virtual schools and even homeschooling. No type of schooling is promoted over another and all positive celebrations are accepted.

By highlighting all the options, are parents more empowered (and students set up better for success) or are we undermining the great equalizer of our youth — the public school system?

 

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Matthew Lynch, Parental Involvement, Policy & Reform

Understanding Parental Involvement

When we discuss parental involvement in schools, we often concentrate on ways in which parental involvement can help schools perform better and how parents can help their children excel in learning. It is a well-known fact that parental involvement can help students achieve success in school; however, it is difficult to measure how much parental involvement is required of parents in order for them to help their children to improve their learning skills and performance.

Parental actions that obstruct the learning process and other educational goals are equally immeasurable. Comprehending the impact of parental involvement requires understanding deficiencies that reduce student performance, and providing parents with tools to diminish their effects. This same principle applies to understanding the ways that schools can encourage parental involvement in low income communities. Situations like these necessitate sensitivity to ethnicity, race, religious affiliation, linguistic challenges, single parenthood, and familial characteristics.

Parents are often influenced by their ethnic background when trying to help their children improve academically. It is imperative that school personnel understand the importance of the family’s cultural characteristics in the educational process. Schools should structure parental involvement programs that take advantage of the strong qualities individual parents bring to the schooling process, as a means for promoting improved relations between parents and the school. Interactions between parents and school personnel are meant to provide information and assistance to both the school and parents.

It is important to monitor how parents act on the instructions, information, and advice offered through such programs. Due to various cultural differences, some families may succeed in obtaining the maximum possible benefit of such interactional programs, while other families may fail to utilize these opportunities. Another factor to consider is the possibility of conflicts between parent’s cultural and linguistic background, and the social, linguistic, and cultural values existing in the school.

Schools often promote common ideals of a capitalistic culture, and, in doing so, present the impoverished, minorities, the disabled, and immigrants, as inferior. The success of parental involvement programs often depends on reaching parents living within different political, economic, cultural, and social realities. In order to help parents make better use of parental involvement programs, it is necessary to attend to these differences, and incorporate ways to meet the varied needs and expectations of parents within the parental involvement program.

The success of parental education and involvement programs depends on the ways parents can make use of their social, human, and financial resources to help their children perform better at school. Parents can also help their children improve their learning skills by providing attention to their children’s studies and participating in meaningful collaboration with school personnel and authorities. Historically, schools have played a major part in improving social conditions. Collaboration between schools and parents can help alleviate the challenges facing students who are living in families that have a lower socioeconomic status.

Policy makers must realize the importance of public schools and their role in facilitating the prosperity of our nation. Federal and state agencies have initiated various programs to improve the relationship between schools, parents, and communities. In order to increase parental involvement and reduce barriers that restrict parents from participating in the education system, it is essential to offer parent education for impoverished parents or parents with disabilities, so that they may learn better ways to boost their children’s learning skills.

The value of parental involvement programs has been well established. Effective parental involvement programs are best achieved when the program originates with the study of the school community, and then proceeds to develop instruction, and provide advice and information that reflects the circumstances, needs, and potential contributions of families who are a part of the school community.

Schools must be prepared for the fact that one outcome of effective parental involvement programs will be the desire of parents to become partners in the decision-making process existing in schools. Thus, school personnel must possess a genuine belief that shared responsibility for multiple aspects of the educational enterprise will result in improved learning environments for children and youth.

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Matthew Lynch, Policy & Reform

5 Years Later and We Are Still Waiting for Superman

By Matthew Lynch

Recently I viewed the documentary, Waiting for Superman, for the umpteenth time, and I noted that almost 5 years after the film’s September 24, 2010 U. S. premiere, the American educational system is still not living up to its potential. Sure, education reform was the phrase on the tip of everyone’s tongue, but after a year most of the fervor and commitment to educational change that was initially exhibited has all but subsided.

The comparisons with other developed countries show that the strongest nation in the world is still falling behind academically. The cost per pupil in the U.S. has soared to five times the level in the 1950s, after adjusting for inflation. With this kind of money being pumped into the system, why are many our school systems of such a low caliber, and further falling behind?

