ERC to Co-Sponsor Progressive Education Talk in Boston

ERC will join the Forum for Education and Democracy/CES in hosting “A Conversation With Friends: There is a Stirring” with Deborah Meier and Larry Myatt to be hosted at the Boston Green Academy, Boston’s newest CES high school. The event will take place on Thursday, June 20, 2013 from 5:00PM-6:30PM in the Auditorium at the South Boston Education Campus, 95 G Street, South Boston.

Free parking is available in the school parking lot. For questions and/or to reserve your place, contact Mary Callaghan, Boston Green Academy: mcallaghan@bostongreenacademy.org

Investing in “Opportunity Youth”

by Tony Monfiletto, Executive Director, New Mexico Center for School Leadership

Lately we’ve heard a lot about the economic case for early childhood education.  The return on investment for high quality education for three and four year-olds is pennies on the dollar.  It’s a powerful sentiment that I happen to share.  However, I think there’s an equally compelling argument for investing in adolescents, particularly the disengaged. 

In 2012, Henry Levin and Clive Belfield wrote an article entitled, “The Economics of Investing in Opportunity Youth.”  It’s a thorough analysis of the cost of the 17 percent (1 out of every 6) young people between the ages of 16 and 24 who are not in school and do not have a job (sometimes referred to as “opportunity youth”.  It’s a thorough analysis that that examines the fiscal consequences of increased government services and lost income for these young people.  The data is compelling when you consider the impact on any young person.  But, it’s shocking when you think about what it means for an entire community.

The authors estimate that the cost of government services for these young people will be roughly $230,000 over their lifetime and the social cost is just over $700,000 (mostly in lost wages).  These numbers are high but not surprising since we all know that the employment prospects for high school dropouts are dismal.  The real insight comes when they examine the impact on an entire community.  The numbers quickly run into the hundreds of millions and even billions of dollars for some communities.  In Memphis and Washington DC the cost is more than $1.4 billion for a single cohort of young people and $6.7 trillion for the entire country.

The tricky thing about their analysis is that it rests on assumptions about what could be.  They project a cause and effect scenario that cannot be proven.  I follow the logic, but it’s still speculation.  Macro-economic views like theirs are necessarily broad in scope so I decided to take some time to think about their analysis in a local context.   I applied their assumptions to ACE Leadership High School and the network of schools that we intend to create over the next five years.

The Leadership High School Network (LHSN):

Roughly 80 percent of the young people we serve in the LHSN are either off track to graduation or they have dropped out of school and returned to earn their diploma.  We have focused our approach to learning in the context of high growth sectors of our local economy (Architecture, Construction and Engineering , Health Care, and Technology so far).  It is not a narrow vocational style training.  Instead, we provide an education built on developing their adaptability and problem solving skills so that they will be vertically and horizontally mobile in their careers.  We teach school from 9:00 am to 9:00 pm and we serve students from 14-24 years old and our mission is to transition every graduate to college or work.

My colleagues and I examined our student body at ACE Leadership and we found that conservatively one third of our graduates would fit the definition of “Opportunity Youth.”  In other words, if it wasn’t for us they wouldn’t be in school or working in the future.  We then estimated the economic impact of our work and projected the impact of the sister schools that are yet to come (Health Leadership begins operations in August of 2013 and Technology Leadership begins in August 2015).

Ultimately, the LHSN is designed to serve roughly 2,000 a year students and the schools will graduate roughly 500 students per-year when they are fully developed.  The number of “Opportunity Youth” graduating should be about 165 per year.  Below is our estimate of the impact we will have if these young people become gainfully employed: 

Fiscal Impact                                   Impact for

Graduates                                  (social services)                                                  Cohort

165                 X                     $2,300,000 per graduate                   =           $379,500,000

165                 X                     $6,200,000 per graduate                   =           $1,230,000,000

These numbers are jarring, but they become spectacular when we think about them over time.  If we project the 10 year savings in tax dollars it climbs to 600 million and the growth in productivity is more than $10 billion.

It’s strange to think in such a long time frame.  We really don’t know what the future holds but we do know a couple of very important things:

  • The jobs of tomorrow are likely not going to be the jobs we have now and young person’s adaptability is their ticket to their (and our) prosperity.
  • The poor are becoming increasingly immobile.  The chance that young people will make it out of poverty is getting less and less likely and when you’re poor you are likely to stay put.  In other words, people who have skills and knowledge can leave to pursue the best job possible while the poor are here to stay.

These two facts lead me to say that investing in “Opportunity Youth” is our best chance to change their lives and the health of our community.  It’s not a sure bet, but it’s one we can’t afford to pass up.  Just think about what else we could do with that $379 million in tax dollars and what else they could do with the $1.2 billion in income.

Do new exams produce better teachers? Some states act; educators debate

By Jackie Mader

NORTHRIDGE, Calif.— It took less than a minute for Mario Martinez to finish the first six questions of the algebra exam that his professor, Ivan Cheng, had just handed to him. The high school-level test was supposed to be a good example of an exam, so that the graduate students in Cheng’s math methods course at the California State University, Northridge’s school of education would better understand what rigorous high school-level questions look like, and how to write tests for their own lessons.
By the end of the first page, Martinez had already learned an important lesson: “Beware of redundant problems,” he scribbled on the side of his paper before flipping it over to finish the problems on the back.

Mario Martinez, a graduate student in California State University Northridge’s teacher preparation program, examines a high school algebra test he created for a class assignment. (Photo by Jackie Mader)

Martinez has until the fall to hone his skills before he will be sent into a classroom to practice as a student teacher. And he has at least a year before he will have to prove that he can not only teach math, but also create tests and analyze student results. It is a skill that many educators say is a sign of a good teacher, and one so important it was included in a lengthy exit exam that all aspiring teachers must take before they receive a teaching credential from the state.
Aspiring teachers videotape themselves teaching a lesson and write several lengthy reflections. California introduced the performance assessments in 2001 to adhere to a 1998 state law. Teachers must pass them in order to receive certification.

Every teacher preparation program in the state must choose one of three versions for students to take, each of which centers around the teaching and self-reflection activity. The Performance Assessment for California Teachers, or PACT, is the test of choice for Northridge and more than 30 other teacher preparation programs in the state, and many classes, like Cheng’s math methods course, design curriculum around the assessment to ensure students are prepared to pass.

Although it is largely untested and debated among educators, the PACT has served as a model for a national exam, known as the edTPA, that at least 25 states are introducing. Developed by 12 California institutions in 2001, the PACT was put on hold when the state suspended the performance assessment requirement in 2003. Three years later, the requirement was reinstated, and in early 2007 the state’s Commission on Teacher Credentialing approved the assessment.
The multi-part test, which often takes a semester to complete and results in dozens of pages of essay reflections, tries to assess whether an aspiring teacher is able to teach multiple learners in real classrooms. It has been tapped as a nationwide model because supporters say it presents a complex picture of a candidate’s strengths, weaknesses, and classroom readiness.

But many educators hesitate to say that the new performance assessments are creating better teachers or that passing them is a sign a teacher will be effective, partly due to the lack of more evidence.

Martinez says that Cheng’s class has spent extra time on designing and grading tests for lessons they have created because it is typically “the part of the PACT that math teachers do the worst on.” While some say this practice of designing teacher preparation curriculum around the PACT bears resemblance to K-12 teachers “teaching to the test,” many educators at Northridge say the PACT is focused on critical areas of good teaching, like planning lessons with strong student assessments, and modifying lessons for English language learners and students with disabilities, and that it therefore only reinforces what candidates should learn anyway.
Some research has found that high scores on performance exams like the PACT may signify that a teacher will be more effective in the classroom. One study out of Stanford University, which helped design the PACT, found that for each additional point an English Language Arts teacher scored on the exam, which is scored on a 44-point scale, students averaged a gain of one percentile point per year on California standardized tests. But the study only looked at 14 teachers and their 259 students.

If passing the PACT means teachers are prepared for the classroom, then by pass rates alone it would indicate that programs using assessment are, for the most part, producing teachers ready for the challenges of the classroom. In the 2009-10 school year, 33 percent of aspiring teachers in the state applying for their credential took the PACT. Ninety-four percent of them passed all sections of the exam on the first try.
But according to the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing, the PACT’s pass rates are much higher than those on the California Teaching Performance Assessment (CalTPA), taken by a majority of teacher candidates in the state, and the Fresno Assessment of Student Teachers (FAST), taken only by candidates at California State University Fresno. The CalTPA had the lowest pass rate, with only 77 percent of candidates passing all sections of the exam on the first try. The FAST has a first-time pass rate of 87 percent.

The high pass rates have skeptics wondering if the performance assessments are rigorous enough. All three versions of the assessments are usually scored by the institutions themselves, and students can retake them if they fail the first time.
Linda Darling-Hammond, a professor of education at Stanford University who helped design the edTPA, the national test, says the high pass rate on the PACT is expected. Teachers in California take up to three standardized tests, including a basic skills assessment and several subject matter tests, even before they take the PACT or one of the other two versions of it. Darling-Hammond says each exam knocks out about 10 percent of the aspiring teacher pool in the state. (In the 2009-10 academic year, 78 percent of candidates passed the state’s basic skills assessment, and 81 percent of applicants passed the reading instruction exam.)

“This [pass rate] is only the people who’ve made it through all those gauntlets, that managed to get into the program, and haven’t caved when they were asked to do the PACT,” said Darling-Hammond.

She added that the preparation programs that use the PACT, including the University of California system, Stanford, and several schools within the California State University system, have the highest selectivity in admissions to their preparation programs. “If this were statewide,” added Darling-Hammond, “the pass rate would certainly be much lower.”

A report from the state’s Commission on Teacher Credentialing cautioned against comparing the pass rates. Unlike the PACT, which is taken at the end of the preparation program, candidates take the four sections of the CalTPA at different times throughout their programs. Some programs counsel students out before they take the performance assessment, meaning only the top students may end up taking the exam.
Opponents of performance assessments say that preparation programs, and the state, are missing the point by relying on an assessment to determine if teachers are prepared for the classroom.
Ann Schulte, associate professor at California State University, Chico, says that preparation programs should be focused on working with and assessing teacher candidates in the field, so they receive frequent observations and feedback during their student teaching experiences from someone with extensive knowledge of their abilities and classrooms.

Schulte cited research that found alignment between the results of those who pass the PACT and the observations of educators supervising those candidates in the field. “It begs the question then, ‘why are we doing it?’” Schulte said.
Elsewhere in the country, some educators and students have asked the same question, and subsequently refused to administer or take the national version of the assessment. In 2012, all but one student in the secondary-teacher training program at the University of Massachusetts Amherst refused to participate in the exam, arguing that mentors who observed them in a student teaching setting for months would be better judges of their teaching ability than Pearson, the education company administering the exams.

More concerning to some schools is the idea that pass rates on performance exams could be used to determine the quality of teacher preparation programs. Since 1998, the federal government has attempted to increase the accountability for preparation programs by requiring states to collect and report information about the programs, including completion rates, average scores on state and national teaching tests, and the number of student teaching hours required.

California includes pass rates from performance assessments in its own annual analysis of this data, and uses that data as one of many measures that determines if a school of education is “low-performing.”

In California, there is general consensus that the performance assessment, which encourages students to focus on how they would teach a variety of students, has at least created more thoughtful teachers, even if the research isn’t clear that the tests are improving the quality of the teaching force.

“Does PACT make a better teacher? No,” said Nancy Prosenjak, a professor at Northridge. “But I think we have a substantial program that’s research based, we have the PACT,” she added. “So with all of those, maybe we have better teachers.”

From The Hechinger Report, Independent Education News, May 2013

Frank McCullough essay

“Good and bad are but names very readily transferable to that or this…” -Ralph Waldo Emerson

When I reflect back on my twenty years of teaching, I am actually quite amazed at how little time I have spent working with other teachers and administrators with a specific focus on my teaching and student learning.  In large, district secondary schools my colleagues never came to my room and my principal observed me and my class once a year, checking random boxes on a district form that I then was asked to sign.

