Snap Judgements

I love the kinds of conclusions people make on Twitter.

"Which looks more like a 21st century classroom?"

Neither. They're booths at a conference. I understand that the snap judgement goes against the top booth because the 21st century classroom isn't supposed to be about one person "lecturing" and 30 students quietly absorbing new information without "collaboration"; it's also missing a lot of misunderstood 21st Century Learning New-Age Idealistic Pedagogical Folderol.^tm

But I digress.

In the Upper portion of the composite photo, we see a booth set up to present a lot of information. The people are encouraged by the layout to be seated, which means that they can all see because they out of each others way; no one is standing in front of the screen.

Think about this for a second. TI has a mission: sell calculators, at $150 each, with crappy screens and SLOOOOOOOW processors. They need to get you in a seat and show you the WOW factor. They need to get you past the basics fast and sell you on the tech because that $4500 classroom start-up fee is huge.  "Those regression functions don't come cheap, and aren't in any other package."

This is crying out for exactly what they've got here: a booth with a presenter who knows the machine inside and out, delivering information to as many people as they can, as efficiently as they can, in as little time as possible.

You put them in a seat where they can set down their stuff, see the big screen, write something down if they want to, hold the Inspire, swap out the faceplate, photograph it with their phones, set it down and tweet about it ... tables and chairs arranged in an efficient pattern, making best use of the space. Additionally, once seated, it's tough to leave politely before the end of the spiel and it's easy to control the technology and prevent theft.

Over on the side, some tall tables (which don't force you to lean over) for people who are browsing and don't want the whole presentation, or who want to stand and watch from the side.

BOOTH SCORE: 8 out of 10. Great for information transfer and for sales promotion. This booth is designed to have you linger and explore, try out and figure out, and to convince to you agitate for a major purchase back at your school.
CLASSROOM SCORE:  7 out of 10. "Boring" if you are looking for new-age learning styles, but effective as an organized setting for 30.


In the lower one, there is a guy on the left, holding a laptop in an awkward stance. One of the people he's talking to can see the screen. The other one can see the keyboard and be part of the conversation but unless he leans in and gets in the way of the other listener, he can't see much.

In the lower right, three people are crowded around a computer that desperately needs to be on a higher platform because all the people who want to look at it are standing -- it should be at eye height or, if not eye height, at least not "lean over and peer through the top part of your bifocals and then crane your neck back so you can see through the lower half of your bifocals" height - as the guy in white shorts is being forced to do.

In summary, a badly designed booth for this function, unless that function was "quick information shot and move on." This booth is designed to NOT allow you to linger and deeply explore the product.

There is no marketing director here trying to maximize anything, because there doesn't need to be. They only need to let you convince yourself that Desmos is cool - it is its own selling point. The website is free and doesn't have a large initial classroom purchase required, as TI does.

As a classroom, this booth is crap, too. There's nowhere for people to get comfortable. There's a giant graphic with some expression art. The displays / workstations are placed too low without any chairs so students have to type at weird angles. If the intent was for people standing, there should be some podiums so they can set down their devices and use both hands. If the intent was for people to sit, then the tables are at the right height, but there are no chairs.

This would be a horrible "classroom" for teacher/guide or for students.

BOOTH SCORE: 3 out of 10. (or 8 out of 10, depending on intent)
CLASSROOM SCORE:  1 out of 10.

But I guess I don't see things in the same way as other people do.

Oh dear! RT @calvinballing: @Desmos and TI at #NCTMNOLA. Which looks more like a 21st century classroom? pic.twitter.com/SgcWBPUgSu
— Christopher (@Trianglemancsd) April 13, 2014

Smart is the New Invisible.

Actually, Smart kids have always been ignored in most schools.

Joanne Jacobs passes on this about Smart Kids:

Exceptionally smart students “are often invisible in the classroom, lacking the curricula, teacher input and external motivation to reach full potential,” writes Science Daily, citing a Vanderbilt study that followed gifted students for 30 years.  The 320 high-IQ students went on to become business leaders, software engineers, physicians, attorneys, and leaders in public policy, reports Who Rises to the Top?, published in Psychological Science.

Despite their remarkable success, researchers concluded that the profoundly gifted students had experienced roadblocks along the way that at times prevented them from achieving their full potential. Typical school settings were often unable to accommodate the rapid rate at which they learned and digested complex material. . . . This resulted in missed learning opportunities, frustration and underachievement, particularly for the exceptionally talented, the researchers suggest.

 This has been a constant irritant for me, for many years. We focus on the "bubble" kids, the weaker students who might pass if we give them a little more attention, and we tend to ignore the very weak as well  as the motivated and the smart.

"Heterogeneous classrooms" is the mantra where I teach, resulting in the kid up front twitching in boredom while the weaker students nod off, zone out, and then need the retakes and the constant nudge to hand in work, finish work, start work, etc.

Honors classes were replaced with CP "College Prep" because Everyone Must Go To College.


"That's the way those One-Room Schoolhouses did it. Why should we single out and spend more money on those kids? They'll be fine. They'll get their As."

It makes me cringe. Yes, they'll get a A, but the weaker kids don't get what they need, and neither do the strong. If you're going to have 5 sections of Algebra 2, why not simply let one of them be comprised of strong students?

Is it wrong of me to note that the people who ask why we should single out smart kids are invariably the parents of, or who were themselves, weak students?

Is it wrong of me to note that I haven't been able to get a whole class to participate in the Norwich Bridge Building Competition, only a few here and there?