Statistics and common sense born of observation tell us that the biggest crisis in our schools is finding ways to educate students in low-income areas. However, as Waiting for Superman illustrates, our educational problems are not limited to poverty-stricken areas alone. As Lesley Chilcott, producer of the Waiting for Superman put it, “the dirty little secret… is that middle- and upper-class communities are suffering as well. When we talk about U.S. students ranking twenty-fifth in math, we’re not just talking about underserved communities, we’re talking overall.” Yet, despite decades of knowing that these problems exist, little improvements are being made to the system itself. Of course, everyone seemingly wants to improve America’s education system; they just do not seem to know or agree on how to do it.

The American public must believe that educational reform is a top priority issue in these times of severe economic troubles. It is understandable that, in today’s economy, people are primarily concerned about their jobs and putting food on the table. Upgrading education, although important to most, can hold a low priority in the mind of the average American, who is mostly concerned with keeping a roof over their head. The paradox here is that this is precisely the time to make that investment into education. When times are tough in an economy such as ours, workers need to improve their skills to compete effectively in the local (and global) marketplace. The education system is where people turn to acquire these skills.

Furthermore, enhanced skills and technological talents are going to be desperately needed in the future as America continues to struggle towards sustaining a dynamic 21st century labor force. Production is not getting easier and simpler — in fact, it is just the opposite. Along the same lines, workers down the road will need to be able to adapt to technologies that are just now being developed. If American students and workers find themselves in an educational system that cannot fulfill these necessary, required functions because it is sub-par, not only will these individuals and their families find little success in an economy that has left them behind; it will cripple America’s competitiveness.

Waiting for Superman has been criticized as being against teacher’s unions, placing the blame too squarely on the shoulders of educators, and misrepresenting educational statistics. Nevertheless, the film shined a bright spotlight on the harsh reality of our educational system, showing the exodus of middle and upper class children from our public schools; the sadness of the lottery system; and the general hopelessness that some express about our educational system and its future.

One segment of Waiting for Superman illustrates American self-confidence through an image of kids doing daredevil bike stunts, and then crashing. This scene shows, in a metaphorical sense, that while our students seem to have confidence, many do not have the skills to actually succeed.

A year later, Waiting for Superman still serves as a stark reminder of just how bad our educational system has become, and just how ineffective most of our efforts at improving it have been. The American educational system has reached a turning point, a time when things seem at their most dire, and yet many appear to simply sit idly by “Waiting for Superman.”

America needs to view this film as a public call to action, where each of us is summoned to be a Superman (or Superwoman, as the case may be), or at least to lend a hand in saving our educational system, perhaps without the flashy heroics and cape. Rather than waiting, we should strive towards getting every educator, educational leader, government official, parent, and citizen to educate themselves about the problems that exist in our educational system, and to work together to fix them.

What is most important is that we understand the deficiencies in our educational system, and strictly forbid placing blame — which rarely serves to encourage cooperation. Rather, we must demonstrate accountability for our situation and fulfill our responsibility to our children. Collectively, we must come together with an understanding that “Superman” is not coming to save our children, and it is up to us to work together to find innovative ways to rise to the challenge of fixing our education system.

The future must be planned for; now. It certainly will not be an overnight process. However, by taking positive, productive steps, one at a time, an enormous amount of ground can be covered in the coming years. If we simply work together, we can restore the U.S. educational system to its former preeminence, and give our children the bright futures they deserve in our great country and aboard. We must become the Super-citizens that we have been waiting for.

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Policy & Reform, Teachers

Math scores for 4th and 8th graders on the decline?

According to Edweek.org, math test scores for 4th and 8th grade students taking the NAEP (National Assessment of Educational Progress) exam might be on the decline.

The article notes that scores from the exam, which is taken every two years, are lower than they were in 2013.

“U.S. 4th and 8th grade students are performing worse in math, and somewhat worse in reading, than they were two years ago, according to new data from a national test.”