Moving to a charter school, this situation improved.  The common expectation was to collaborate with other colleagues, plan together and occasionally “team-teach”.  We worked together in “Professional Learning Committees” and “Critical Friends Groups”, sharing dilemmas and looking at student work.  This brand of professional collaboration-with actual conversations about teaching and learning- was rather transformative for me as an educator.  Although it was far better than the isolated and sterile version of the craft practiced in district schools, I still felt we neglected the “in-the-moment” classroom practice -how teachers organized and managed classrooms, and our direct work with students.  After all, this is where the rubber meets the road, right?

As I have transitioned in to an instructional leadership role, I have pondered the relationship between the administrator and teacher, and how this relationship can lead to improved student engagement and achievement.Fortunately, years ago, I was introduced to two foundational concepts that have shifted my thinking:  the fractal theory, and the ‘provoke and support’ model.   To put it simply, my interpretation of the fractal theory in education is, what adults are asked to do shouldn’t look entirely different from what students are asked to do. In short, I have come to believe that modeling is everything.  We, as adults in schools, should always strive to “be” what we expect our students to be.  We should place high expectations on ourselves academically, intellectually and behaviorally; endeavoring to model ethical and empathetic conduct.  And through intellectual provocation and social and emotional support, we can model and teach our students to strive to do likewise.  So, by applying the fractal metaphor to my new role as well as the guiding principle of provoke and support, shouldn’t my work with teachers look similar to how I worked with students?

Pursuantly, I now try to ground my work as an instructional leader in day-to-day classroom presence and observation, with the goal of building relationships and engaging with teachers using the ‘provoke and support’ model.  I utilize different types of observations including the 3-5 minute “pop-in”, the 10-20 minute visit with written feedback, the full- class scripting visit, and class video taping.

The text The Three-Minute Classroom Walk-Through; Changing School Supervisory Practice One Teacher At a Time has helped me to address the issue of limited time for administrators to visit classrooms.  We simply have to contend with this restraint by taking advantage of any time we might grab for quick, 3-5 minute class visits with a specific focus on student safety and engagement and the curricular and instructional decisions that teachers make.  The text also gives the reader strategies to follow-up with teachers and engages in brief yet meaningful discussions regarding teaching and learning.  I have found these visits helpful in maintaining classroom presence, keeping me generally informed regarding classroom practice (a colleague recently paid me a complement by stating, “you know our work”), and providing me with “snapshots” of information that can then inform follow-up discussions about classroom practice as well as individual and whole-group professional development.

The 10-20 minute visit with an accompanying note practice was inspired by Larry Myatt, who also recommended the ‘fractal’ theory and the ‘provoke and support’ model.  As Larry describes it, the practice of initially keeping the notes low-stakes and strengths-based energizes the teacher and builds trust and credibility between the administrator and teacher.  As we move through the school year the written feedback I provide evolves from celebratory and supportive, to more provocative with an effort to provide less experienced teachers with specific strategies and engage more experienced teachers as a reflective partner.  As I have incorporated these visits I have noticed that teachers will even begin to seek more critical feedback.

I have used hour-long classroom scripting activities for both more formal observations focusing on problems of practice as well as yearly teacher evaluations.  Typically for this format I will first meet with the teacher to identify a specific area of focus.  This is the “lens” through which to view the class and the script is an evidence-based, descriptive document that focuses on teacher and student actions and tasks.  I will also embed questions and prompts in the text which we will discuss in a follow-up debrief.

            Video taping can be used in various formats:  I have watched video clips with the presenting teacher as a teaching and learning discussion spring board, shared clips in teams with a specific content-area focus, and shared video with the whole faculty to foster school-wide discussions regarding teaching and learning.  Like student portfolios, I feel there is great potential using video as artifact and a text for documenting and measuring growth in practice.

From the text Instructional Rounds in Education, I have learned to ground feedback for teachers in concrete and specific terms, being mindful of “staying low on the ladder of inference”, avoiding judgmental language and striving to meet the overall goal of being descriptive.  Now I quite frequently use, “I heard”, “I saw” statements when communicating with teachers.  In fact, through classroom observation, I have begun to shift my overall perspective and outlook-making me more sensitive towards descriptive, specific, evidence-based language versus “climbing up the rungs” to evaluative and judgmental statements.  Ironically, in my position, I am responsible for faculty evaluations.  However, I have learned from the text to not classify teaching practice as “good” or “bad”, but instead, to simply pose the question, “What is the next level of work for this classroom?”

Another important learning for me was distinguishing between when teachers have the capacity and energy to fully engage in reflective practice, and when teachers simply need additional support.  Unfortunately, in my experience, teacher observation and evaluation was often an end-of-year activity, a compliance issue of “dotting i’s and crossing t’s”.  Could there be a less optimal time when folks are worn out, managing end-of-year projects and performances, wrapping up finals and grades, and ready for a much needed and well deserved break-to be trying to engage as a reflective partner and foster professional growth?  No, this is best done earlier in the school year, when people are able to hear constructive feedback and have more time and energy to implement change.

In my experience, consistently visiting and observing classrooms breaks down walls and builds relationships with teachers, particularly when one initially takes an assets-based approach.  As a colleague at my school said, consistent presence in teacher’s classrooms “opens the door to conversation” regarding teaching and learning.  She also identified the shift from “once-a-year” evaluative classroom observations to an ongoing presence with grounding in day-to-day instruction and that “teachers know that you have a helpful perspective as to how their class runs.”

Frank McCullough is the Director of Instruction and Assessment at the Amy Biehl High School in Albuquerque, NM. Prior to that, he was Curriculum and Instruction Coordinator at the Native American Charter Academy, and a Humanities teacher at Amy Biehl HS. He is also a musician and outdoor enthusiast.

School–Business Partnerships: Learning New Lessons

by Andrea Gabor

from the WallStreetJournal.com- Autumn 2012/Issue 68

In the midst of a great unemployment crisis, there is also a yawning talent gap. For the marketing function or the factory floor, recruiters seek applicants with the scientific knowledge, communication skills, and technological acumen that many high school graduates (and even some college graduates) lack. That’s why business leaders are pushing for school reform with such urgency; they see public schools as both suppliers of talent and incubators of the future, and they want to help education leaders become more effective.

Unfortunately, most business–education partnerships have been formed around a core set of school reform ideas that can be appealing in theory but don’t seem to work in practice. These include competition-based reforms, including most voucher and charter school systems, incentive pay for teachers, some management training programs for education leaders, and the intensive use of digital educational technology.

One basic attitude underlying these reforms is that schools need to be run more like businesses. In practice, that means adopting a competitive management style that imposes numerical goals, rewards high performers disproportionately, blames labor unions for poor performance, and forces each individual to prove his or her value every day. In other words, school reformers are promoting top-down, carrot-and-stick, compliance-driven management ideas that (as quality-movement leader W. Edwards Deming and others have pointed out) are unreliable and, in many cases, counterproductive — even in business.

Moreover, virtually all the studies on key reform initiatives, including the charter movement and merit pay for teachers, suggest that these measures have failed to improve education outcomes. Two of many examples: A 2009 study by Stanford’s Center for Research on Education Outcomes found that only 17 percent of charter schools earned better test scores than traditional schools, and 37 percent did significantly worse. A major 2010 study by Vanderbilt University found that teachers who were offered a US$15,000 bonus for improving student test scores over a three-year period performed no differently than teachers who weren’t included in the offer.

“[The effort] to improve the quality of education turned into an accounting strategy: Measure, then punish or reward,” writes Diane Ravitch in The Death and Life of the Great American School System: How Testing and Choice Are Undermining Education (Basic Books, 2011). “The strategy produced fear and obedience among educators; it often generated higher test scores. But it had nothing to do with education.”

How, then, should businesspeople who are genuinely interested in school reform take on the challenge? Start by recognizing that you have a great deal to offer education — if you can draw on the most collaborative, generative aspects of business thinking and action, following the examples of companies that promote transparency, engagement, shared accountability, continuous improvement, and organizational learning. For example, a recent study by Rutgers School of Management and Labor Relations, “Collaborating on School Reform,” shows that contrary to popular practice and the dictates of many corporate education reformers, the secret to long-term improvement for teachers, schools, and students is “substantive collaboration” at all levels — the classroom, the school, the district, the community; in short, collaboration among all key stakeholders.

Many educators appreciate the value of participative management and leadership training. “If you are trying to run a system as large as a small city, you need a diverse set of skills,” says Shael Polakow-Suransky, senior deputy chancellor for the New York City Department of Education, noting that when the city’s education system was controlled almost entirely by educators, it was “incredibly poorly run.” When the district began to draw talent from the private sector in the 1990s, he adds, there were some false starts in which businesspeople clashed with educators. “We learned that we need both [forms of expertise],” he says.

On the ground, the most effective business–education partnerships are those that foster innovative education opportunities in which both students and parents can participate, and those that create bridges between schools and the outside world, including potential employers. The following stories demonstrate some of the principles that help these partnerships work. What distinguishes them from many outright failures is the quality of collaboration. In these examples, business leaders did more than donate funds and technology; rather, schools and businesses sought to learn from one another.

 

Fostering Tech Experiments

Many education reformers have applauded the potential of technology: netbooks, video learning, and electronic educational games. But in practice, technology designed for consumers and homeschooling is not well suited to the needs of inner-city kids or to use within the public school classroom. Computer infrastructure hardware company Cisco Systems began to experiment in the mid-2000s, in partnership with schools, to find more effective ways to introduce technology to classrooms. Its experiments demonstrate the promise and value of these projects, and the difficulties involved in maintaining them.

In Louisiana, the challenge came with assessing the value of the partnership. One report, by the Center for Children and Technology, found that Cisco’s partnership with the local school district had helped “launch a dramatic educational transformation.” At the same time, progress has lagged expectations. Although Jefferson Parish ranks sixth out of 60 Louisiana school districts in percentage performance gains between 2008 and 2011, the district still received a “D” on its state evaluation, based on 2011 student test scores. Lessons learned from Cisco’s experience indicate that business–education partnerships should:

• Be set up so that all aspects of the project are transparent to outsiders, even if corporations profit from the R&D

• Foster experimentation, because it is not always clear in advance which ideas and projects will work best

• Establish in-depth training for every new technology, with businesspeople and educators learning from each other

Conclusions

At their best, partnerships like Cisco’s in Jefferson Parish, LA and New York City represent a virtuous circle in which a company helps school districts develop priorities, strategies, and expertise while educators help the business understand how technology is used on the ground, enabling the business to develop more useful products.

The most realistic road to school reform starts with recognition that business has a tremendous — and growing — stake in the success of public schools. That is why business–education partnerships are likely to proliferate, especially as schools and school districts struggle. In the most successful experiments innovation becomes, almost literally, everyone’s job. Just as school administrators, teachers, and students can learn from business executives, companies interested in education reform would do well to learn from the schools they want to help. The challenges they face, as well as the remedies that work best, might surprise them.

WSJ.com- Reprint No. 00126

Taking a Broad Minded Approach To Educator Evaluation

By Wayne Ogden

Salem Community Charter School (SCCS) in Massachusetts is not your typical high school. Its “campus” is several thousand square feet of retail space in a downtown mall. No landscaped grounds or athletic fields surround it and its neighbors are the residences and commercial enterprises of downtown, historic, Salem, Massachusetts. The school’s mission is succinct yet complex, “Salem Community Charter School (SCCS) is a Horace Mann Charter School providing an alternative educational experience for students who have previously struggled in school. SCCS is specifically designed and staffed to serve the needs of students who have dropped out of high school or who are at-risk of dropping out, to engage them in new and exciting ways and inspire them to reach their academic aspirations.”