"The smart kids can help the weaker kids ... collaboration is 21st Century teaching, you know, and it's the way the Real World works."

Let me channel my inner teenager ...

What if I don't want to do the teacher's job? What if I don't like many of my classmates. Why should I be forced to "teach" my classmates stuff they couldn't be bothered to learn in class the normal way?  Why should my grade depend on someone else's motivation?

Don't give me that "It's Real World" crap because I know that in the RealWorld, the dead-beats would be fired. No one pays people to sit around and wait for the one team member to do all the work. No one gets to wait until someone else is finished and lean over, "So, what did you get on number 1? And how about number 2?"

"What's Your Plan For Making This Happen?"

Originally published here in July 2008. Not much has changed. We're still blindly forging on.

Alexander Russo asks "What's Your Plan For Making This Happen?"

The big problem in education reform right now isn't that there aren't any good ideas out there about what to do to make things better, but that no one has any real idea how to get them moving.

I think he's got it backwards. We have plenty of people willing to "make this happen" on a small scale. That's not difficult. The problem is that no one asks whether the change SHOULD happen. We go merrily on changing things every year, instituting reforms and rejiggering the educational process constantly.

We do "academic teams," "cross-curricular work," "differentiated instruction." We do "literacy across the curriculum" but not "math or science or history or art across the curriculum". We remove art and music to prepare for tests, add art and music to make a more well-rounded individual. We drop Hamlet and MacBeth and Mythology, or we don't. We put kids into cohorts of 20 for every course of their day. We STEP them up from the course they should be in to the course we'd like them in and then we place them in remediation because they need more help.

We've tried integrated math, sequential math, Integrated algebra, SIMMS, Univ. of Chicago vs Saxon. We try changing the order of the courses from "A1, Geom, A2" to "Geom, A1,A2" or "A1,A2,Geom."

Then, there's the grading system behind the report cards. We tried to change to a 1,2,3,4 grading system with rubrics and then found out that our parents hated the idea. They didn't want lengthy rubrics full of lists of standards and individual grades, nor did they like the idea that 1 was the lowest you could get. "If he does nothing, he shouldn't get points for it! Those averages mean nothing now!"

So we changed back.  For a while.
 
We've rewritten the curriculum at least seven times in my experience and done curriculum maps in four different systems.The only thing that seems to change is the logo: now it has "Building Standards-Compliant Systems" as a tagline. (Update: Looking at this now, I notice they've updated the logo to Common Core ... awesome. That will make the maps more relevant for today's learners).

We integrate technology before most teachers have a clue what they're doing with it. We lessen the need for brains and glorify button-pushing or we improve the educational methodologies by implementing technological pedagogy to teach the 21st century student.

We changed to 4x4 block scheduling, or modified block, or traditional 40, traditional 50, or 5x60s. We have single-sex or not, We try charter schools, magnet schools, engineering only school, KIPP schools.

For what? Are we sure any of it works?

No.

Have we looked at anything before and after each "revolution" to see if anything, in fact, did change? And for the better?

No.

We change everything in education without ever examining the results of the change. The most common "evidence" I have heard as justification is "My students seem to like it better. One kid said to me just this month, 'This is cool.'"

This is the only business that uses case-control as its top sampling method, if it uses any scientific studies at all. That's nuts.

Then the anti-public school activists chime in.

"If schools were free-market, competition-based entities that had to succeed or fail based on their own merits and their effectiveness for their customers, we would quickly zero in on the most effective teaching techniques. We would stick with what is proven, and what works, because whatever doesn't work would quickly be rejected by patrons and customers -- if only choice were an option."

I've talked about "choice" before. Choice is the parents using sketchy information to make dubious choices. The only saving grace is that they are at least invested in the children they're trying to place.

If there anything that the free-market teaches us, it should be that those who are trying to make a profit will lie or stretch the truth whenever they can. When the 13 billion dollar fine for improper practices is less than 1/4th of the money the company set aside to fight the charges, you should realize that the free-market is not the friend to the consumer. As a former private school admin, I can tell you that private schools are no different from Goldman-Sachs, except in size.

Their methods are traditional, not because it's best, but because it doesn't scare away the paying customers. Decisions are made for the benefit of the school, not for the benefit of the students. (Although if the students DO benefit, they'll take every opportunity to remind everyone how wonderful they were to make those "obvious" changes and portray themselves as better than the other private schools. The opinion that public schools were cesspits filled with poor people's stupid children went unsaid, but was understood by all because "Ivy-Covered Academy" was and is a naturally superior traditional school, with traditional values.).

But we're still dancing around the real problem.

Russo goes on

Take any number of interesting proposals -- national standards, weighted student funding, differential pay, community schools, inter-district choice, universal preschool -- and what you'll see are lots of arguments and policy specifics but no real plan for getting any of these things implemented in the real world. (You know, enacted into law. Paid for.)

We're doing research without knowing what we're looking for.

What would be nice is if you could first define the goal. Then define your method of measuring that goal. Finally, see if your changes progress you towards that goal. Then you can make all the changes you want.


Until we actually do some research with appropriate statistical methods, improving education in America will remain guess- and- check.

The problem is, of course, that most of your guesses are wrong and you're not checking. Worse than that, they're not your kids.

Forget the driverless car ...