But Peggy Carr, commissioner of the organization that conducts the tests, said that the scores represented “an unexpected downturn.”

She also notes that the drop in scores isn’t considered to be a trend because the test is given every two years. In addition to the recent drop, EdWeek shows that math test scores are still higher than they were in the 1990s.

While the news isn’t all bad, it’s not necessarily all good. There is still an achievement gap between white and black students, and the majority of states saw a decline of some sort. The children who need the improvement the most are not seeing it, despite newer initiatives like those included in Common Core math.

So what does the drop in scores mean? That depends on how one looks at the scores and what they may represent. Perhaps this is just a temporary dip on the road to a rise overall. The test will be taken again in 2017, and if scores continue to decline, then we have a trend.

If the scores remain the same or increase, 2015 may be seen as an anomaly. Either way, its worth looking at what may have caused the drop this year.

 

Click here to read all our posts concerning the Achievement Gap.

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Matthew Lynch, Policy & Reform, Teachers

Necessary Shifts: A Change in K-12 Teacher Education

In the not-so-distant past, public schools used to represent the most major building block in the education and socialization of students outside of the home. Young minds were molded by the teachers, administrators and friends they met in the confines of the school setting. Teachers had the ability to teach in much more isolated circumstances, even ten years ago, than they are able to do today.

With respect to the students of the past, modern classrooms are full of sophisticated youngsters that show up with a detailed view of the world formed from more than home life experiences. Instant access to knowledge from the age a child can press a touchscreen on a Smartphone and widespread socialization from as young as six weeks old in the form of childcare atmospheres mean that kids arrive at Kindergarten with less naivety than previous generations. Teachers are not handed a clean slate but rather one that is already cluttered with random knowledge that must be fostered or remediated.

Teacher Education Innovation

It stands to reason that if students are changing, teachers need to change too. More specifically, the education that teachers receive needs to be modified to meet the modern needs of K – 12 classrooms. There are policy and practice changes taking place all over the world – many driven by teachers – that address the cultural shifts in the classroom. Some that show a lot of promise include:

  • Subject-specific recruiting by colleges and universities. The book Teaching 2030, written by 13 experts in K-12 classroom pedagogy, calls for education schools to stop letting in any and every education major in the broad sense of the subject area. Instead, the experts suggest that colleges become more selective to meet the demand of actual student need. Young people that are interested in teaching high-demand subject areas like mathematics, bilingual education, physical science and special education should be viewed as more valuable to institutions of higher learning. This needs-based philosophy addresses actual voids in the industry and better equips schools to meet students’ needs.
  • Virtual learning options. Though colleges often get all of the attention when it comes to online learning programs, K-12 education is also shifting more toward distance learning options. During the 2010-2011 school year, 1.8 million students in grades K-12 were enrolled in some type of distance learning program. That is up from just 50,000 in the 2000-2001 school year, according to the International Association for K-12 Online Learning. This is a trend that teachers-to-be simply cannot ignore. Virtual learning is not reserved for only those that can afford it; 40 U.S. states have state-run online programs and 30 of those states provide statewide, full-time K-12 schools. The University of Central Florida is one of the only schools to offer a virtual-school emphasis for education majors that lets students apprentice with Florida Virtual School instructors.
  • Continued classroom learning for administrators. Since the people at the top are generally the decision-makers, they should be required to return to the field every now and then. On the other hand, the teachers that are actually in the student trenches should be empowered to help change educational policy based on the reality of the modern classroom. The Center for Quality Teaching supports a “teacherpreneur” program that would “blur the lines… between those who teach… and those who lead.” Actionable strides toward closing the public education gap between teachers and administrators are necessary for real, effective change to take place in K-12 classrooms.

Public education in America needs teachers that are better trained to meet the needs of specific student populations, those that understand the necessary role of distance learning, and those that are willing to speak up to facilitate classroom change. Without these teachers, effective reform to meet global demand is not possible.

How have the roles of teachers changed over the years in your opinion? What is the single greatest obstacle that teachers face that stands in the way of maximum K-12 student achievement?