SCCS Started kicked off its inaugural school year in September 2011 with a new principal, Jessica Yurwitz, and a small staff that the local newspaper described as a “small bunch of 20 and 30-somethings” . Despite the terse journalistic description, the teaching team knew they had to hook their 50 new students immediately, or risk losing them once again, and this time perhaps with finality, from the public school system. The school had begun to take shape many months before when the City’s Mayor and then Superintendent of Schools had a nascent vision of re-engaging some of the many students the traditional system was losing. It was the right vision, but the “how” would be challenging at every step. The role and performance of teachers would, of course, be critical.

May , 2011 Salem Community Charter School is awarded its official school charter. (From left) Paul Reville, State Secretary of Education; William Cameron, Salem Superintendent of Schools; Jessica Yurwitz, Principal of SCCS; Maura Banta, Chair of the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education; and Mitchell Chester, Commissioner of Elementary and Secondary Education in Massachusetts

Now in its second full year of operation Principal Jess Yurwitz and her dedicated staff are buffeted by most, if not all of the same things as high schools twenty times their size and, of course, some much more complicated matters. How does one begin re-engage students who describe their previous experiences in high school as painful, unsuccessful, and frustrating?

Add to that set of dilemmas a new challenge for Principal Yurwitz and her staff this year -how to train for and implement Massachusetts’ new “Educator Evaluation Process”, a statute that promises to include student performance data as a significant part of a teacher’s overall evaluation rating. While this statewide initiative has caused much anxiety in many of the state’s school districts due to the perceived high stakes nature of holding teachers accountable for their students performance, the SCCS professional community is embracing the new evaluation training and implementation in a fashion that makes it a model for schools and district across Massachusetts.

What makes the SCCS approach so unusual in this new evaluation initiative is that the principal and her teachers have chosen to work together as a professional learning community , to be trained in unison in every aspect of the model educator evaluation process. Most Massachusetts’ school districts have elected to pursue a training and implementation model that has teachers segregated from their building-based evaluators in all phases of training for the new, model evaluation process. This alignment follows a traditional pattern seen in most school districts over the past five decades in which teachers and administrators receive their professional development in isolation from one another. And, while that model may work reasonably well when the professional learning is centered around a new curriculum initiative, it can breed differing and sometimes competing perspectives about what constitutes instructional excellence. Common sense would seem to dictate that when teachers and their principals can agree upon what a common set of standards of excellence in teaching are and what those standards look like in the action of a classroom, then performance evaluations have a better chance of bringing about the desired result of instructional improvement.

At SCCS considerable time has been set aside for Yurwitz and her teachers to learn every teaching standard, element, indicator and performance rating that the state has been laid out for them by the new DESE process. They debate about what good practice looks like and how it might be improved upon. They look at instructional videos and analyze and classify the many teaching behaviors they observe into the performance matrix the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education requires (http://www.doe.mass.edu/lawsregs/603cmr35.html) of all principals to use in their evaluation of teachers. The staff at SCCS can view this process as an institution-builder, and a quality mechanism and engage in sophisticated professional conversations about what best teaching practice looks like.

Perhaps, the same out-of-the-box thinking that allows the faculty of SCCS to successfully re-engage disenfranchised students, is what has made them unique in their unified approach to improving teaching performance.

“The courage to build a team”

by Ileane Pearson

The career of an elementary principal includes as broad a range of emotions as it does experiences.  My first few years as a principal were a blur --fast-paced and a bit overwhelming.  The challenges presented by a sea of students, staff, parents, district administrators and the learning curve of doing it all for the first time leave little time to contemplate those things that really make a difference, but may not be in the immediate line of sight.  Thankfully, with each passing year, things improved.

A year ago, having taken stock of all that our school had accomplished during my early tenure, there was much to be proud of.  Implementation of new curricula in math and ELA, new instructional approaches, improved use of data and rising student enrollment all suggested that we were doing things right. The pace of professional life, while still fast, became familiar and therefore easier to manage.  The vision of good leadership practice became a bit less cloudy, the overwhelmed feeling abated. But, just as I was feeling planted and confident in our accomplishments, then came an emotion that I hadn’t expected, one that didn’t go away: I felt “lonely at the top”.

Looking back, of course I would feel lonely.  After all, leadership implies singularity, a certain amount of insulation necessary for healthy, non-biased guidance and management.  But it began to occur to me that that although leadership practice can be facilitated from the top, it can best be driven by a sense of the whole.  I began to feel that if I could pursue a formula of leading WITH, perhaps that lonely feeling would dissipate.

What I really needed in order to further advance our school culture, climate and student performance was an ability to live vicariously, to begin to feel and hear more of what my staff was feeling and saying, in their words and in their sense of time and rhythm. To achieve that, I would need a team of willing partners, a group I could feel close to, a group that could help bridge the inevitable divide of “manager” and “staff”. Working through my own vulnerability, and being fully honest, I divulged to staff in a series of small conversations that I was feeling that there were pockets of needs that existed in the school, but that I couldn’t identify them clearly acting alone.  Finally, I decided to put out an “all call”. I invited staff to consider being part of a working group whose goal it was to address challenges while representing and supporting fellow staff.  My “advertisement” read, “If you would like an opportunity to be a thought partner, a colleague who recognizes problems as part of a collective, and agrees to be part of the solution, this may be the opportunity for you.  Participants need to be willing to assume a leadership role among their colleagues.”

Was this a bold initiative?  Maybe.  Risky?  Perhaps. Behind us were the days of instructional leadership teams, principal advisory teams, curriculum teams and the like, but these were groups with a narrow function, not necessarily teams that could transcend so many of the roles and boxes we find ourselves in, as part of a school community. This group would need to function more organically, to be responsive, open, trusting, thoughtful and skillful. Teachers are often not used to being on the “inside” and talking openly about heated issues, problems and concerns. We needed to deliver some results, since the genesis of this group was public, new and different, and therefore, high-stakes for all of us.  But, the temptation of tapping into valuable resources --our staff—was, for me, irresistible. It was the best interests of staff, and their welcome response to my calling that gave me the courage necessary to put a plan into action.

The Action, Betterment, and Collaboration Team (ABC) have carefully explored new terrain. The ABC Team includes special educators, general education teachers, “specials” (art, technology, etc.), service delivery providers (??? What does this mean in English? J ) and administrators.  We spent several meetings on our role clarity, and agreed that we could all provide a sort of constituent representation, with an eye toward assessing and/or improving operations, climate, culture and communication within our school, and which builds expertise in critical areas.  Working together as trusting thought partners we concluded that we needed transparency, honest communication, good data collection and a promise to include all voices in order to build integrity for our efforts. As our ERC facilitator suggested, we should encourage one another to all spend some time thinking like a principal as well as some time thinking like a teacher.  It turned out to be a norm that has been exceedingly helpful.

People don’t have to be troubled by misinformation or rumors. Even though I always strove for honesty and disclosure, to have a dozen helpers now, folks who trust and believe in each other, and in me, has begun to take our climate to a higher and more positive level. We also take time to name the positive things, and to celebrate. Great baked goods and snacks are present at every meeting and are a little something special to see us through our hard work.

We’ve made some big strides -- no one group member or faction controls the agenda or has a heavier hand than any other.  We worked through a protocol to careful identify issues, needs and challenges and participated in an exercise referred to as “root cause analysis.”  That root cause analysis proved to be important since it carefully identifies the factors that can result in a problematic outcome and the conditions that need to be changed to prevent recurrence and achieve better outcomes.  That challenging discourse resulted in our establishing priorities that are best addressed through action, a drive for betterment and respect for collaboration. Hence, our name!

The candid dialogue among group members has been refreshing and empowers us all. It’s a really different group than so many of the others that we’re used to in school, The group really does allows this principal to think like a teacher because I’m now more aware of the subtle things that impact teachers.  And teachers are relieved that their needs and concerns are unearthed, examined and understood, and in their own words and their own rhythm. I am fortunate that I took the risk. I’m not feeling quite as lonely up here anymore.

Teaching with Humanity: Seeing Without Watching

Most people can relate to that moment of anxiety that boils up suddenly upon walking into a room full of people, as heads turn simultaneously to assess your presence.  It makes one suddenly aware of the mechanics of their walking. Something that, up to this point, came naturally now feels measured, awkward or contrived.  Why is that?

Jean Paul Sartre, in Being and Nothingness, writes: “The appearance of The Other in the world corresponds to a fixed sliding of the whole universe...the world has a kind of drain hole in the middle of its being”.  The human anxiety induced by the look of “the Other” requires a defense to preserve the self, often in the form of overcompensation, a “puffing-up” to avoid the threat of total dissolution. What is it about the human being that quakes in the eyes of the Other?   In teenagers, bad attitudes, misbehavior and confrontations often emerge in response to the anxiety of a lifetime of being watched. This theory may seem high-minded or esoteric, yet it serves as my practical philosophy of education.

Students at my school have come to find a second chance. The majority have been over-looked and overly looked-at, and yet not really seen at all". They experience a world in which they are constantly being sized-up--by their families, friends and neighbors--for any signs of exploitable weakness.  They have been repeatedly told that they are failing, will continue to fail, and that they should give up.

At home, the material concerns of life press harder than the abstract and far-off ideal of a college education that they have been told will pay off with a good job, “in the long run”. There are few “long run” success stories to be viewed in their neighborhoods and families. Many of my students have dropped out of the giant, one-size-fits-all public school behemoths, frustrated by their experiences in the traditional educational model, a model where students dwell in an inferior role to their teachers, and where they are asked to take it on good faith that what they’re learning will serve them some far-off day.  They are referred to by some as the lost ones, branded as failures.  The truth is, I find them smarter and braver than those, who as I did, bite their tongue and wait it out.

Our school is different.  Without ACE Leadership many of these young people would be out of options.  Our new small school aims to fully connect the student, as a whole human being, to both the content and the community.  Through partnership with Associated General Contractors (AGC) of New Mexico, our school incorporates professionals from the architecture, construction and engineering professions with opportunities to shape our curriculum, projects and assessment, so that students have access to real-world information and opportunities. They also have access to those professionals themselves, as Deborah Meier deems them, “an inviting adult community” to which they might someday belong.

William Butler Yeats famously wrote, “Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire”.  We do our best to ignite students’ interest through the projects and problems which define our curriculum, with a guarantee that in the end, their work will be made public.  The relevance of their efforts becomes palpable, a driver and motivator.  Students collaborate together to create products that demonstrate mastery of specified learning outcomes. We do not rotely address long lists of standards in sequence as many schools attempt to do, but create interdisciplinary projects where multiple teachers collaborate to design and differentiate curriculum.  As a team, teachers work to make possible vital, engaging, real-world opportunities for students to design, collaborate, build, promote, assess and explain their work.  Next trimester, for example, I plan to co-teach a class called “Solarium”, which incorporates reading, social studies, Spanish and science, and culminates with solar-powered team products, written statements and oral presentations.  The outcomes are of course derived from the Common Core curriculum and our state standards, but they are presented within an interdisciplinary context, much the way knowledge exists and materializes in the real world.

If they do not meet the learning outcomes at first call, we give them as many opportunities as possible.  There is no “failure”in our vocabulary--something that can at first bewilder students,--only a “not yet mastered”.  Students who have worked hard during the trimester, but need more time to demonstrate mastery are invited to a week of interim school, where they get more time and teacher attention to master content and skills.  Our project-based learning (PBL) curriculum means that students gain, for example, literacy skills and science content knowledge through a project examining cutting-edge design and build practices in the industry.   Instead of presenting this product only to a teacher and classmates within the school, at our exhibitions teams of students learn to speak to and interact with industry professionals they might otherwise have no access to.   In this way, students learn not only the fundamentals of science and humanities, for example, but also that their work can have an effect on others around them, and in the community.  Projects are pursued in small groups, emphasizing the importance of collaboration and communication, of speaking one’s mind in a constructive way.