"Project Sartre (Safe Road Trains for the Environment), Europe's experiment with 'vehicle platooning,' which has successfully completed a 125 mile road test on a busy Spain motorway. Three Volvos drove themselves by automatically following a truck in the presence of other, normal road users. The Register reports that on-board cameras, radar and laser tracking allow each vehicle to monitor the one in front, and wirelessly streamed data from the lead vehicle tells each car when to accelerate, break and turn." - slashdot

It's not the driverless car that stands to make some money.  It's the driverless truck.  The most expensive part of the truck is the driver and his paycheck, breaks, insurnace, training, and Teamster affiliations; the most restrictive part is the 10 hours of driving time per day, and the limitations of total time behind the wheel.

Now imagine getting rid of that driver in four out of five trucks (so far, the lead truck needs a driver and the rest follow).

Suddenly, you have a vehicle that can drive 24/7 if the lead driver changes or trades off with a partner. It doesn't get tired and it stops only to refuel. You don't have to pay for a person.  Trucking companies will cut expenses by 40%.

Let the scare-mongering begin !

About that Longer School Year Idea

It's at this time of year, when the temperature in the building is above 90° and the only fans are ones the teachers bring in from home, that you begin to understand why school leaders in the 1800s decided to take the summer off. It is also about this time -- although late June is also hot around here -- that I really wish the reformers would shut the hell up.

Incentives .. I'll make the teacher merit pay connection.

Innovation and Teacher Pay

In my wandering, I came across this little gem on how to fix edumacation:

Instead, a better solution would be:
- Get rid of the unions. Pay for performance, fire the incompetent
- Give teachers the independence to try new things and tailor to individual classrooms. Reward success.

The list continued but I particularly liked the juxtaposition of "pay for performance, fire the incompetent" and "Give teachers the independence to try new things. Reward success." Beyond the obvious (to me, at least) problem of determining teacher competence, how much do you suppose a teacher will innovate and try new things if his paycheck is based on performance, with firing being a instant option for a moronic administrator if that new idea fails?

In all of the pay-for-performance schools I have studied, the one constant factor is that the teachers all retreat into "safe" zones of teaching. Most teachers would rather be assured of a job, thus follow the demands of the administration, teach to the test and be nothing special, rather than go out on a limb and risk it all on a double or nothing bet. The feeling seems to be that it is better to be good than take a wild and unproven chance with your students' education, risking your job. It's sad, really.

There is usually a maverick who bucks this trend but he merely proves the rule - he is unmarried or for some reason doesn't need to be employed at that school. Perhaps he's a certified TIG welder or has an engineering degree with experience.

Unions and union rules allow teachers to innovate, try new things and then adjust them to work better next time. You get "The Creative Feedback Loop Of Teaching"(Thanks to Dan Meyer for the expression, in this post, near the end.), but only if you have the freedom to innovate and aren't locked into a scripted curriculum or stuck in a repressive, vindictive or moronic administrative system.

True innovation comes from those who can afford to try. Trying implies failing occasionally. If you punish failure, you stifle innovation.

New and Improved! Technology initiatives in education.

Time for a big-ass rant.

The Tempered Radical knows why teachers give up on Interactive White Boards. With some major snipping, and hoping I don't eliminate context:

What bothers me ... is an attitude towards teachers that I see often in conversations about school change. "Teachers all resistant to change and lazy!" the argument goes. "If they'd just be persistent and determined, our schools would be saved." ... The general belief is that teachers lack determination and commitment in almost every circumstance.
... that's a flawed assumption. ... the amount of effort that most changes take doesn't align with the corresponding benefits that change is designed to produce. ... The software wasn't designed to naturally facilitate the kinds of teaching that I believe in and limited access to the hardware required that I restructure learning time in my classroom almost every day.

I'm all over this. I think that the programmers who do this stuff should spend some time teaching to find out how the "real-world" will use it and what those teachers actually need. This is, for me, the crux of the problem. Those who write don't know what problem they are trying to solve and often do not have a clue as to how I will use it. (Sort of an educational consultant, no?)

Then, the pressures of making a sale get in the way of making my life easier. All too often, the person making the purchase isn't the one who gets to use it. Even if they asked the teachers, they're still asking someone who hasn't used it and can't really tell.

There are four major problems with technology and tech initiatives: Variety, the learning curve, Usability and Availability.

The rant is below this break.

Bashing Walmart is ultimately pointless.

It's Saturday and I'm feeling cranky.

In another blog, this sign popped up. The comments were the usual "Right on" and "We need more of this." My favorite was "Yes, we certainly do need to draw attention to vanishing local economies and signs like this would definitely do the trick".

I find this sign silly. It reflects antipathy toward one company that built itself up in a classic sense, just like every small but somehow more worthy company wants to.

It should read "On this site stood a dinosaur which couldn't adapt to the reality around it."

If we were talking about a car company, bigger and foreign-built would apparently be fine. Who wants to buy a car made completely in East Podunk, Vermont? Even if such a company existed, its costs would be prohibitive. If it still made a decent product, people would pay more for it - it's called "custom car."

More below the break:

Dangerously Irrelevant Is

Dangerously Irrelevant shows why he's irrelevant.

In many job sectors, employees are expected to keep up with relevant technologies or risk job loss. When do we require that of K-12 and postsecondary educators? At what point do we say to them “No, we’re not training you how to use this. It’s easy enough for you to learn on your own. And if you don’t, we’ll find someone else who can.”
When will we, as educational systems, redefine the job descriptions and expectations of educators to include their regular and effective incorporation of relevant digital technologies?

Like many bloggers and opinionators, DI has it wrong. There are precious few teachers who aren't technologically capable. We all use technology every day. We call on cell phones, use computers, drive cars, download things from the Internet, use graphing calculators, SmartBoards and other technology. The level of use is different, but we're ALL living in this world now.