 

Click here to read all our posts concerning the Achievement Gap.

 

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Matthew Lynch, Policy & Reform, Teachers

The Four Biggest Factors In Teacher Turnover

Teacher turnover is a major problem in education that affects student, teachers, and administrators alike. But what’s behind the massive migration and exodus of new teachers? And what’s to be done about it? Researchers have identified four major factors that should be addressed to reduce teacher turnover and to retain them for a longer duration in the profession.

1. Compensation

Some studies suggest that, contrary to popular belief, salary is not the number one reason for teachers’ leaving the profession, although sufficient evidence indicates that it plays a significant role. Those who teach in-demand subjects like mathematics and science are more likely to quit because they receive more attractive offers for opportunities outside the teaching profession. While salary is a major factor in attrition among young teachers who are beginning their careers, it also acts as a deterrent to the retention of experienced and well-qualified teachers.

2. Working Conditions

According to a national survey, teachers place a lot of importance on their working conditions and consider it a key factor in their decision to leave or continue in the teaching profession. Good working conditions include administrative support, availability of professional resources, freedom to express their opinions on matters related to their profession, and the empowerment to influence policy in their schools.

Research studies reveal that the teachers who work in affluent and advantaged communities experience better working conditions than those who work in low-income communities. These conditions include lesser numbers of students to teach and more decision-making power in their schools. Teachers who work with disadvantaged students experience less appealing working conditions, with limited administrative support, fewer textbooks and supplies, and larger student groups to handle. Thus, it is evident that working conditions play an important role in a teacher’s decision to continue or leave the teaching profession, and that they contribute significantly to high teacher attrition rates.

3. Teacher Education

It is evident from several research studies that better prepared teachers stay in teaching for longer periods of time. This is especially true for those who complete traditional teacher education programs, as compared to those who are trained for a few weeks before being released into the student community.

Not all alternative pathways are ineffective or poorly conceived. Some well-designed post- baccalaureate programs enable students to acquire the same high standards as those who graduate from traditional teacher education colleges. This is accomplished by combining traditional coursework with a well-established fieldwork training experience.

However, alternative routes that do not provide adequate training and mentoring to prospective teachers add to the “revolving door” syndrome that currently plagues the teaching profession.

4. Mentoring

Without good mentors, new teachers can feel lost, frustrated, and stuck. It’s much harder to get out of a problem not faced before without the guidance of someone who already knows the solution. It’s also much easier to keep making the same mistakes without the wise word of an outside perspective. Learn more about the importance of mentoring in reducing teacher turnover in future articles!

Are you interviewing for a new placement? Ask your prospective employers what they’re doing to reduce teacher turnover. Are you already working at a school? Ask your administrators what steps are being taken to address turnover at your site. If there’s no plan in place, look over the list above and come up with some suggestions of how to tackle the four big problem areas within your district!

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in list, Matthew Lynch, Policy & Reform, Teachers

2 Ways Common Core Standards Can Put Us Back on the Map

I have written before about how Common Core has come under attack by almost every type of person you can think of, especially due to its politically-charged nature. Politics aside, though, the standards espoused by Common Core can help American students succeed in an ever-changing knowledge economy.

Consider this: in 1965, just 11% of jobs required post-secondary training, but by 2020, 65% of U.S. jobs will require post-secondary training, according to the Committee for Economic Development.

How can Common Core help us with this, exactly? Let’s look at how.

  1. Common Core can be our gateway to education equity. To meet the growing demand for post-secondary educated workers, P-12 schools must have rigorous and effective academics in place like the Common Core benchmarks. I’ve always said that our public schools should be the great equalizer when it comes to giving all of our kids the American Dream. These classrooms SHOULD provide access to the same educational opportunities, no matter what the color of the child’s skin or how much money that child’s parents earn. That’s the ideal but it’s far from reality.

Implementing Common Core Standards is one way to improve the equality of quality education in our K-12 classrooms. States are still free to create the curriculum that makes the most sense for their students, but the basic agreement on what kids should learn, and when, should have some national guidance. We also know that to accommodate the rising demand for Science, Technology, Engineering and Math jobs, strong STEM learning initiatives must be in place in our classrooms. We owe it to this generation of students to equip them with what they will need to succeed academically and economically and Common Core Standards are designed to do just that.