Our greatest strength at ACE Leadership, however, is not our PBL curriculum or our strongcommunity engagement, but the lens through which we see students as social-emotional beings, not to be corralled, but cultivated. Balancing love and understanding with boundaries and expectations challenges a teacher’s understanding of his/her authority-if only because most teachers came of age in a school system where adjusting for an individual’s social-emotional health threatened structures of power.

I came to ACE Leadership from the New York City public school system, carrying with me some of the attitudes endemic to that environment.  My authority was abstract but more powerful than my students, to be accepted without question; content knowledge was supreme, and standardized tests defined success or failure, both for the student and for the school.  There, I joined the Watchers, other “drain-holes in the world”, as Sartre described.  I sat in the Teacher’s Room and lamented the injustices I experienced at the hands of disengaged students, and the vagaries of our distressed administration.  Conversations about learning always centered on the teacher.  I assumed this was a natural behavioral reaction.  It was, in fact, a distorted perception I did not see more clearly until I joined ACE Leadership where, as part of the induction, I began to learn about Positive Youth Development (PYD).

As the name indicates, PYD focuses on assets.  A student may be working “below grade-level” in a subject, may come from a violent home or neighborhood, and may exhibit unhealthy or self-destructive behaviors, yet there is always something good to be found and noted about that student, something they “bring to the table”. For us at ACE, the conversation begins here.  What is good in that student’s world today?

That simple shift in focus can be transformative.  Many of our students mistrust adults, because the focus has always been on what is wrong with them as “students”.  The adults in their lives have only seen and talked about what they as students lacked.  The resulting natural defensiveness can erect walls between teacher and student, adult and adolescent.  Don’t get me wrong. Lovey-dovey is not a phrase I would use to describe our approach to discipline.  It is still necessary for us to be firm, resolute and principled. There is a saying we share often with our students, “Don’t mistake kindness for weakness”.  Our teachers approach students from an asset-based perspective, while at the same time being clear and purposeful about protecting our school community.  Students then have the opportunity to experience, as Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said, “a strong, demanding love”.

The strong, demanding love that is the basis of PYD works when teachers and staff are trained in the philosophyandtogether in professional development sessions.  The condition for its possibility exists when the tenets of PYDare built into the curriculum (as in advisory), and the logistics of school functioning.  We do not use a bell system at ACE Leadership, for example, because we want to prepare students for the professional world, where they will more likely be working in an environment where they need to have a different awareness of the role of time, as opposed to a factory where they mindlessly move from one place to another.  Because projects are intenselycollaborative and our day runs from 9-5, as in the professional world, students are not tasked with rote homework assignments, our grades are not the result of an accumulation of points, but rather the final product that is evidence of their learning.  Through Positive Youth Development (PYD) and Project-Based Learning (PBL) we at ACE Leadership are working to de-institutionalize education and create a culture that grows people who do the right things for the right reasons.

Approaching a young person from a perspective such as this quickly induces an observable change in attitudes and behaviors.  Nearly half-way through the year, working with students who have not succeeded conforming to traditional school,we have had no fights, minimal vandalism and minimal behavior management issues, believe it or not.  With dignity intact, a student’s motivation begins to come from within.  They no longer need to scramble for external rewards to bring favor or evade punishment as an animal would.  Their work is for them. It requires relevant, critical thinking to solve problems, and it has the potential to make possible success in real-world opportunities.  Their agency and ability to choose well can preserve and empower them.

Arriving at a new and hopeful community of teachers and learners, I have experienced first-handthat offering relevant, Project-Based Learning, in conjunction with strong Positive Youth Development can ameliorate the damage done to young people, and to our society, by an increasingly anachronistic educational system.  Supporting students’ growth as creative, divergent thinkers and problem-solvers, while considering their social-emotional context and challenges creates a new possibility --the chance for a more humane relationship between those with power and authority and those who have come to see themselves as powerless, if only because they have been watched for so long, yet never really seen.

Hope Kitts is a Resource teacher in the Humanities at the Architecture, Construction, and Engineering (ACE) Leadership HS in Albuquerque, NM. She is a graduate of Eugene Lang College/The New School where she majored in Philosophy and of Brooklyn College, where she received her Master’s  in Education. 

ERC at CES Fall Forum 2012

ERC Co-Founder Dr. Larry Myatt and ERC Consulting Practitioner Katrina Kennett presented to a packed room at the recent 2012 Coalition of Essential Schools Fall Forum in Providence. Their day-long seminar focused on the dramatic need for a “Copernican revolution” with roots in the classroom and at the systemic levels. Myatt, a former Thompson Fellow National Faculty member and CES consultant, opened the session with a panoramic view of the history of education policy, trends and issues over the past 15 years, concluding with the troubling perspectives of today’s students concerning formal schooling. Ms. Kennett then presented her rationale for the necessity of a student-centric approach and a vision of practice. Other components included an exercise to re-think current structures and systems that purport to flow from core values but produce poor results, an “Ed Café” where attendees got to re-think the role of teacher, where and when learning can take place, and the nature of curriculum, design aspects of the new Albuquerque Leadership High School network, and a demonstration of the potential of classroom technology to provide crucial access and linkage in the re-designed school.

Helping to make the session special was the day-long presence of Deborah Meier, founder of two CES schools, CES Board member, well-known author and progressive education advocate, and that Kristina Lamour-Sansone, Chair of the Design Department at the Art Institute of Boston/Lesley University and noted proponent of mobilizing and connecting graphic design expertise with innate cognitive function to assist classroom educators.

The Unintended Consequences of the Nation’s Teacher Evaluation Binge

[The American Enterprise Institute’s Teacher Quality 2.0 is part of their ongoing series of conversations, which attempts to enliven and elevate the debate around student learning and teacher evaluation.]

In The Hangover, Thinking about the Unintended Consequences of the Nation’s Teacher Evaluation Binge authors Sara Mead, Andrew Rotherham, and Rachel Brown caution the wider education and education policy communities to exercise caution as no fewer than twenty states are moving at warp speed into the unchartered territory of “changing teacher evaluation systems to include evidence of teachers’ impact on student learning.” The authors suggest that while the need to focus on instructional quality and teacher performance and the impact of those things on a student’s success, policy- makers and education professionals need to proceed cautiously.

“After years of policies that ignored differences in teacher effectiveness, the pendulum is swinging in the other direction. By and large, this is progress—research shows that teachers affect student achievement more than any other within-school factor. Decades of inattention to teacher performance have been detrimental to students, teachers, and the credibility of the teaching profession. Addressing this problem is critical to improving public education outcomes and raising the status of teaching, and neither the issues raised in this paper nor technical concerns about the design and mechanisms of evaluation systems should be viewed as a reason not to move toward a more performance-oriented public education culture that gives teachers meaningful feedback about the quality and impact of their work."  However, Mead, Rotherham, and Brown worry that a dramatic pendulum swing from almost wholly ignoring instructional practice to an almost obsession level involvement with how to measure teaching success will almost certainly overwhelm the good intentions.

Follow this link to read the entire report, http://www.aei.org/files/2012/09/25/-the-hangover-thinking-about-the-unintended-consequences-of-the-nations-teacher-evaluation-binge_144008786960.pdf

Randolph HS Freshman Academy on Pace to Make a Difference

The new Freshman Academy at Randolph (MA) High School has been in operation for four months and has many accomplishments to its credit. The effort began last spring with the announcement that the Nellie Mae Education Fund would provide support for an initiative to reduce drop-outs and suspensions and to improve school climate and achievement, beginning with students new to the school.  Under the guidance and supervision of Asst. Principal for Instruction, Joshua Frank, the professional development and team-building for his 9th-grade team has been focused on a two-sided approach –building positive relationships and inquiry-based teaching.  According to Frank, “we held our first Parent Breakfast and our first Back-to School Night.  And in late September, we held the first of what are now regular ‘Good News’ meetings for staff to celebrate what was going well for our students and for us”.

Dr. Larry Myatt, ERC Project Coach for the effort, explained that the Randolph team’s effort “contains just the right ingredients, and has enormous potential to re-make the high school experience at the school. I consider it an exemplary initiative in its thoughtfulness, design and the impact it is having in building capacity among the teaching professionals. It’s in sync with what we know works in high schools”.  Myatt praised Frank’s leadership and the dedication and effort of the teachers involved.

Parts of the “relationship-building” blueprint include developing respectful “safety” language, check-in’s for students as they start classes, using guided discipline techniques and conferencing rather than punishments, and beginning to introduce more thoughtful interventions when students present complicated patterns of behavior.  On the instructional side, teachers are developing “essential questions” to help students connect topics to larger ideas in the world, and using a rubric for lesson design and instructional strategies to push and support their students towards challenging intellectual work. Behind the scenes, ERC Consulting Practitioner Katrina Kennett and Math Coach Richard Dubuisson are providing the Freshman Academy staff with iPad training, lesson-design support and inquiry strategies.

Frank says there are some signs of struggle in changing to a new way of doing business, “as we raise the academic bar”, yet other very positive commentary. Math teacher Erica Keane told the group in a Good News meeting that the term “shut up” among students has vanished from her classroom.  English teacher Jamie Steinberg pointed out that her students are really starting to take ownership of their learning and reflected on her own emerging ability to sit back and let students do the work.  She sees this as an indication of the power of high teacher expectations.  Another math teacher, Frank Morreale, stated that he is learning to “bite my tongue and let students answer each other’s questions.” Science teacher Kyle Marshall talked about the power of conferencing to help a girl who had been “completely shut down” get back to work the following day.  His Science counterpart, Karen Resendes, described having 15-20 students come after school to work on homework, “the first time so many students came after class.”  Social Studies teacher Caitlin Walsh described “several great days of instruction” in which students transferred their understanding of perspective from a description of a football game to an 18th century primary source.

Special Educator Brian Cartwright reported on successful conferences with students, as well as a growing number of “regular customers” in the brand new, after-school Learning Center, something long missing in the school, and one of the key structures the grant has made possible.  A “Student of the Week” initiative for each freshman team has begun, another indicator of “a very powerful, positive year for our students, and for us”, according to Frank.

Back to School 2012-13: Giving Our Schools More Hope

by Forum Convener and ERC Co-Founder Dr. Larry Myatt

It's back-to-school time for many over the next few weeks.  What do most public teachers and students across the nation have to look forward to as they head back for the 2012-13 school year?

  • Yet another "common core".  (What's wrong with the dozens, if not hundreds, that states, curriculum and cultural organizations have already constructed over the past decades?  Is it the lists or what we do/don't do with them that make us need a "latest version"?)
  • Lots more testing, costing us hundreds of millions to implement even in times of budget scarcity. (Have you been in or around a school when testing is taking place?  Stress. Anxiety.  A brink's truck worth of secrecy and security passing as education.  By the way, our new generation of school leaders and teachers hasgrown up on standardized testing.)
  • A federal administration that says that those tests don't give a full picture of the quality of learning.
  • A federal administration, with friends at the state bureaucracy level, that say those same tests are good enough to use to measure teacher performance
  • Loads of schools that will be crushed by new teacher-evaluation mandates that rely on those same test scores, "data-driven goal setting" and hundreds of hours of report writing, all in the name of holding teachers accountable.  (These mandates will swamp them all:  schools with strong cultures of pedagogy, schools with good plans in motion and schools with neither.)
  • Surveys across the land that say more kids are bored and tuned out in school, especially in high schools, and are sick of being told "what matters" more than their own questions about the world.
  • Big high-school dropout numbers.
  • Fewer qualified individuals who want to lead our schools.
  • Traditional public schools in every town and city in which two hours of meetings a month pass for the thought partnership needed to improve a mediocre experience for 75% of our students.  Institutions that should define the intellectual life of the community haven't figured out how to employ computers in a way that vaguely resembles the real world.  It boggles the mind.
  • Proliferating charter schools that mimic the architecture and adacemic platforms of 1950's schools that served the affluent, many under the banner of "no excuses".