Who defines your acceptable level? Who decides that it isn't enough? Who has actually made sure that more technology is actually USEFUL in the classroom setting? Will it be Techno-geek boy or an actual teacher in a school like Packemin High School? To accept a definition like this from someone who has such an obvious axe to grind is like calling on the Oil Companies to write an energy bill for Congress. (Oh, wait ...)

A commenter says "The obvious next question is: If we are successful in changing job descriptions to include integrating 21st tools and resources, how do we fairly assess teacher performance?"

to which I respond:

The students need to know what they are doing - that's called knowledge of subject. Those 21st century skills are mostly Glitzenbullshit, a tool that kids can pick up at any time. People like this commenter are changing the subject out of ignorance.

As Peter Berger (Poor Elijah's Almanac) says,

The high-powered Partnership for 21st Century Skills still preaches this same doctrine, euphemistically arguing that we need to "emphasize deep understanding rather than shallow knowledge."

Unfortunately, without deep knowledge, the best you can have is a shallow understanding. Without any knowledge, meaning facts, any understanding you think you have is illusory, baseless, and void.

...

You can't attain understanding without knowledge, and you can't acquire knowledge without mastering facts. You can't skip the grunt work, even if it's often dull and painstaking. That's true in any discipline. Our children need to realize and accept this. So do the experts who mastermind our schools. So do we all. That's the new angle on teaching and learning that we desperately need. More gimmicks won’t help.

True, grappling with facts and turning them into knowledge can be hard work.

But reckoning with ignorance is even harder.

Fun on the Stairs = >> Fun in the Classroom

In the Fun Theory, Joanne Jacobs points to this youtube video of people using a staircase piano instead of the escalator ...

We see some people using the stairs instead of the escalator because it's "more fun" and immediately, everyone thought of the connection between "making the classroom fun" and learning. The comments range from gushing enthusiasm for fun in the classroom to a resigned knowledge that the next Professional Development will be centered around "Games, Games, Games!"

Interestingly, (to me at least, but I think deconstructing studies is fun) the researchers claimed that "fun" was why the people took the stairs. I tend to think they did so because they just got off the subway and for twenty seconds or so, they are mindlessly entertained by stepping on the "keys of the piano." I'm sure that many people were interested the first time, mildly interested the second, annoyed the third time and royally pissed off thereafter. "Stop repeatedly pressing that key. You're not being clever!" How many people just wished the thing would go away after three days? How many just wished that there was a staircase they could run up to avoid the "newbies" who thought it was cool? No one knows because no one asked.

How much did people learn? Nothing. What the researchers were trying to do was see if people would take the stairs rather than the escalator - a fitness and exercise question. It took teachers to make the mental leap to education. Thus is educational research performed.

The reality is that learning something new takes concentration and work on the part of the learner. There is no "Royal Road to Mathematics". A Game might spark interest, or might take the student on a temporary hiatus from their concerns, but the hard work needs to be done eventually.

Hard work is not always hateful. Several hours of shoveling a hole for a gazebo foundation can make you feel exhausted but invigorated. For me, three hours of a math contest is fun. The fun comes not from the game, but from the overcoming of a challenge. For others, it's seven straight hours practicing a snowboard trick and finally "nailing it." The ADD kid in one of my classes will spend hours practicing his guitar, fully focused and on-task. For the kid next to him, that would be torture.

As Churchill was rumored to have said, "There is nothing more exhilarating in this world than to have your enemy shoot at you ... and miss." If the "enemy" is the complicated new material, and the "miss" is your succeeding at the task in spite of a perceived "trick question" or a difficult learning process or a "difficulty with math", then the students do in fact achieve learning with that sense of exhilaration that we so often attribute to "fun activities."

The thing to keep in mind, though, is that the "fun" and the exhilaration came AFTER the success and hard work. The success was not caused by the fun.

All that you do by stressing the fun game that happens to teach math facts is to cement your place in the world as someone who is hopelessly lost, clueless and unconnected to the students.

Most of the time, the fun activity doesn't achieve anything other than to be a fun activity and save the teacher and students from working. They aren't going to learn much beyond the first gee-whiz moment. Certainly not any details or deeper understanding.

It's as simple as one blink of an eye. Take a look at these two pictures. Which kids are learning?
See what I mean?

But then I read the comments.

I loved this video! I think there is a lot of potential for making learning fun. Why assign a worksheet on multiplication facts when kids can play a game that reinforces the same concepts?
When I was a psych major in college I had a stats professor who felt that students learn best when experiencing an emotion – he chose fear, which doesn’t seem like the best choice. But why not excitement – joy? Thanks for sharing!

You can hear the ProfDev now: "Math should be fun. The kids should learn effortlessly. Video games will teach them. Why shouldn't we make shoot-em-ups that require the kids to solve math problems?"

What's wrong with this picture? For one thing, this wants to teach without working at it. "Math should be exciting, joyous?" Why does she feel this way? Perhaps it's because, for her, math isn't fun and games are the only thing she can think of. The sheet of multiplication facts might not excite you, but completing one correctly can excite a student.

...With the test in front of me, I started sweating, and my brain began buzzing, but I forced myself to calm down and keep my fingers still. Most of the problems seemed easy now, although I realized all my "shortcuts" had left me weak in long division. There were no red marks this time — I had gotten 100 percent right!