  1. Common Core standards acknowledge the reality of our workforce today and in the future. Generally, in the education community’s frantic pace to stay accountable with each other and the government, I think some other aspects of our society get inadvertently left out of the education process. The business community is one.

However, it seems like the business community is not allowing itself to be left out of the process. You will notice that prominent business leaders, such as Bill Gates, are highly outspoken about educational standards such as the Common Core ones.

Yes, business organizations are concerned about the quality of education in our schools. And, if you think about it, they SHOULD be. These students are, after all, our future workers and the drivers of the American economy.

I’ve heard the argument that teaching our kids in a way that prepares them for the competitive global workforce is treating them as “commodities” and not like children. I suppose there would be some merit to that if science hadn’t proven time and time again that kids thrive in learning environments and that the economic status of your life impacts its quality immensely. Setting our kids up to succeed economically on the world stage not only benefits our nation as a whole, but provides those kids with lifelong skills that will elevate their own quality of life through adulthood. Common Core standards play a big role in helping students become ready for an improved quality of life.

What do you think? Is Common Core judged unfairly? Do you think a set of nationally-imposed standards will prepare us for the growing demands of our changing economy?

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Policy & Reform

Public versus Entrepreneurial Education: Who Will Win Out?

By Matthew Lynch

Imagine a country without public schools – one where schools were run as any other business, with no contributions from tax dollars? What if there were total free markets in education in the United States? Education would become a product for sale, just like any other product on the U.S. market. It may sound like something from fiction, but educational entrepreneurs would like the K-12 systems in the U.S. to be run closer to the model described above, and less like the regulated public schools of today.

Education entrepreneurs are driven by the belief that public education organizations are agricultural- and industrialization-era bureaucratic entities, far too enmeshed in familiar operational customs and habits to lead the innovation and transformation needed for schools today. They see themselves as change agents who are able to visualize possibilities. They want to serve as catalysts for change that will deliver current public educational systems from a status quo that results in unacceptable educational outcomes for too many children.

Within the group of educational entrepreneurs is a sub group of social entrepreneurs who are focused on transforming education for the underserved, to include children from low socioeconomic backgrounds and children of color – groups that have not been well served by the traditional public education system. It is important to note that education entrepreneurs do not see themselves as merely improving education – for them, improvement would be a byproduct of the larger goal of transforming the system of public education in the U.S.

The question then becomes: how do visionaries propose to influence a system that has seen no significant large-scale change for decades? The efforts of education entrepreneurs are evident in ventures such as charter schools, Teach for America teacher training efforts, and the preparation of principals through the New Leaders for New Schools project.

On the surface, it may appear that traditional school systems and education entrepreneurs are engaged in the same kind of work when,  in fact, education entrepreneurs and traditional educators view the world of education from two radically different perspectives. Aspects of the public education system are severely resistant to change. Our schools’ dependency on other organizations for resources and other types of support has caused them to be a reflection of these organizations, rather than units able to maintain discernible levels of independence. Existing resources do not restrict thinking among education entrepreneurs, nor are they beholden to any particular organization for support. This status ostensibly frees them to consider unlimited possibilities for K-12 education.

So, where should accountability lie?

Another interesting difference between education entrepreneurs and traditional educators is the manner in which accountability is perceived. Education entrepreneurs view accountability from a customer-provider perspective, while educators, given the fact that they exist in bureaucratic structures, view accountability from a superior-subordinate perspective. Education entrepreneurs may speak of having an impact on the lives of children as a result of individual actions, and that the actions of a critical mass of entrepreneurial organizations will result in systemic change. Educators may speak of accountability in terms of meeting expected outcomes handed down from another organization.

Education entrepreneurs propose that educators are too entrenched in the day-to-day business of school operations to be forward thinking about possibilities for K-12 education, and most education researchers appear disinterested in investigating practical solutions to problems within the system. In fact the education entrepreneurial opinion of traditional education seems to fall somewhere between frustration and disdain.