Yes, it's a troubling take for those heading back into the trenches.

We will not get a lot of real and timely support from the policy and bureaucratic worlds.  Despite their good intentions, they have put us into this predicament.  As my longtime friend and mentor Ted Sizer said at every opportunity, the best thing that policy makers can do is to create the best possible conditions for schools and get out of the way.

Teachers, administrators and, above all, students, need and deserve some relief.

Here's how I think we can dig ourselves out:

  1. Accept the harsh reality that, at present, we don't have enough time for or skill in deep, collaborative analysis and problem-solving at the school level.  Let's make the time.  Find the time at every school and invite smart, design-oriented, capacity-building help from the outside.  Let's include hyper -involved local brain trusts.
  2. Sweep away the residual weight and glut of inherited, competing frameworks for teaching.  Have a school-wide conversation about how and why we should use theauthentic achievement rubric as the lodestone for teaching and learning.  Every teacher needs to know what truly cognitively-rigorous work looks like.  Every teacher needs support and accountablilty for bringing truly cognitively-rigorous work to students.  This can and should be real institution-building--a school development dream come true--if thought out and led well.  The work can only be done one school at a time.  (Sizer said that too.)  Work of this kind flows beautifully into the ascendant, national "multiple measures" and performance assessment conversations.  This good policy thinking helps to gauge classroom learning and teacher skills in smarter, more positive ways.  What teachers' association wouldn't want to grab on to those in today's climate?
  3. Place a two-fold, heavy emphasis on opportunities for student choice and the intense application of technology tools.  They go together, and are critical to meeting students where they're at and take them where they want to go as intellectual/social beings.  Too many people don't realize that Bloom's taxonomy has been dramatically updated in a way that can propel our agenda for better teaching and learning.  This is totally in sync with the ways that real, working adults do business and can move us towared the elusive, much bandied "21st century learning" goal in every school's plan.
  4. Make sure that we have deep and expansive programs (and adult cultures) that recognize the critical role of social/emotional resilience and positive youth development (PYD) as the critical underpinning of achievement in schools serving poor families.  We need more resources, of course, in such schools, but without the PYD framework, we fail to respect and activate young minds and hearts.
  5. Have knowledgeable and skilled teachers work together to, literally, take scissors and cut up copies of the "standards".  Then--after planning inviting, authentic, achievement-oriented lessons--paste them back together in ways that make sense for students and schools, not for bureaucrats and "culture mavens".  They'll all fit just right, believe me.  Haven't we learned over 30 years that approaching these standards as lists to cover doesn't get the job done?  I work with schools that are readily succeeding with this liberating tactic and they refuse to let top-down, linear approaches and pacing guides rule the day.
  6. Abandon the usual rubber-stamp or stubbornly contentious "school site councils" and statutory oversight/approval groups that pass for governance or quality-assurance mechansisms.  Replace them with real, highly-trained and empowered leadership teams or study groups whose work would guide the school, develop resident expertise and involve all constituents who truly want to work for improvement.  And, following the ground-breaking work of some of the new Abuquerque small high schools, let's get real and smart about parent engagement and business/community involvement that can drive change and improvement.
  7. Finally, if you're a charter school, or an in-district pilot, and you have the five autonomies (budget, curriculum, staffing, governance, clock/calendar) we all thought would surely rescue us from sleepy tradition, please take on some real innovation.  You have the bully pulpit and the flexibility.  Revisit such things as the age-alike cohort model that binds us, the arcane and unproductive curriculum hierarchy, the brittle partnerships we form with businesses and communities, the egg-crate scheduling, and our sorely-lagging attempts at technology integration (!).  That's a short list of the structures and practices we continue to employ that, in reality, misguide and fail us.  There are so many others that need to be abandoned or replaced!  Bring in people who are used to thinking deeply about school design to help that work flow productively.

Our schools sorely need hope.  We can provide some with these simple but potentially powerful suggestions. Above all, we need some genuine leadership to take these issues on.  School's in!

Forum Convener Dr.Larry Myatt is the Co-Founder of the Education Resources Consortium and a former National Faculty Member of The Coalition of Essential Schools

For full story go to, http://www.forumforeducation.org/blog/back-school-2012-13-giving-our-schools-more-hope

“Tiger Mom” and the “Race to Nowhere”

by Joshua Frank

“Where were you yesterday?”  The question came from a seventh-grade girl on a Tuesday morning in February.  She was among hundreds of students entering the large suburban middle school where I am principal.  I usually greet these students as they enter the school from busses between 7:30 and 7:40, but I’d had a meeting at 7:30 the previous morning, and hadn’t been there. She had noticed.  That she had noticed might seem ironic.  After all, seventh graders generally try to put a lot of distance between themselves and the adult authorities in their lives.  Her question reminds us that even as they seem to be pushing us away, our middle-school age children are paying careful attention to our presence.  They thrive on the consistency of our presence in their lives, even if they rarely tell us so.

 Two critiques of our parenting and educational culture had generated much discussion that winter.  A book entitled Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother by Amy Chua, “preaches tough love and high expectations,” according to The New York Times Book Review, and Race to Nowhere, a film described as “featuring the heartbreaking stories of young people across the country who have been pushed to the brink.”  These critiques, and the buzz that both created, had me wondering.  Why are these messages so contradictory?   We are being told that we work our children too hard at the same time we are being told we don’t work them hard enough.  We are being told that we focus too much on achievement, and at the same time that we don’t focus enough on achievement.  Why do we react so strongly to these critiques?  Chua’s book was on the cover of Time magazine, while Race to Nowhere was playing at schools and theaters around the country.   Don’t we trust ourselves to raise and educate our children?

It’s important to ask these questions, without settling for simple answers.   There should be joy, creativity and engagement in learning; at the same time, hard work is often required before we experience joy, creativity and engagement.  We all have strengths and challenges as learners.  We must understand our strengths and be willing to acknowledge and address our areas of challenge. Hard work is required for achievement, but achievement is empty if there is no joy in the work. Children are individuals who develop at different rates, and who have different areas of engagement and strength in what and how they learn.  These differences should be respected, but not at the expense of learning the value of effort.  That seventh grader’s question reminds me of something just as important to raising and educating children: we need to be there.

“Why am I doing this?”  -a senior in high school asks this question halfway through Race to Nowhere.  She then outlines a simple formula.  “Grades, college, job, happy.  But if I’m not healthy, it doesn’t add up.”  She’s right; it doesn’t add up.  It doesn’t add up because she has been offered too simple a formula for happiness.  As adults, parents and educators, I hope we learn to trust ourselves enough to let children play, learn through engagement, and experience joy when they can.  I also hope we trust ourselves enough to require our children to acknowledge when learning is a challenge, and require them to work hard when learning is more difficult, or to take a step toward a difficult and distant goal. I hope we trust ourselves enough to understand that it will take a long time for them to grow up, so getting it right may take them many attempts.  I hope we trust ourselves to recognize and value their differences from each other, and from us.  I hope that we trust ourselves to realize that sometimes it’s important to let our children live in the moment, and sometimes it’s important to have them think about the future, and that over time we can help them figure out that balance.  Our children can learn this more complicated formula for happiness by living it with us every day.  That’s why I was so happy with the question, “Where were you yesterday?”

Joshua Frank is Assistant Principal for Instruction and Director of the Freshman Academy at Randolph (MA) High School.  He taught social studies in the Brookline Public Schools for sixteen years, and held administrative positions in Brookline and Wellesley, MA. He completed his undergraduate education at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst, and holds masters degrees from the University of Massachusetts-Boston and the Harvard Graduate School of Education.

The Massachusetts’ Model Evaluation Tool: The next best thing or …

The Massachusetts’ Model Evaluation Tool: The next best thing or …
by Wayne Ogden

Starting in 2010 with an application for “Race To The Top” (RTTP) funds, the Massachusetts’ Department Of Elementary & Secondary Education began an ambitious journey toward a near total redesign of educator evaluation in the Commonwealth. Constituents representing the largest teacher unions (MTA & AFT) as well as organizations representing school superintendents and principals (MASS, MESPA & MASSA) were invited to join the DESE Task Force on the development of a new evaluation tool and procedures in this major shift away from the prior ways of evaluating the state’s 50,000-plus educators.

Two years and thousands of hours later the new system is getting underway. With the help of federal money we have new, model evaluator tools and performance rubrics in place. The DESE has published “Guides” for schools and districts and their implementation of the teacher evaluation tools, as well as similar documents for the evaluation of principals and superintendents. The DESE also published, “Model Contract Language” for use by school districts and their unions in the mandatory collective bargaining process that must accompany these changes.

Most underperforming school districts and some “early adopters” have a year of practice under their belts and the remaining school districts are gearing up for full implementation of the new process by the 2013-2014 school year. While school districts and the state teacher unions prepare for these changes, they do so without knowing what the final two critical components of Massachusetts’ “Model System” will look like. The unfinished portions of the system are the two most complicated and controversial: how to include ratings for educator impact on student learning and how to incorporate student and staff feedback into the evaluation system.

Changes to the process by which Massachusetts’ educators have been evaluated are widely believed to be long overdue. In the words of a former school teacher and principal who served on the DESE Task Force, “Current evaluation practices in the state are wobbly, at best. We’re often stuck in place, unable to move beyond simple compliance with procedures. Now, the Task Force and the Board (of Education) have a chance to break the logjam. We can create a more ambitious, focused and growth-oriented framework. I’m hoping for a breakthrough.” (DESE Webinar, January 10, 2012).

This collaboration, with the exception of the AFT who did not send a representative to the DESE Task Force, has been described as inclusive and professional. After much negotiation and compromise all elements of the “Model System” seemed to have broad support until recently, when some of the challenges of creating such sweeping changes began to surface as educators and districts tried to take the new system from a “state model” to local implementation.

 

 

The first bump in the road to implementation appeared this spring in local school districts when local teacher union leaders and regional MTA representatives, contrary to a statewide MTA leadership endorsement of the “Model”, tried to alter substantially some key language of the Model Contract in negotiations with local School Committees.  The second impediment to successful implementation of the new system came in the form of financial considerations -who is going to fund the costs associated with the training of both administrators and teachers in the new practices required by the evaluation system? There is current legislation pending on Beacon Hill that would answer this question by requiring local districts to absorb the costs of training using federal funds if no local money was available.

The third, and I believe most threatening challenge facing successful implementation, concerns just how the educators will be “trained” as apart of this undertaking. The DESE Task Force has promoted the new system as one aimed at “collaboration and continuous growth” through a five-step process of: self-assessment, analysis, goal setting & plan development, implementation of the plan, formative assessment/evaluation, and summative evaluation. This complex set of goals and cycle of improvement, in addition to a very detailed set of performance rubrics, requires a depth of training of teachers previously absent in most school districts. Most, if not all school districts simply lack the time, let along the expertise, to conduct sessions of this depth and magnitude, AND must do it on a short time-line. Even the present level of training of principals in their work as evaluators and instructional leaders has been wildly uneven across the Commonwealth, usually dependent on the budgetary wealth of a particular school district.  Add to this many schools and districts where visits to classrooms and meaningful discussions of practice are desultory at best.

What I find unsettling is that, despite these challenges posed by the model system, many school districts are attempting to introduce the new system with out-dated and simplistic approaches to training. Routinely, school leaders across the state are being trained apart from their teachers in the specifics of observing and analyzing teaching according to the model system. In some school districts the teachers receive some training from their respective unions and, in others, training is provided by their districts. I strongly suggest that any professional development in support of this model system done by segregating teachers from their evaluators is a recipe for misunderstanding and failure.