The shortcuts she's referring to are the calculator, counting on fingers, not completing certain practice drills by herself. Drill and kill. It wasn't "fun" so she "cheated."

There are plenty of puzzle-type video games. I happen to know many of them. Why don't kids play them? "Because they are BORING." The puzzles and problems are artificially inserted into the "story" and the whole thing runs counter to the reason most kids play video games. For fun, to conquer, to compete and win, to create and display, to show-off. "To solve math problems" isn't usually one of those reasons.

What happens almost immediately to kids playing a game with puzzles? If it has some fun elements, the kids will play it. If they run into a puzzle they can instantly solve, they solve it and move on. If they can't instantly solve it, they use cheat codes or look up the answer online. Then they go back to shooting monsters.

Great if you're selling a video game. Not a good model for education.

More of Jeb Bush - This time we're an 8-track tape.

This speech gets better and better.

"In this knowledge-based economy, would success be measured by how long students sit at their desk rather than what they learn? I hope not. In an age of customization, would we settle for a one-size-fits-all model that moves kids from grade to grade based on their age rather than their skill level? Hell no. Last year, I said our education system was an 8-track tape in an I-Pod world."

Jeb. Please. Try to understand this.

We don't measure students' success by how long they sit at desks. When they reach certain points in the course (called "End of the Chapter" or the "End of a Topic"), we measure their knowledge using something called a "test" or a "project". Their test or project earns a number called "a grade." We use this number because it's a convenient way for teacher, student, parent and school to communicate how well the student understands "the material". We don't throw away the rest of the information, but we do have the summary number (the "grade").

Over the years, I and many other teachers have taught math. We have learned that students, despite the claim of uniqueness that permeates the socio-political consciousness, are amazingly similar in what they can learn about our subject. (This is called "experience" and it is the reason why "experienced teachers" get paid more.) We know that some students are "good in math" and will cover eight major topics and that others will struggle to learn six. That's why we have different levels of classes - not because we are discriminating against anyone, but because we are intelligent enough to choose the right level for each type of student.

Surprisingly, these different courses COULD be used to "differentiate" the teaching for students, but non-teachers don't understand that each little snowflake is not, in fact, unique. They also don't understand that putting kids into courses that are appropriate for them is the best way for them to learn. Until they think about it, most folks don't see that putting kids into sections in which they are significantly the fastest or slowest learner is LESS effective than separating them by ability. Politicians don't really think and lawyers are paid to refuse to. That's why "tracking" is no longer used.

One other thing. Social promotion is necessary sometimes. When you insist that kids stay back, you occasionally get a non-academic kid (who else?) who is not the best influence on impressionable people. Do you really want that 17 year-old in with your 13yo daughter?

Differential Gear

Just because I think it's neat.

Once more into the Breach of Reform

D-Ed Reckoning is talking about Bill Gates again.

First, Bill sets a silly goal: "Our goal as a nation should be to ensure that 80 percent of our students graduate from high school fully ready to attend college by 2025."

The problem isn't that all our kids aren't going to college. We still need to have the discussion on WHETHER all our kids should go to college. It is truly irresponsible to encourage a kid to be a really good mechanic? I'll teach him as much algebra and "Real-World" mathematics as I can but my gut tells me that he'd be happy and prosperous, and live a fulfilled and rewarding life as a mechanic.

The Gates Foundation has really bought into improving education and I'm glad. I just don't think he or any of the others have a clue.

A fundamental flaw is that no one has defined a goal in education - I mean a real one, not the silliness described above.

Businessmen measure themselves by the size of the company, income, number of employees, gross market share, etc. These are all readily quantified. You can argue whether (a)(b) or (c) is a more important indicator but you are still talking numbers. You are also talking about 2-3 years at most. What you do now has immediate ramifications and the effects can be seen clearly.

Education is not so easily defined and analyzed. Children take far longer to display changes caused by your reforms. They have their own ideas about what their education should look like and they have their own frame of reference through which your reforms must pass.

The over-arching problem is the lack of a true set of finish lines or yardsticks. Everyone can claim expertise because no one has any idea of what we're measuring. You can't toss out the charlatan because you're never able to identified them as such. We have no better idea of what makes a good education that we have ever have.

What is the goal?

Are we looking at
- Scores on a test?
- Graduation rate?
- Survey results?
- College admissions?
- College Graduation?
- Time in seat?
- Number of computers hacked?
- Number of books read?
- Number of books understood?
- Number of KIPP drills?
- Varsity Letters?
or ... what?

Bill comes in with his definitions, throws around some money and says "Follow me" but the results take 12 years to come to fruition. By then we're on education reform #392 and his definitions are no longer in play by the time someone realizes that his goals were pretty self-serving all along and not applicable to the vast majority.

Bill (and his ilk) also have trouble remembering that students are not widgets. The same ruthless adherence to standards in manufacturing cannot be applied to education - you cannot simply send back to the supplier for better parts with fewer flaws or blemishes.

Children are also not adults. They are not responsible and cannot make decisions on their own. Don't yell at me - society will not allow them to drive, drink, smoke, have sex, or drop out of school, among other things. To expect young people to make good decisions about education when they can't apparently make decisions about any other aspect of their lives makes for an impossible paradox – how to get the one person with control over his/her own behavior, attitude and work ethic to exercise that control responsibly? The analogy to herding cats never looked so apropos.

Teachers, too. Be a Sage on the Stage or Guide on the Side?