There is a sense of urgency among education entrepreneurs for radical transformation that results in improved performance outcomes, particularly when it comes to children who have not been served well by public education systems. The lack of ongoing and prompt action by public education systems leads some entrepreneurs to conclude that public education systems either do not feel the same urgency, or, if they do, that the very nature of the system renders them incapable of putting effective changes in action.

Is there a happy medium?

Perhaps the larger question is whether or not two systems (i.e., public education systems and education entrepreneurship) with different approaches to accomplishing an end, a fair amount of mistrust (and perhaps a lack of mutual respect), and different visions of how organizations ought to work, can come together to work toward the improvement of the educational system. Partnerships that have been formed by public school systems and education entrepreneurs are evidence of a brand of customized education that appears to be acceptable to both. As long as public schools systems believe they won’t be totally enveloped by education entrepreneurs, a workable and innovative model for public education may evolve.

Which model of K-12 education do you feel is the most effective for this generation of students?

photo credit: aaronvandorn via photopin cc

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Policy & Reform, Teachers

What’s the Secret to High PISA Test Scores? Top ranking BASIS Schools Say its Teachers

Author: Dr. Q. Mark Reford

Dr. Q. Mark Reford was born in Ireland. He was educated at Oxford and taught there, as well as Sidwell Friends School in Washington, DC. He is CEO of BASIS Independent Schools (http://www.basisindependent.com/), and is currently opening two new private schools this fall in Silicon Valley and New York City.

There is a war in American education. The nation is deeply polarized: charter supporters vs. traditional public school supporters; standardized testing supporters, and parents who find them a scathing and useless routine. And then, there’s PISA.

PISA, the Program for International Student Assessment, is a triennial test given around the world to 15 year olds in 60 countries. The OECD uses PISA to rate countries’ school systems. It doesn’t just test rote knowledge, but critical thinking as well. To be frank, PISA makes the US look like educational paupers. According to the OECD, American students are falling behind the rest of the world in math, science and reading. Even when US students make gains, they do not keep up with the gains made by others in Finland and Shanghai China and Korea and Poland.

And now with the most recent results released last month and being distributed to schools up through July, administrators at US schools that volunteered to take the OECD test are in a rare state of agita waiting for yet another ranking about which to brag or explain away. The scary aspect about PISA is that it precisely measures the deeper learning and problem solving skills that all agree are needed by students to thrive in their future lives and careers.

PISA is now used by many nations as a benchmark to help them improve their education systems. It has not had that effect in the US. Our poor showings have been absorbed into our parochial arguments pitting testing against deep learning; creativity against rote learning; or project-based learning against traditional cumulative exams.

With such recent attention as Amanda Ripley’s “Smartest Kids in the World,” the academic rankings of PISA are beginning to gain attention. There is another attribute to the test that is more obscure… and all the more crucial: student satisfaction with their teachers and how those teachers help them learn and grow in confidence.
What a surprise that asking students about their own learning could help us see how we might improve our schools!

Look at that data and the countries that do well on the academic side of PISA begin to slip in student satisfaction – South Korea and Finland, for example. Plot student satisfaction against student academic achievement and you have a fascinating picture – not just more data to argue about – but a road map to improving learning for all students.

The American family of BASIS Schools, as reflected in Ripley’s book, have been participants in PISA since first eligible, and achieved scores described as “stratospheric.” In PISA, they ranked academically with the very best in the world. And in other arenas as well: BASIS students perform brilliantly on content rich Advanced Placement tests – a BASIS student was one of 11 students in the world who made a perfect score on the AP Calculus-BC exam last year – when he was in 9th grade.

How do BASIS schools beat the best in the world – in particular, how do American students at BASIS defy all the stereotypes?

It turns out that what matters is the quality of the teacher in the classroom. We know that student academic achievement is driven by our teachers. But how? Is it just all work, all homework, the return of Grad grind to the faculty lounge?