If, as the DESE suggests, the new system is about “collaboration and continuous learning”, then let’s train teachers and their evaluators together on all phases of the evaluation tools and performance expectations. Let’s encourage teachers and principals to have open and candid conversations about what is/is not good instructional practice. Training educators while isolated in groups from one another, will result in confusion as to what the criteria are for proficient and exemplary practices.  That confusion will lead to conflict, grievances and arbitrations --the symptoms of the old “us versus them” mentality associated with decades of teacher evaluation. Furthermore, it is unlikely to result in the improvement of student performance that everyone seems to be calling for in this major change of practice.

One (maddening) Day Working with the (Latest) Common Core

By Valerie Strauss

This was written by Jeremiah Chaffee, a high school English teacher in upstate New York for the last 13 years.

The high school English department in which I work recently spent a day looking at what is called an “exemplar” from the new Common Core State Standards, and then working together to create our own lessons linked to that curriculum. An exemplar is a prepackaged lesson which is supposed to align with the standards of the Common Core. The one we looked at was a lesson on “The Gettysburg Address.”

The process of implementing the Common Core Standards is under way in districts across the country as almost every state has now signed onto the Common Core, (some of them agreeing to do in hopes of winning Race to the Top money from Washington D.C.). The initiative is intended to ensure that students in all parts of the country are learning from the same supposedly high standards.

As we looked through the exemplar, examined a lesson previously created by some of our colleagues, and then began working on our own Core-related lessons, I was struck by how out of sync the Common Core is with what I consider to be good teaching. I have not yet gotten to the “core” of the Core, but I have scratched the surface, and I am not encouraged.

Here are some of the problems that the group of veteran teachers with whom I was with at the workshop encountered using the exemplar unit on “The Gettysburg Address.”
Each teacher read individually through the exemplar lesson on Lincoln’s speech. When we began discussing it, we all expressed the same conclusion: Most of it was too scripted. It spelled out what types of questions to ask, what types of questions not to ask, and essentially narrowed any discussion to obvious facts and ideas from the speech.

In some schools, mostly in large urban districts, teachers are forced by school policy to read from scripted lessons, every day in every class. For example, all third-grade teachers do the same exact lessons on the same day and say exactly the same things. (These districts often purchase these curriculum packages from the same companies who make the standardized tests given to students.)

Scripting lessons is based on several false assumptions about teaching. They include:

* That anyone who can read a lesson aloud to a class can teach just as well as experienced teachers;

* That teaching is simply the transference of information from one person to another;

* That students should not be trusted to direct any of their own learning;

* That testing is the best measure of learning.

Put together, this presents a narrow and shallow view of teaching and learning.

Most teachers will tell you that there is a difference between having a plan and having a script. Teachers know that in any lesson there needs to be some wiggle room, some space for discovery and spontaneity. But scripted cookie-cutter lessons aren’t interested in that; the idea is that they will help students learn enough to raise their standardized test scores. Yet study after study has shown that even intense test preparation does not significantly raise test scores, and often causes stress and boredom in students. Studies have also shown that after a period of time, test scores plateau, and it is useless, even counter-productive educationally, to try to raise test scores beyond that plateau.

Another problem we found relates to the pedagogical method used in the Gettysburg Address exemplar that the Common Core calls “cold reading.” This gives students a text they have never seen and asks them to read it with no preliminary introduction. This mimics the conditions of a standardized test on which students are asked to read material they have never seen and answer multiple choice questions about the passage. Such pedagogy makes school wildly boring. Students are not asked to connect what they read yesterday to what they are reading today, or what they read in English to what they read in science. The exemplar, in fact, forbids teachers from asking students if they have ever been to a funeral because such questions rely “on individual experience and opinion,” and answering them “will not move students closer to understanding the Gettysburg Address.” (This is baffling, as if Lincoln delivered the speech in an intellectual vacuum; as if the speech wasn’t delivered at a funeral and meant to be heard in the context of a funeral; as if we must not think about memorials when we read words that memorialize. Rather, it is impossible to have any deep understanding of Lincoln’s speech without thinking about the context of the speech: a memorial service.)

The exemplar instructs teachers to “avoid giving any background context” because the Common Core’s close reading strategy “forces students to rely exclusively on the text instead of privileging background knowledge, and levels the playing field for all.” What sense does this make?  Teachers cannot create such a “level playing field” because we cannot rob any of the students of the background knowledge they already possess. Nor can we force students who have background knowledge not to think about that while they read. A student who has read a biography of Lincoln, or watched documentaries about the Civil War on PBS or the History Channel, will have the “privilege” of background knowledge beyond the control of the teacher. Attempting to create a shallow and false “equality” between students will in no way help any of them understand Lincoln’s speech. (As a side note, the exemplar does encourage teachers to have students “do the math:” subtract four score and seven from 1863 to arrive at 1776. What is that if not asking them to access background knowledge?) Asking questions about, for example, the causes of the Civil War, are also forbidden. Why? These questions go “outside the text,” a cardinal sin in Common Core-land.

According to the exemplar, the text of the speech is about equality and self-government, and not about picking sides. It is true that Lincoln did not want to dishonor the memory of the Southern soldiers who fought and died valiantly. But does any rational person read “The Gettysburg Address” and not know that Lincoln desperately believed that the North must win the war? Does anyone think that he could speak about equality without everyone in his audience knowing he was talking about slavery and the causes of the war? How can anyone try to disconnect this profoundly meaningful speech from its historical context and hope to “deeply” understand it in any way, shape, or form?

Here’s another problem we found with the exemplar: The teacher is instructed in the exemplar to read the speech aloud after the students have read it to themselves; but, it says, “Do not attempt to ‘deliver’ Lincoln’s text as if giving the speech yourself but rather carefully speak Lincoln’s words clearly to the class.”

English teachers love Shakespeare; when we read to our classes from his plays, we do not do so in a dry monotone. I doubt Lincoln delivered his address in as boring a manner as the Common Core exemplar asks. In fact, when I read this instruction, I thought that an interesting lesson could be developed by asking students to deliver the speech themselves and compare different deliveries in terms of emphasis, tone, etc. The exemplar says, “Listening to the Gettysburg Address is another way to initially acquaint students with Lincoln’s powerful and stirring words.” How, then, if the teacher is not to read it in a powerful and stirring way? The most passionate speech in Romeo and Juliet, delivered poorly by a bad actor, will fall flat despite the author’s skill.

Several years ago, our district, at the demand of our state education department, hired a consultant to train teachers to develop literacy skills in students. This consultant and his team spent three years conducting workshops and visiting the district. Much of this work was very fruitful, but it does not “align” well with the Common Core. The consultant encouraged us to help students make connections between what they were reading and their own experience, but as you’ve seen, the Common Core exemplar we studied says not to. Was all that work with the consultant wasted? At one point during the workshop, we worked with a lesson previously created by some teachers. It had all the hallmarks of what I consider good teaching, including allowing students to make connections beyond the text.

And when it came time to create our own lessons around the exemplar, three colleagues and I found ourselves using techniques that we know have worked to engage students — not what the exemplar puts forth.

The bottom line: The Common Core exemplar we worked with was intellectually limiting, shallow in scope, and uninteresting. I don’t want my lessons to be any of those things.

From Valerie Strauss “The Answer Sheet”:  www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet.

ERC comes to Randolph High School “Student-Centered Classrooms: Authentic Achievement, Choice and Connectivity”

Teaching for authentic achievement came together with state-of-the-art technology, social networking and media tools as ERC Consulting Practitioner Katrina Kennett travelled to Randolph (MA) High School in early June. A new Randolph High School Freshmen Academy Team, under the tutelage of Asst. Principal for Instruction Josh Frank, was treated to an afternoon ERC seminar designed to support their move to high-challenge, student-centered instruction and assessment. The seminar was titled “Student-Centered Classrooms: Authentic Achievement, Choice and Connectivity”.

Ms. Kennett was introduced by ERC Co-Founder Larry Myatt, as “a teacher’s teacher, whose thinking and practice incorporate critical elements needed to address four critical issues in today’s educational-political environment”. In his preliminary remarks Myatt defined those four challenges as the unprecedented levels of student disinterest in classroom instruction as reflected on surveys  across the nation; the outsized appeal and availability of technology tools, social networking, and learning opportunities outside the classroom; the heightened importance and increasing role of performance assessment in classrooms to provide better understandings of links between student learning and instructional practice; and the need for teachers and administrators to be better able to define and portray what rigorous intellectual work looks like. “Kennett”, said Myatt “is able to bring those varying and diverse elements under one roof as a practitioner as she plans and executes state-of-the-art teaching and assessment”.

In her seminar at Randolph HS , Kennett provided some exemplar lessons designed with Fred Newmann’s  definition of “authentic achievement”* in mind, went on to demonstrate her approach to “paperless research”, the use of “EdCafes” to leverage students’ passion and preferences, and an array of technology tools to support student’s critical thinking, revision and “ownership of deeper learning”. One of the theme questions that got the group’s attention was “Understanding Society Through Its Monsters”, a literature and social issues unit that linked students’ passion for the sensational and macabre with historical and literary figures through research, reading and critical essays and presentations, embellished and personalized with a range of high-tech tools and strategies.

 

Randolph teachers had a number of opportunities for questions about how to adopt Kennett’s strategies for their own classrooms. According to Frank, the Randolph team was “extremely enthusiastic” about Kennett’s presentation and would like to do more detailed work with her in the future. In particular, Frank went on, “Katrina’s was not a glitzy ‘technology demo’, but a deeper set of insights into how thoughtful teachers can employ these kinds of tools with solid planning and relationship-building to push for higher student engagement and achievement. This is the future of teaching and we got a look at it today”.  Jamie Steinberg, 9th grade English teacher at RHS was even more direct –“I want to teach like that”, she said, “I want to create and use lessons and tools like she demonstrated, that make students want to push themselves harder”.

 

Interestingly, the Randolph team had just received some exciting news only days before when it was announced that some of the work of transforming the high school’s programming and practices, beginning with the Freshmen Academy, would be underwritten by a planning grant from the Nellie Mae Education Foundation. The grant enabled the scheduled work to get underway early, beginning with two “PD intensive” weeks this summer, rather than waiting for September. Myatt had been asked to assist Frank, working over the late winter and spring with a diverse, cross-grade study group of teachers in order to guide the design of a plan for re-thinking the 9th grade experience at Randolph HS to raise achievement and engagement levels and lower drop-out rates. In late April, Frank delivered the team’s recommendations to the Randolph school district administration for submission to the Nellie Mae foundation, with an emphasis on inquiry-based teaching, high levels of teacher collaboration, and building social/emotional resilience and relationships to support the increased academic demands.  Kennett’s workshop was provided as a pro bono gesture by ERC to help catalyze the school’s efforts, and was the first formal professional development opportunity associated with the new and ambitious transformation agenda for the Freshmen Academy team designed to focus on student-centered learning. Randolph Superintendent Oscar Santos stopped by the high school the following morning to meet with Frank and the 9th grade team to express support and enthusiasm for the initiative.

A graduate of Connecticut College, Ms. Kennett teaches in the Plymouth MA Public Schools and is completing her Master’s Degree at San Diego State University. In addition to consulting with schools and individuals for ERC, Katrina serves as a leading presence on the Authentic Assessment Team for her school in the New England I3 Network, developing performance-based assessments and pioneering student choice as a motivating factor in student-centered classrooms. Ms. Kennett offers a range of model classrooms and through them is adept at guiding and supporting teachers in lesson design, instructional management, and effectively employing a range of connectivity strategies, including Twitter, Todaysmeet, Voicethread, SoundCloud and YouTube.

For more information on the supports for this effort at Randolph HS, please email Larry@educationresourcesconsortium.com.

*- Newmann, Secada, and Wehlage; Newmann, King and Carmichael.