What if the teacher fundamentally doesn't agree with the new reform? Is he at fault or is the reform effort the true problem? Did you train that teacher in the new methods or give him a book and say "Have at it!" When it falls flat, did that teacher deliberately sabotage the reform or is the reform poorly thought-out, poorly imagined and dead wrong for the students?

D-Ed Reckoning then has a different take than I when he lays out two approaches to answer this question:

"Next, Bill asks an easily answered rhetorical question:
Unlike scientists developing a vaccine, it is hard to test with scientific certainty what works in schools. If one school’s students do better than another school’s, how do you determine the exact cause? "

I'm asking all of us - Before you figure out why this group did better than that one, kindly explain how you determine which school's students did better? What's your criteria and why?

This is not as easy as it might be at first blush. Take the KIPP schools - arguably the best at what they do. What do they do? They prepare kids for a drill-and-practice kind of world and their kids do very well on recall tests. That's fine as far as it goes, but I for example would have hated it. I was fine in a much more loosely defined world in high school and quite successful in life - even if you avoid the "He became a teacher because he couldn't do anything else" joke. I didn't need to spend 7:30 - 5:00 every day at school, practicing my math facts and being taught to write. My teachers would never have tolerated it and I had some fine teachers. KIPP is excellent at what they do but it's not for everyone. Probably not even for much more than a small minority.

So - is KIPP the standard of success? Not for me but something had to generate this idea of Gates's ...

It is amazing how big a difference a great teacher makes versus an ineffective one. Research shows that there is only half as much variation in student achievement between schools as there is among classrooms in the same school. If you want your child to get the best education possible, it is actually more important to get him assigned to a great teacher than to a great school.

If that's the case, then why doesn't teacher certification seem to matter?

For my money, it's that we haven't decided what we're ultimately doing.

Being a Good Teacher

I ran across a list of 6 things that apparently "made a good teacher." I'll post it in another entry, but one part caught my eye. In it the writer shares his inspiration - that's right, inspiration. In education, you see, we don't learn from experience, we learn from inspiration. Additionally, we don't learn from education exemplars, we learn from business ones.

"Doug Johnson on the Blue Skunk Blog discussed what made a good boss. This list has been adapted from his comments about a great boss.

But Mr. McGuire, wait. A good boss is not a good teacher.

A boss pays you. From the start, you are expected to be capable of doing everything the job requires. Boss expects you to be knowledgeable, erudite, and capable of doing the job you were hired for ... whether that entails good people skills in a cooperative job environment (the whole 21st Century thing which isn't anything new) or a cubicle keep-to-yourself and get the work done kind of job with minimal contacts beyond the check-in and coffee urn. The boss does not expect to teach you. You improve yourself or not. You accomplish your job or not. You get fired or not. You finish for the day and you go home. If you enjoy the work, bully for you.

A teacher does not have the same expectations of his charges - they don't know things. They don't know math, they can't write well, they're ignorant of history ... that's why they are enrolled. A Teacher cannot approach his craft in the same way as a Boss.

Everything about dealing with students is based on the fact that this society doesn't believe they are capable of making appropriate decisions or fending for themselves; everything about dealing with employees is based on the fact that they are and they can. Tread carefully if you try to cross these lines for you risk looking foolish.

Students aren't deemed responsible enough to be allowed to do choose whether or not to do anything - don't blame me for it, it just is.

• choose to smoke (laws)
• choose to drink (laws)
• have sex, (age limits, etc.)
• show up, (truancy laws)
• take an aspirin, (all those restrictions)
• slack off, (we need to inspire them, make learning fun)
• bring a pencil, or materials, (I just give them one if it's the occasional forgetfulness, but I'm not happy when it's a habit. They still get one but I scowl.)
• leave the building, (it's a closed campus)
• go to the bathroom, (without a pass and in some places there's a quota, for chrissake.)
• drive a car (restrictions abound)

A girl CAN get an abortion without parental permission, but that's the exception that proves the rule.

This business model doesn't apply here, Sir, even if it does inspire you.

National Board Certified

Stories from School is effusive ...
Across the nation, "more than 9,600 teachers achieved National Board Certification--bringing the total number of the nation's top teachers to nearly 74,000." The impact of these teachers on the learning of their students is huge. A whole new world opens up for NBCTs. There is a sense of confidence, even validation for the strength that one possesses in the art and science of teaching.
I have two questions for NBCTs.
(1) How will National Board Certification affect your classroom/school/district/state?
(2) What is your next step now that you are certified (any leadership thoughts)?

I actually have some thoughts on those two questions. The fact that you asked (1) now is somewhat odd. They just got certification - they don't have any experience as a NBCT yet. Ask them after they've put some of that special, super-duper HNCBQT-type teacher stuff into action with real students.

That's my thought on #2 as well. Why aren't you becoming a teacher now that you're certified? What's with the "leadership thoughts?" Get some experience before you start lecturing everyone on all of that educational goodness.

The last thing we need is another idealistic "ROTC 2nd Lieutenant" teacher turned professional development coordinator or district curriculum coordinator.

Bless us with your teaching of students before your teaching of us, will ya?

Collaboration was the Answer all along.

A nationally Board Certified Teacher-type person is certified in 2002 but now "currently serves as a district professional development director." So, of course, he is an expert on improving schools.

And what is is expert advice that the rest of us have missed all these years? We never talked. We never collaborated. Never had and IEP meeting. EST meeting. Cross-curricular. No one ever suggested something. For each and every kid.

I'll let him speak.

