Leaving a Trail

In his post this morning, Seth Godin asks Are you leaving behind an easily found trail of accomplishment?

When it comes to the work students do in school here in the overly-large school district, the answer is not only no, but we work very hard to keep their work from being easily found – by anyone.

Outside of school, most of our kids are leaving an easily found trail. Whether that work can be called “accomplishment” is really unknown because we try very hard to ignore it.

Just some random thoughts with little or no context.

Learning to Write

In the headline of a recent post for his Class Struggle column, Jay Mathews asks Can computers teach writing?

Of course the answer is no, but then his post wasn’t really about teaching anyway. His theme was using computers to grade student writing, especially that done on standardized tests (one driving force of his philosophy of education reform).

However, the most relevant part of the entire piece is when Mathews relates learning to write back to his own experience.

I didn’t learn to write until I was in college, and only after I joined the ­student newspaper. That extracurricular activity had more than enough veteran student journalists eager to tear my stuff apart and show me how to put it back together. That is different from the typical English class, where a good teacher can impart some wisdom going over a sample essay on the overhead projector but cannot give quality time to every ­student.

He learned to write in a real-life situation where he received lots of feedback and advice from his peers and, by extension, from his readers when the work was published. Not from his teachers, maybe only peripherally from his editor.

Remember that Mathews was learning back in a time when very few people had access to a printing press, the work was distributed on paper, and available to a limited audience.

Most students learning to write today have any number of places on the web to post their work (not just a privileged space on the site of a major newspaper), in a persistent format that is aggregated in search engines, and an international audience.

Shouldn’t we make available to all students the same learning opportunities that assisted Mathews?

EduCon Conversation

Tomorrow I’ll be heading to Philadelphia for EduCon 2.4 (can it possibly be the fifth?), the best professional development event I attend each year. It’s a small conference but a fully-packed weekend of great conversations and a chance to connect with many members of my PLN, hosted at a truly innovative school.

This year I’ll be part of a panel session with Tim, Tom, Jeff, and Martha* called Building Bridges: Communities of Practice from K-16, in which we’ll be discussing how to improve communication and collaboration between those of us working in K12 schools and our higher education colleagues.

If you’re attending EduCon, please join us Saturday afternoon at 3. If you can’t be in Philly, watch for many ways to participate in both our session and the conference in general, starting by following the #educon hashtag on Twitter. You can also directly be a part of our session by adding your ideas, stories, and comments to our Google Docs page.

And on the topic of conversation starters, Lawrence Summers, former President of Harvard, opened an opinion piece in the New York Times with this interesting observation.

A PARADOX of American higher education is this: The expectations of leading universities do much to define what secondary schools teach, and much to establish a template for what it means to be an educated man or woman. College campuses are seen as the source for the newest thinking and for the generation of new ideas, as society’s cutting edge.

So, is that influence on the high school curriculum a good thing? Are colleges really the source for “newest thinking” or do high schools have some something to contribute? Do public schools exist only to be a farm club for universities?

Anyway, it’s going to be a good discussion and great weekend. Hope you can be part of it.


*Tim, Tim, Tom, Jeff, and Martha: the least feared law firm in the state of Virginia. :-)

Flawed Logic

In his State of the Union speech on Tuesday, President Obama addressed education reform, including this statement about teachers.

Teachers matter. So instead of bashing them, or defending the status quo, let’s offer schools a deal. Give them the resources to keep good teachers on the job, and reward the best ones. In return, grant schools flexibility: To teach with creativity and passion; to stop teaching to the test; and to replace teachers who just aren’t helping kids learn.

In the Post’s Answer Sheet blog, a veteran educator points out a huge logical flaw in what the President had to say.

The second problem is a glaring contradiction, a logical flaw that is huge even though it has been overlooked by almost every journalist apparently too polite to challenge the administration on it. If you do not wish teachers to teach to the test, if you want them to be passionate and creative, then how can you insist that their performance be measured by the use of test scores?

You cannot have it both ways. You cannot tell teachers to be creative, you cannot pretend you are “flexible,” when you mandate the use of test scores for teacher and principal evaluations, and continue to use them as the basis by which schools are condemned as failures. [emphasis mine]

I suspect the President, and many other education reform “leaders”, will continue to miss the disconnect between what they say and what they do.

They will produce even more lofty speech about the importance of teachers, while still demonizing the profession and implementing policies that marginalize the practice of teaching.

Data Weary

In the past few weeks, I’ve been involved in a lot of conversations about data here in the overly-large school district. Actually, all the data-this and data-that discussions have been ongoing for a long time, although it really seems to get annoying enough to write about around this time in the school year.

The fundamental concept, of course, is that if we collect enough data on students, we can manipulate it and unlock the secret to bumping up their test scores so that the school won’t get toss into the dreaded “needs improvement” (aka failing) category. In the end, the data is really all about keeping schools and districts out of the local papers, and only marginally about student learning.

Our administration talks a good game about “21st century skills”, the 4Cs (communications, collaboration, creativity, critical thinking), higher level thinking, and all the rest. But the reality of what actually happens in schools is all focused on the annual rounds of standardized tests: practice, remediation, and an over-emphasis on a very narrow band of topics and skills.

Of course, we are not the only education organization wallowing in the healing magic of numbers. It’s happening at all levels.

Last week, right up the road in DC, an organization with big time support from Bill Gates called the Data Quality Campaign sponsored something called the National Data Summit. A centerpiece of this event was a panel discussion featuring two of the major national advocates for gathering more data (aka more testing), Secretary of Education Arne Duncan and former head of the DC public schools, Michelle Rhee. Both have failed to produce evidence that this approach actually improves learning but that hasn’t stopped them from pushing it anyway.

As you might expect, missing from the agenda of this meeting, and pretty much any other high profile education reform event, were the voices of teachers, or anyone currently working in schools with actual students.

In fact, one retired DC math teacher who registered and attended the National Data Summit was thrown out of the hotel for providing a counter argument to the theme of the day. This in spite of the fact he offered to stop distributing a leaflet discussing “data quality and information about some of the speakers” when approached by security.

Ok, so I understand that this was the Data Quality Campaign’s dog and pony show, not a debate, although ejecting someone for providing an counter opinion does seem rather harsh.

However, this little scenario illustrates the point that many of our national “leaders” don’t really want to hear opposing voices or, heaven forbid, evidence that in anyway challenges their assumptions on how to improve American education. They are convinced that standardized testing (along with charter schools, merit pay, eliminating teacher tenure, and the rest) is the solution, with little or no proof that all this extra data is either valid or useful.

Indeed, based simply on my observations, collecting more data and wallowing in the analysis of it, is making things worse. It swallows up valuable teaching time and bores the kids. And too many people are accepting the numbers without questioning whether they are valid in the first place.

But the worst consequence of our data driven obsession is that it validates the status quo, locking in place our 1950′s model of school, along with the only-slightly-changed curriculum from the same era.

And as a result, it obscures the need to have a serious discussion about how to change (I say radically alter) that model so we can help kids acquire the knowledge and skills they will actually need when they finish their time in school.

Now, in that hypothetical 21st century everyone talks about.