Taking Stock: A Decade of Education Reform in Massachusetts

The golden age of school renewal that was envisioned in Massachusetts in the
mid-1990s has, sadly, never materialized. M r. Myatt and Ms. Kemp contend that the
state's emphasis on testing as a substitute for authentic dialogue about schooling
has been the main reason that the Massachusetts Education Reform Act
has failed to fulfill its great promise .

To continue reading, click this PDF PhiDeltaKappan-Taking Stock- Myatt-Kemp 10.04

Connecting the Dots: The Unexplored Promise of Visual Literacy in American Classrooms

Not too long ago, my wife made the decision to try one of those on-line groceries-delivered-to-your-home deals from our neighborhood chain. She expected that setting up the template for the initial order would take some time, but, once its set, the idea is, you point and click and save yourself an hour and a half each weekend. The surprise for her, and me (enlisted to help out), was that when you go to choose the various selections of soap, pasta, meat, etc., you see only a brand name in script, a size selection, and a price --no click down for an image, packaging color scheme, company logo, dairy maid, ear of corn, giant with ear ring, etc. Just a three-word description of the item – “Tom’s Toothpaste- w/ whitener”, size and price. Suddenly, it became a challenge for both of us to try to visualize and choose the precise products that we had routinely, in some cases for twenty years, been selecting off the shelf as we whisk down the aisles on automatic pilot.

What has this got to do with education? Let me connect some dots, so to speak. For one thing, the composition of the students in our urban classrooms has changed dramatically. Long gone are those mythical days of the “general ed.” classroom, with a large core of on- or near-grade level students, a few outliers slower in their reading, one or two with mild learning disabilities, and the occasional second language learner. The inner-city classrooms I see these days may not have a single on-grade level reader among the 30 or so students, and will have anywhere from 4-10 students with special needs ranging from those who require minor accommodations to others who need teachers to make substantial adjustments to their planning, instructional materials and assessment. Also in the mix are likely to be a number of students with behavioral challenges and, of course, the 6-8 whose home language is not English and who may have come from countries where their education was interrupted or minimal to begin with. Our shorthand in Boston for this challenging array of learners is “the New Classroom” and the implications for instruction, teacher training and development, technology needs, and additional human resources are overwhelming.

Next dot? The dropout crisis. Urban districts are finding it difficult to finesse their dropout numbers for NCLB reporting and the real figures have begun to emerge. Some cities, provoked by the Youth Transition Funders Group discussions, are examining their numbers as a reflection of deep community concern. Whatever the motivation, the scale of the problem is frightening. Boston, a medium-sized city, is losing well over 1,500 high school age students a year to the streets. In 2007, USA Today, adding to the bad news, reported that among the nation's 50 largest districts, three are graduating fewer than 40%: Detroit (21.7%), Baltimore (38.5%) and New York City (38.9%). As the poor get poorer more families find themselves in crisis, and with our fatuous testing-as-school-improvement strategy exposed for what it really is, public school systems across the country are hard-pressed to address the intensified inquiry into how they plan to stem the tide of disengaged youth.

Add one final complicating dot to this picture. The old wisdom goes if you spend much time in high schools, you realize that in every hour, the best 5 minutes for most students occur during passing time. The hallways are where the real action is --home to lively talk, curiosity, engagement, relationships, and the passionate pursuit of “what’s happening”? Nowadays, those frenetic moments between classes are increasingly characterized by the proliferation of personal electronics that connect, display, gratify and inform –cell phones that transmit flashing images, iPods, uploads, downloads, students racing to find available computers to search the Internet, email or Instant Message. Educators still yearn to harness that unbounded energy, but are reluctantly coming to grips with the fact that teaching and learning as currently construed compete less and less successfully with the media appliances of the popular culture. While images and visual literacy are becoming more prevalent for our kids, text-driven instruction has come to dominate their formal schooling, perhaps more than ever before, a function of the press to prepare students for the all-important testing formats, starting now in the early grades and including dozens of state tests, the SAT’s, the AP’s, etc.

As Thomas West asserts, “more and more we insist on having our schools teaching the skills of the medieval clerk –reading, writing, counting, and memorizing texts”. As a frequent observer of schools and classrooms, I have to agree with West, that “clerk-dom” has become the daily lot for too many young people all over this nation, struggling to find a hint of meaning or access into the “work” and swimming in text.

"Please listen, class". "Pay attention, now". "Follow along with me, I'm on page three". "Will someone read for us?" --students let us know with their body language, their passive disinterest, or their distracting behavior, that it’s hard for them to be engaged and successful in an academic world interpreted almost completely through text, a format that discounts some of the very methods through which they might find meaning and become more intellectually involved. We are watching more and more kids, across grade or subject area, lean away and tune out from lessons that force them to listen, sort through page after page, write short responses, talk some, read more, write more, etc. For many of us, there has been far too little acknowledgment or discussion of the role of this kind of teaching and assessment and its correlation to our dropout plague.

Back to the on-line shopping. We know from such episodes and personal experiences, from child-rearing, from Howard Gardner and others, that we each learn in differing ways and at different paces— and, when given the chance, we express our learning differently. The novel notion that robust theories of multiple “intelligences”, aptitudes, and predispositions could inform and help to re-make the structures and teaching practices of our schools enjoyed a short burst of interest a decade ago, but is now largely off the table, too costly and complicated, save a small number of privileged schools, many at the elementary level. Yet, the marriage of popular culture and new technologies now plays an unprecedented role in the ways in which young people are entertained and informed, and, simultaneously, how they learn and communicate. The trend is undeniable and irreversible –most kids these days have learned to learn in these new ways first, and in the “old-school way” second, if at all. Add to this equation the limited capacity and/or determined resistance of many older educators to the uses of technology in schools, a sad fact that has proven enormously problematic in the medieval classroom. And while our students are connecting globally, we baffle visitors from other countries when we tell them how much we spend on textbooks, those relics of yesteryear --enormously expensive, containing a fraction of the information available on line, and outdated within days of publication. Like it or not, we are at a pedagogical crossroads and we either have to get on board with other, more expansive ideas about literacy and the related uses of technology or continue to pay the price in the loss of young minds.

So, what makes me hopeful? The work of a small but growing number of schools, educators and thinkers that have not been anesthetized by testing, who keep in mind such notions as curiosity and emergent curriculum, and who have also taken to heart both the realities of The New Classroom and their students’ deep connection to developing technologies. These are folks who acknowledge as West posits, that “machines have already become our best clerks… it will be left to the humans to maximize what is most valued among human capabilities and what machines cannot do –and, increasingly, these are likely to involve the insightful and integrative capacities associated with visual modes of thought”.

A decade ago, DeFanti and Brown summarized reasons for the booming popularity of visualization in their Advances in Computers, "Much of modern science can no longer be communicated in print; DNA sequences, molecular models, medical imaging scans, brain maps, simulated flights through a terrain, simulations of fluid flow, and so on all need to be expressed and taught visually…. Scientists need an alternative to numbers. A technical reality today and a cognitive imperative tomorrow is the use of images. The ability of scientists to visualize complex computations and simulations is absolutely essential to ensure the integrity of analyses, to provoke insights, and to communicate those insights with others." It becomes clearer each day, that it’s not only scientists who are moving beyond text and numbers.

Among those making sense of these issues is Kristina Lamour-Sansone, founder of The Design Education Consultancy, whose commitment to bringing highly-challenging and disciplined graphic design values and applications into classrooms in a number of cities has shown exceptional promise. Working in Boston’s High School Renewal Initiative, Lamour-Sansone has been digging in with teachers of substantially separate special education classrooms, second-language learners and behaviorally- challenged students. Her visual-literacy approach captures the energy and vitality needed to liberate learning for those youngsters least likely to succeed in passing through the ever-shrinking “eye of the needle” of text-driven instruction. Lamour-Sansone works with teachers eager to plan lessons that turn students loose on their machines and in their mind’s eyes, to design complicated, eye-catching visual arrays that reveal sophisticated reasoning and high levels of intellectual engagement. These organic “maps” that interweave concepts, skills, connections, and comparisons are then deconstructed and converted back into thoughtful, highly organized outlines and drafts for use in chapter summaries, research papers, essays and portfolio artifacts.

For example, in a civil rights unit in their integrated Humanities course, Social Justice Academy students comparing the lives and ideals of Martin Luther King, Jr. and Malcolm X began by brainstorming what they knew in small groups. Then, researching independently on Google Image Search, they developed formative Venn diagrams capturing images and events from the lives and experiences of the two men. By using tracing paper on top of central, well-chosen images, the students began to add vocabulary and key concepts from the lesson, linking them to the enduring themes identified in the unit’s curriculum standards. Meanwhile, Lamour-Sansone worked with teachers to help them learn page layout software for designing visual timelines as a classroom tool in conjunction with the lesson, demonstrating promising impact on teacher capacity and positive professional development outcomes. The unique, visual time lines helped to further provoke students’ developing notions of King’s and Malcolm’s intersecting or opposing strategies and beliefs. Finally, with firmer ideas about the men and issues in question, the students returned to essay writing, class discussion and, eventually, test-taking, having transcended the initial limitations of a text-based, linear approach, and with strong images of the unit in their “mind’s eyes” and at their disposal.

Some teachers have gone above and beyond the initial expectations and are thinking actively about how to tap the potential of graphic design-based visual literacy in the initial introduction of skills and concepts, enhancing their didactic repertoires. Some schools in which Lamour-Sansone has worked are making time for teachers to learn such techniques, more commonly found within intellectual constructs such as that of the Reggio Emilia, a respected yet under-utilized approach that capitalizes on the realization that complex visual thinking is both instinctual and universal. Lamour-Sansone is committed to appropriating these notions now for urban public schools, building their capacity to employ them across a range of concepts and skill development. Kids are getting on board and looking forward for opportunities to employ what comes naturally to them. One need only look at videos of her students in traditional classrooms and their work in other classes centered on graphic design techniques to wonder how the same students can show such different attitudes towards the same material and concepts. Across grades and subject areas, this work is showing exceptional potential to draw in the marginal learners, among them those who struggle with text and language and for whom points of entry may have more to do with visual thinking than with straight text.

The commitment of Lesley University in planning for the opening of a new Center for Graphic Design in Education, to be directed by Lamour-Sansone, means, one hopes, that the generative thinking behind such initiatives as Harvard’s Project Zero is about to find its way into mainstream educational planning and programming. And what’s great about this movement is that it is in no way a lowering of standards or an end-run around those significant skills students will need to learn and thrive in their work and private lives. For these people and these schools, reading and writing remain the central goals, but they are recognizing a smarter way to get there.

As West concludes, “Education, and self-education, is nothing without performance, results, application and (sometimes) official verification through some sort of credible examination. The inherent flexibility of the computer, and the surround of global technology, would seem ideal material for these tasks as well as for all forms of creative pursuit –many not possible otherwise. It would seem likely that such developments would open up such pursuits to whole new sections of the population –especially those who could never pass the initial hurdles before”. Now, more than ever, we need to connect the dots, and to make way for the powerful visual thinking lying dormant within our classrooms to surface in order to make sure our young people have the chance they deserve to pass the hurdles we put in their way.

Larry Myatt was the founder and long-time Headmaster of Fenway High School and the Co-Founder of the Center for Collaborative Education, both in Boston, and the founder and Director of the Greater Boston Principal Residency Network. He teaches at the College of Professional Studies at Northeastern University, is a co-founder of the Project for Educational Options and a convener of the Forum for Education and Democracy.

Published By: Phi Delta Kappan

Date Published: November 21, 2008

An abridged version of this article appeared in the November 2008 edition of Phi Delta Kappan. Reprints are available through PDK Intl., but the author retains copyright.