There's no F in "Team"
by Stories from School's FIRST guest blogger: John

The nationally syndicated article by E. J. Dionne on education that appeared in this past Sunday’s Seattle Times is relevant to Tom’s last post on what new approach the Obama administration will take on education policy.

In addition to the policy statement Tom mentioned (EPI), Dionne also mentions a second policy onto which new Secretary of Education Arne Duncan has signed—the Education Equality Project. It’s Statement of Policies includes this: “The sad reality is that these systems are not broken. Rather, they are doing what we have designed them to do over time. The systems were not designed with the goal of student learning first and foremost, so they are ill-equipped to accomplish what is demanded of them today.”

Damn those schools we all attended. They weren't designed for learning.

Schools were not built to overcome achievement gaps—they were designed to manage and rank all kids and educate some kids. While this may seem depressing, I believe it offers some hope…

Oh good.

If we can change the way schools do business, we can begin closing the achievement gap without spending trillions to do it. The key is in Dionne’s article title and final line—collaboration.

To continue the car analogy, what if you took your car instead to a team of mechanics? Instead of one mechanic’s opinion that you need a part that will cost and arm and two legs, you get a second mechanic who pipes in that he knows a wholesaler who can get the part for half that price. And then a third mechanic says “I can do you one better—I know a guy who refurbishes those parts for a quarter of the price.”

Right. Johnny needs a new muffler from the Guy in the Narrow Alley Over There.

Once schools start building a culture of collaboration, of collective responsibility for all students, not just those assigned to them, unprecedented gains can be made. The National Staff Development Council (NSDC) notes that “organized learning groups (of teachers) provide the social interaction that often deepens learning and the interpersonal support and synergy necessary for creatively solving the complex problems of teaching and learning.” (2007)

Bzzz. Bzzzz. More buzzwords! (Ignore the grammer errors.)

A school is built with a system of interventions that takes collective responsibility for not allowing students to fail can begin to overcome the factors outside of the school setting that provide barriers to learning. We did exit interviews with high school students in my district and several mentioned the fact that knowing they would not be allowed to fail was one of their strongest motivating factors. Often there is nobody else in the student’s life that cares enough to provide those expectations.

In some ways this approach makes the job much more difficult—it requires almost an “IEP” approach to each student. On the other hand, working together is almost always easier than working in isolation. Take a look at Damen’s comment to Tom’s post. He says, “I should just guide them and let them excel on their own. Then there are those who will struggle to achieve no matter how many hours I put in lesson planning. To reach these students I need to teach there parents how to parent or take the kid to a museum myself.” Damen’s language indicates that he sees the challenge completely on his shoulders. When looking at the challenge of overcoming the outside factors that hinder learning, it is overwhelming to do it alone. With a team approach, there is hope.

Obama and Duncan have teamed up on the basketball court with much success. I hope they focus on what has been shown to work and fight for the resources needed to implement true teamwork in schools.

John certified as a National Board Certified Teacher in 2002 in the Early Adolescence English Language Arts certificate area. He currently serves as a district professional development director.

Well, thanks John.

To continue the car analogy even further, what if you took your car instead to a different team of mechanics for a second opinion? They could stand around and talk over coffee and the one who knew what he was talking about could be overruled by the other two who had more seniority. The IEP specialist and the Director of Special Ed could then quarrel about exactly what services the school can afford while the parent steams and demands more tests. Finally, the case manager opens her laptop with the IEP template and actually writes the plan.

You wind up paying twice your original estimate and fail to help the problem. In fact, you spend even more money attempting to diagnose the problem because the first set of WISC-R results and Woodcock-Johnsons didn't jibe with what the teachers were telling the EST team in the first four meetings. So, now the teacher needs to fill out the 120 true/ false/ maybe questions that ask about everything under the sun and really don't specify much of anything. "Student has been sexually abused at home. Y/N/M" -- as if the teacher knew but was holding that information until you gave him the green form to fill out. What's with those green forms anyway? "Due no later than tomorrow, please fill out the kids name and address and his grades in every class and answer these simple questions."

It would be lovely if these meetings were effective. It would be even better if effective meetings could lead to a solution, but they don't. In my experience, the final result of all those meetings and all of that paperwork and those consultancy fees is that the teachers are told to make some accommodations and changes that have already been in place since the third week of school.

More importantly, children are not cars. Their problems aren't solved by plugging in a new set of spark plugs and replacing the oil. Teachers don't bid their ideas to the team in some capitalistic fashion. Children do not fail in one part that can be replaced by a magical pseudo-competitive free market multi-teacher consortium that has the best interests of the system at heart.

Teachers, parents, staff, and the kid all have ulterior motives and none of these lives up to your fantasy of mechanic #3 underbidding at a quarter of the price.

Although, I must admit that I'd love to start a bidding war in one of those meetings just to liven it up some.

"I can give him extra time and I'll do 15 minutes a day after school."

"Well, I'll give him that and organize learning groups of teachers to provide the social interaction that deepens learning and the interpersonal support and synergy necessary for creatively solving the complex problems of teaching and learning."

"Damn. Outbid again."

More High Tech Hype

RightWingNation has a good denunciation of a new high-tech school.

Education, beware. The forward-thinking and better-than-I folks have decreed that I am a dinosaur and that this is the face of education. I have to laugh at the list on earth-shattering newness ...