No – what PISA shows and BASIS demonstrates is that the best education in the world is grounded in excitement, and inspiration and curiosity and what Yeats called the “fascination of what’s difficult.”

BASIS Schools recruit only teachers who are expert in their field, who have a passion to pass on their love of economics (or logic or physics or music) to another generation, and who like children. According to BASIS.ed founder Michael Block, the “secret sauce” of BASIS is the teacher who loves to teach.

PISA can help us re-calibrate the arid shouting matches of our parochial American conversation about education. It tells us to steer clear of the Scylla and Charybdis of traditional (standardized testing) and progressive (creativity) ideologues. It says, close your ears to the siren call of technology in the classroom. Does anyone seriously believe it is anything but an opportunity for capital to finally monetize education?

Focus instead on finding the best teachers and holding them accountable – and rewarding them appropriately. BASIS teachers earn bonuses based on student performance – they share accountability with their students, creating a partnership in achievement.

But above all, focus on culture. Inspiration, challenge, support, creativity – they are not mutually incompatible with rigor and standards and thoughtful external cumulative assessments. The schools our students deserve are schools that sustain a culture in which fascinated, engaged and supported students tackle and master difficult stuff.

You cannot have one without the other. They are a Mobius strip, a single side masquerading as two. America has its road map to the educational culture offering results needed to empower our young with the opportunity to make great choices in their futures – we need to move as fast as we can to the upper right hand corner of this PISA graph.

 

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Policy & Reform, Teachers

Who Owns Knowledge? A Look At Curriculum.

The central focus of every curriculum is imparting knowledge in the best way possible. But who decides what “the best way possible” really is?

The K–12 curriculum is often referenced in abstract ways, with many schools and districts claiming to want to teach the “whole child.” But what does that actually mean in the context of contemporary classrooms? Not every student exposed to the same information will achieve the same success and life outcomes. Just what is actually considered knowledge is interpretive, at best. Educators must narrow information to the learning materials that will make the biggest positive impact on a particular group of students.

K–12 schools have four kinds of curriculum. Official curriculum is outlined by governmental or educational bodies as the framework for every student. Taught curriculum is what teachers actually pass on to the students under their care. Tested curriculum is what is examined in standardized and graded testing materials. Learned curriculum includes those items that may not show up on testing results but are integral to student development and the learning experience. Depending on whom you ask, any one of these categories of curriculum may be considered the strongest, while others may measure as weak or unnecessary.

Though there is some federal oversight on curriculum choices and the funding accompanying them, curriculum is generally chosen on a local level. Some of the factors that go into curriculum choices are the personal belief systems of the decision makers and their overarching worldviews. Some things are considered “absolute”—like the rules of grammar or the way math equations are solved. Many other parts of K–12 learning are interpretive and are influenced by the individual educator or by imposing views on a global scale. Even the “facts” of history may be presented in differing ways based on the type of curriculum believed correct by officials. Often what is left out of curriculum is just as telling as what is included.

When educators are involved in the role of choosing curriculum, there is an assumption that the best interests of a student population and its achievement are at heart. For the most part, this perception is true. There is a reason why teachers and administrators require degrees and continuing education courses to obtain and keep their licenses; a lot of expert thought goes into the material that is chosen for students. In recent years parents have started to become more of an influential force in curriculum choices of K–12 schools. A law passed in 2012 in New Hampshire allows parents to object to any course material presented in public schools, provided that they can recommend a suitable alternative. While this law affects a very small subset of the national student population, it represents a trend in all schools to cater to students, and more specifically to parents, as customers. If public K–12 schools are to remain equalizers, however, the demands of small, fringe groups cannot be met. While parents may believe they know what is best for their own children, curriculum decisions for the collective student body are best reserved for objective, expert educators.

As an educator, it’s your job to thoroughly understand the reasoning behind any curriculum you implement. Know the pros, so you can defend what you’re teaching, if necessary. But know the con’s, too, so that you’re prepared to explain how you’re handling or working around those. Be realistic. Be informative. Be a teacher.

  • no reactions
0
Share