To view this article as a PDF, click  Connecting the Dots

Indiana University Study

Students are bored, many skip school, lack adult support

High school students from 110 schools in 26 states participate in Indiana University study

Today's high school students say they are bored in class because they dislike the material and experience inadequate teacher interaction, according to 2007 special report from Indiana University's High School Survey of Student Engagement (HSSSE). The findings show that 2 out of 3 students are bored in class every day, while 17 percent say they are bored in every class.

More than 81,000 students responded to the annual survey. HSSSE was administered in 110 high schools, ranging in size from 37 students to nearly 4,000, across 26 states.

According to the director of the project, the reasons high school students claim they are bored are as significant as the boredom itself. Ethan Yazzie-Mintz, (photo above) HSSSE project director for the Center for Evaluation and Education Policy (CEEP), says the finding that nearly one in three respondents (31 percent) indicate he or she is bored in class due to "no interaction with teacher" is a troubling result. "So, in a high school class, 1 out of 3 students is sitting there and not interacting with a teacher on a daily basis and maybe never," Yazzie-Mintz said. "They're not having those interactions, which we know are critical for student engagement with learning and with high schools."

Other key findings include:

  • Fewer than 2 percent of students say they are never bored in high school.
  • Seventy-five percent of students surveyed say they are bored in class because the "material wasn't interesting."
  • Nearly 40 percent felt bored because the material "wasn't relevant to me."

The lack of adult support may play a role in student disengagement from school. While 78 percent of students responding agree or strongly agree that at least "one adult in my school cares about me and knows me well," 22 percent have considered dropping out of school. Of those students who have considered dropping out, approximately 1 out of 4 indicated that one reason for considering this option was that "no adults in the school cared about me."

"The fact that this many students have considered dropping out of high school makes the numbers of dropouts that we actually see across the country -- and the supposed dropout crisis that we have -- not surprising," Yazzie-Mintz said. "I think schools definitely need to pay a lot more attention to what students are thinking and the reasons why they're dropping out."

The high dropout rate may also be related to the finding that half of the respondents said they have skipped school; 34 percent said they had skipped school either "once or twice," and 16 percent said they had skipped "many times." Yazzie-Mintz said the students who skip school are far more likely to consider dropping out and that this finding may suggest a reason for schools to reconsider how they handle discipline for students who skip.

Among the other findings:

  • Seventy-three percent of students who have considered dropping out said it was because "I didn't like the school." Sixty-one percent said, "I didn't connect with the teachers," and 60 percent said, "I didn't see the value in the work I was being asked to do."
  • Students said activities in which they learn with and from peers are the most exciting and engaging. More than 80 percent of students responded that "discussion and debate" are "a little," "somewhat" or "very much" exciting and engaging, and more than 70 percent responded in this way about "group projects." By contrast, just 52 percent said teacher lecture is "a little," "somewhat" or "very much" exciting and engaging.

The survey found that students aren't spending a lot of time on homework. While 80 percent of the students surveyed indicated that doing written homework is either "somewhat important," "very important" or a "top priority," 43 percent reported spending an hour or less doing homework each week. Similarly, 73 percent of the students said reading and studying for class is either "somewhat important," "very important" or a "top priority." But 55 percent said they spent an hour or less per week reading and studying for class. Even though students may not be putting in time outside of class, they expect to earn a diploma and go to college. Nearly 3 out of 4 students responded that they go to school for that very reason.

Yazzie-Mintz said the lack of time spent studying and reading may work against such a goal. "Students may not be doing the work to get them to that point," he continues, "or they're not interested so much in what they're doing in their classes as they are in the goal of getting a diploma and going on to college."  Yazzie-Mintz said the size of the sample certainly means that high schools from across the country can draw some conclusions about their own student bodies. He added that as administrators consider restructuring programs, the HSSSE data can be especially valuable.  "I think this brings critical student voices into reform efforts and into conversations about the structures and practices of individual schools," Yazzie-Mintz said.

Think Again on Schools & Careers

Ice Cream for Dinner

I have been reading a lot about the future of Career and Technical Education (CTE) lately and I must say that I do not understand where this sector of our public education system is headed. Maybe that is because I don’t know much about that world from personal experience. I never took shop in high school and the “Industrial Arts” classrooms were in a different wing of the comprehensive high school from where I used to teach. Yet, one could argue that I am now the founder of a CTE school. How is that possible for a guy who has to remind himself of the “lefty loosey and righty tighty” rule when using a screw driver?

About three years ago I had the great fortune of sitting in on board meetings of the education foundation for the Associated General Contractors-New Mexico Building Branch. They were struggling with their workforce development challenges, in particular, the sense that they were among the employers of last resort in New Mexico. It was ironic, because they believed their profession required them to be among the most facile business men and women in our community. They spoke about the mental agility it takes to work with owners, architects, engineers and the myriad government agencies in order to build a project on time and under budget. They also proudly spoke of the ethos of an industry where you are only as good as your word and hard work and perseverance make you a success.

In that board room we created a vision for ACE Leadership High School, a new school that could serve the very complex future work force development needs of the entire sector of the economy. I was optimistic we could solve their workforce development problems and design a school that would create a bridge that could cross the education and poverty divide. The school would be a way forward in breaking down the barriers between community and industry and help to overcome the challenges low income students of color face when they attend schools that are built for another era and another kind of worker.

I set out to read the industry trade journals and forecasts for labor force development and I discovered that the needs in the ACE professions were like those of most dynamic industries. The ability to think and adapt to new circumstances were the prized intellectual traits and that was familiar territory for an educator like me. I visited other AGC sponsored schools around the country and found them largely wanting, despite their high profiles and substantial industry investments- because of their focus on developing narrow skill sets (plumbing, diesel mechanics, etc.) In response, we set out on a quest to build an institution that could use the ACE professions as the context for a compelling and supremely relevant learning experience for young people. ACE Leadership is a sharp contrast to the trade school model because it asks students to think deeply about complex problems that are rooted in reality. As a result, we created a school that stresses nuanced thinking built upon excellent communication and collaboration skills—the definition of a modern education.

Prosperity
Although we are preparing our students for prosperous careers in the ACE professions, some worry that when the rest of the country comes out of the “Great Recession,” we New Mexicans may be stuck in a downward spiral. Mark Lautman, an economic development expert from New Mexico tells employers that everyone you are going to hire in the next 25 years has already born and since the baby boomers are getting older, many of the people we counted on to be highly skilled will soon be retired. Meanwhile, the skills expected from new workers are increasingly more sophisticated. He also warns people that if they are paying attention, they ought to be worried about a 60 percent graduation rate because it does not bode well for our prosperity. It used to be that the dropout rate was a problem for poor communities because there were plenty of middle class children who would graduate and go to college and ultimately fill the new high skilled jobs. However, the demographic trends forecast that there are fewer middle class children around who can be depended upon to power our economy forward. In other words, we cannot afford to disregard the potential of any of our young people.

One would think that our communities would make a deliberate effort to create a strategy to engage students who are in danger of dropping out of high school so that they can have rewarding careers in industries where there will be shortages. However, the study found that career academies are likely attracting students who are better prepared than most students and more motivated to graduate from high school and attend college. Also, these young people earn significantly more than their peers after graduation. Therefore, the young people who benefit from a career academy education are the same young people who were already well positioned to graduate, attend college, and earn a good living the education self-motivated students receive is the education that disengaged students need if we want our community to thrive.
Career academies are a missed opportunity for the children who need them the most. One could argue that they further exacerbate the inequity in our communities between students with many options and students with few options. Why have we not provided the best career focused education to the students that our community desperately needs to be productive?

A New Frame of Reference
We started ACE Leadership High School is focused on educating low income students of color. AGC understood that their future was tied to a work force that was nearly 90 percent Latino, of which, 50 percent had no high school diploma. It was founded on the principle that all our graduates would transition to college, or an industry apprenticeship, giving a diploma from ACE Leadership currency in the marketplace. That notion has hooked many of our students who need tangible results from their efforts. With the help of our industry partners, we re-imagined the content and activities of every class so that teaching and learning occur forcefully in and through the ACE context. We did not save the Architecture Construction and Engineering (ACE) lens for our electives like most other trade schools or career academies. This meant re-designing the school schedule to serve our instructional priorities. Most CTE focused schools stack their curriculum, having students to take a series of core content classes and then attend a different block of career-oriented “elective” classes. Simply put, under those circumstances, the career focus is an add-on to the regular day. At ACE Leadership, all classes are career focused because Math, Science, Humanities, and Spanish all must and do apply to the ACE professions. In essence, we have rejected the current paradigm that expects students to eat their vegetables before they get desert.

MDRC, a nonprofit social policy research organization, and the Association for Career and Technical Education have both recommended that the separation between career and core classes be eliminated and that they become one in the same. Both organizations know that the distinction is a barrier to effective schooling. According to a study of career academies, MDRC stated that “. . . although the Academies were more likely to expose students to applied and work-related learning activities, they typically did not truly integrate academic and career-related curricula and instructional practice . . .” However, the authors stop short of acknowledging why the integrated approach is so difficult to implement, possibly because it requires fundamental restructuring of the prior notions of the school day. No longer would we accept the current structure where students first take a series of core classes and then attend career focused electives. It also means that we must revision the distinction between the universal core curriculum and career focus electives. Instead, they should be one in the same. Currently, when schools are able to integrate the core curriculum with career focused electives in traditional CTE schools, it is a situational variation from the traditional practice.

Less is More
The literature about the future of CTE stresses the need to provide a variety of experiences for young people to explore careers. It describes job shadowing, internships, and dabbling in many different industries to understand career options. In other words, it stops short of asking students to commit to a career while in high school. In fact, one of the values of a career academy model is that it allows for variety so that students can transfer in or out of the program and according to a recent MDRC study only 55 percent of students stayed in the career academy where they had enrolled. Inherent in the career academy design is that breath is superior to depth. The role of CTE is to retain the core curriculum, and then expose students to a breath of careers through the electives in the academies which is encouraged by allowing transfers in and out of the program. While I agree with the general theme that choices are good, I disagree that the core curriculum and elective system with easy entry and exit actually serves the students.

A school that focuses on a single sector (ACE, Health Care, Information Technology, etc.) promotes deep thinking and nuanced understanding. For example, at ACE Leadership students encounter problems through the lens of architecture, construction and engineering. They learn the entire scope of a project and when they choose a career focus because they understand the way in which it relates to an overall project. The ACE context ensures that students are capable of becoming leaders whether they choose to work in the field or in a design studio. We embrace the complexity of the industry and by doing so we give our students the opportunity to think about nuanced problems which opening the door to more learning.

“Less is More” is one of the common principles promoted by the Coalition of Essential Schools and Cathleen Cushman describes it in the following way, “This commonsensical observation holds true in extensive research findings about how humans learn. In the last few decades cognitive theorists have firmly established that we come to know things . . . by thinking them through. This is an active process; it puts information into a meaningful context and asks us to struggle with its complexities and contradictions. When we use information to serve our real needs in this way, research shows, we remember it.”

For me, the conclusion is inescapable. We should create career focused schools that rooted in deep intellectual rigor and relevancy. Adaptable, problem solving workers who are capable of thinking deeply about challenges is what is needed to meet our future workforce needs. That fact demands that we provide our young people an excellent education, one that prepares them to adapt to an unknown future. We think the model described above does just that.

Tony Monfiletto is a native of Albuquerque New Mexico and has worked in school reform since 1990.  He began his career at the Chicago Panel on Public School Policy helping to promote the restructuring of the Chicago Public Schools. Tony was the founder and lead administrator at Amy Biehl High School. In 2010, Tony began work on ACE Leadership High School, the first in a network of the next generation of STEM schools in New Mexico. His efforts were recognized by "Partners for Developing Futures" a grant making intermediary that funds charter school leaders of color.  He was the founding President of the New Mexico Coalition of Charter Schools, and currently serves as a member of the New Mexico Community Foundation. In June of 2010 he was named a Theodore Sizer Fellow by the Forum for Education and Democracy.