• Bill Gates has money, therefore he is a good teacher
• Authentic Learning (because it's all fake now and has been since Medieval Times)
• Discovery Method is good. (because everybody knows how to teach, mostly the kids. I guess the teachers can't.)
• “School of the Future” (Good thing, too. I'd hate to see that money go to waste on a boondoggle.)
• first-of-its-kind model for technologically advanced schools worldwide (Note: not the model for education. Just for tech school.)
• jaw-dropping awe (They spent THAT much?)
• A laptop for every child (Wait, isn't that phrase copyrighted?)
• Lockers that open with the swipe of a smart card. (Or a push against it with the card in the back pocket.) Or the inevitable run on magnets from the physics lab to wipe all those cards.
• A fully wireless building. (God knows that never screws up)
• Virtually no textbooks. (Ummmm, good pun. Stupid Idea.)
• Not even an encyclopedia in the library. ('cause Wikipedia is so good.)
• “It’s going to be as close to a paperless school as we can manage,” (Because paper is what you make contracts with and we don't want accountability.)
• Plasma screens, ceiling projectors, interactive white boards, and laptops abound, and classroom furniture is on wheels to allow for group work in varying configurations. (Just like a business, don't you know. -- of course, not like the parts of business where they actually teach things -- this is like the parts of the business where the Board sits around amazed at all the wasteful techiness, thinking "Can I get a Bailout with that Cheeseburger?)

Right Wing Professor says, correctly, "The technology is nothing more than a tool, and it will not improve anything if there is no substantial content."

Curmudgeon thanks you, Professor.

Let's continue ...

• toilets that flush themselves (Was it necessary to include this in a school? Can't the kids do this? Maybe the school is filled with airport travelers?)
• the rainwater recycling (Great. Pigeons and rats defecate on the roof and you're re-using the water?)
• Traditional education is obsolete (Then why are we constantly comparing ourselves to other countries and their traditional education systems?)
• teach students the skills of problem-solving, critical thinking and effective communication, which they need to succeed in the 21st century.

Last time, people.

You can't teach students to think about a problem if they have no frame of reference and no background knowledge. They can't think critically before they know how to read, write, and do arithmetic. The whole point of critical thinking is comparing the new situation to old situations and experience.

Basics must be practiced. Drill and Practice, not Drill and Kill.
Preparatory knowledge is necessary to extension of knowledge.
Educationalists are idiots.

Homeschooling without all the effort

Florida has upped the ante on stupidity. They've started on-line courses that will essentially relieve the State of costs, teachers, students, need for school buildings and other apparently unnecessary things.

If you don't like the other children at school or disapprove of the minorities who might contaminate your little precious but are unsure of how you could teach her? Plop her down on the living room floor and a Florida-certified teacher will teach her online.

"A teacher working out of her home at an undisclosed Florida location supervises instruction for Taylor and dozens of other elementary students across the state. She monitors their work, talks with students individually online and holds virtual class meetings to discuss particular topics."

Instead of holding actual class meetings, she supervises education and monitors their work? Instead of 18 kids in a room where a physical teacher can see that Johnny is bored or misunderstanding and do something about it, we now have dozens of kids in their own homes possibly supervised by their parents. This is an improvement?

"What's missing is 18 kids competing for one teacher's attention, boring downtime in the classroom, distracting discipline incidents and playground bullying."

Now your little darling can be homeschooled and you don't have to do anything or know anything except be a presence in the building. The elementary school teacher now has dozens of students instead of 18. Little kids with no self-control and little motivation are treated just like highly motivated ones. There is no teacher, no one to explain or instruct or motivate, only

"boxes of textbooks, work sheets, study materials and other classroom supplies, right down to a compass, magnifying glass and other nifty items for basic science experiments. Older kids even get microscopes."

That'll help the little darlings. Unsure of something? Ask your computer screen and when the online teacher gets around to it, she might explain it. An adult is required in the home to help with instruction - yeah right, that'll work. The whole point of this program is to provide homeschooling for parents too lazy, too stupid or too unmotivated to provide it.

Back in the kitchen, Joni Fussell keeps Taylor on task, although there is flexibility for running errands or doing chores, as long as Taylor spends about five hours a day doing schoolwork. The program requires an adult at home to aid with instruction.

I love the "flexibility for running errands" thing. Like anyone will check if the only adult is gone for 4 hours. Like the adult is truly expected to do anything or is responsible for anything. At least true homeschool parents make a commitment to teaching and guiding their children. Essentially, the state is pawning off it's responsibilities onto parents in guise of giving them choices.

But wait, there's more. You can't do a partial program. No clubs, sports, computer classes, proms, languages. No attending school for part of the day to take a gifted and talented program. The teacher is not negotiable.

The final oxymoronic part of this new wave of homeschooling? People who have been homeschooling already are not welcome in this program. I guess that "once jilted, forever angry" is the stance Florida is taking.

Here's the link.

Group Work.

From Scenes from the Battlefield

It is always suggested that it would be a good idea if students took part in some activities during a lesson in pairs or groups. ... snip ... Of course, this is nonsense. If you want to learn how to cooperate effectively with others, then the last place you’d start is in a group of teenagers being made to do school work. This is like saying the best way to learn how to make pork sausages is by being imprisoned in a pig farm with a half-dozen rabbis. (emphasis mine)

Brilliant.

Of course, Principal PJs and the Superintendent do not agree. We need to go "high-tech" and "teach the 21st century student" and "incorporate more technology resources" into the "collaborative classroom environment" of "digital natives." We need more "collective work" and more "self-directed learning." If we stress "interactivity" and group work, the students will experience less stress and will learn more. They'll never waste time.

I'll believe it when I see it. Now, I've gotta get back to work.