Part 1: Education Reforms, the New McCarthyism: Why they have not been Successful

 Last week we ended with Bush aide Diane Ravitch’s change of heart as to the effectiveness of NCLB. Her rationale is based on something that anyone who has been in a school for more than five minutes could have and did foresee. The system would be gamed. The quality of Education would be sacrificed at the altar of a panacea of a test and school choice. In some states standards have actually been lowered rather than raised in order that their students would have appeared to achieve proficient status. Test creation and the test industries as well as the charter school industry have been given a huge financial boon and in exchange they have made huge contributions to the political campaigns of one party in particular. In fact none of the six agreed upon goals that were associated with NCLB have been accomplished. In some instances it has worsened those goal areas.

Both the current education reform movement and McCarthyism had elements of truth to them and both were wrong headed and minded in their approach to a solution. Because of that we as taxpayers were asked to foot a bill for things that could not nor would not fix the root cause of the problem.

The problem is with our current approach in that it allows politicians to ignore and distract the public from the real problems associated with our Educational Systems. It is usually for political reasons that they choose not to deal with the real problems for fear of not being re-elected or turning off the faucet of campaign donations.

 It is also based on several clearly misguided facts in that it completely ignores deliberately the many salient positive aspects of our Educational system which are clearly present despite the lamentations of those seeking Political Office. The oft misguided media focuses on the 30 to 60 second sensational sound bites because they often lack the time to sufficiently cover an issue.

We in the general public share the blame for this as well in that our short attention span does not allow for in depth reporting and writing by journalists today.

As part of this series we will look at two major areas: 1.) assessment and the resultant data and 2.)public funding and taxation in order to demonstrate how the NCLB movement, while noble in purpose, cannot and will not succeed until we are willing to look at all the facts and not merely through the prism of 30 to 60 second sound bites!

As Part of our examination of assessment and its data we intended to look at historical data related to state tests, SATs, ACTs and various international assessments in a manner not normally utilized. We will look at the numbers to address commonly held myths about what the numbers do or don’t really tell us.

An example of which would be to ask the average person on the street, “Comparatively did the class of 1989 outperform the class of 2010 on the SAT exams?” The standard perception driven by misguided media and politicians would certainly suggest that the class of ‘89 did better. You would be only partially correct because the average 1989 SAT verbal score was 504 and math was 502.   In 2010 the verbal average was 516 and math in 492. We can document a major increase on the verbal side of the test despite a tremendous increase in non-English speaking students taking the test.  

Also the number self-reported C and D students taking the test has risen over the years. So we have students taking the test today and that in my day and age would not have considered taking the test at all.

Does anyone not understand the impact of the substantial number of students coming to our schools from dysfunctional families, single parent households, the number kids coming to school from poverty level households, kids who come from violent households, low infant birth weight mothers, and so many other negative demographic factors. Factors that our political officials repeatedly choose to ignore and duck. They usually say they we are not responsible for these conditions.

 Anyone who buys that argument needs to read Crane Brinton’s The Anatomy of a Revolution, Winford King’s 1915 work on Income Inequality and its Potential Negative Impacts on a Democracy, Andrew Carnegie’s 1889 Gospel of Wealth in which he lays out the social responsibility of the wealthy and how it can impact our society (His approval of death taxes might surprise modern billionaires!) , or the Census Bureau’s data on the record levels of our national income gap.

Does anyone then not understand how these factors diminish the national averages and why it is so vital that we address real Education Reform? I would submit to you that rather than being an indictment of Public Education it should be considered a minor miracle that Educators have been able to accomplish what they have been able to do!!

It is political scape-goating.  As H. L. Mencken would say, “There is a simple solution to every problem and it is usually wrong”. There are real problems which the present politically driven approach to reform ignores.

  We will look at the international test data not just from one isolated perspective but from a more microscopic view of the results. When you do that you get a whole different picture than the doom and gloom our political leaders and the media headlines are asking us to believe.

We will examine the investment in Charter Schools as the next panacea which is not borne out with the facts. A Stanford University study (funded by the Walton Family Foundation a staunchly pro charter organization) of Charter Schools in 16 States concluded that only 17% of those Schools actually outperformed their public school counterparts. It also concluded that Public Charters typically outperform others. Let me say here that my purpose is not to speak ill of Charter Schools; quite the contrary. I welcome and support their existence because I happen to believe that competition is a healthy and positive influence. I do not believe, however, that the education sector should be relegated to the status of for-profit! I believe they fall into the well being and public good of our nation status.  By failing to see them in that light we subject the public interest to profit and leaders of those sectors, when faced with the choice of the public good will all too often be tempted to choose profit over the collective good!

Next week a Historical in-depth look at the data on Assessment.

Introduction: Education REFORMS, the NEW McCarthyism

This is the first in a series of several articles dealing with our approach to reform in Education and why it has been misguided and only marginally effective despite the tremendous amounts of tax payer dollars and our incessant crusades on topics like Merit Pay, Standards, Accountability, Testing, Educator Dismissal and School Choice through Charters. We will also be looking at why our elected officials in both major parties have lacked the political courage to address the real solutions associated with comprehensive education reform.

We know what the research says we must do. Why, therefore, do we continue to mask the real fixes with the facades of reform previously mentioned here? All of these things have their place in reform but they do not address the real issues facing us. Besides, those things have been in existence and available for many years. Effective schools have long been testing their students in a comprehensive manner. Private schools have been effectively in existence from the very outset of this nation.

Competent Administrators who haven’t been concerned with their own personal popularity and getting the approval of politically motivated board members have been effectively dismissing ineffective teachers forever. Many like the misguided notion of consensus building, everyone would prefer consensus but at what point do you act in the best interest of children over the inertia brought about by a reluctant group of recalcitrants.

You may be asking yourself what possible relationship McCarthyism has to the current educational reform movement. Each began with less than a strong conviction on the part of the key political movers instrumental to them. In the case of McCarthyism its impetus was less grounded in an initial concern for Communists in our government than it was for the need of a political campaign issue. Up until May of 1950 Joe McCarthy had not spoken of the Communist threat in our Government. Lacking a re-election issue and overly concerned with his re-election efforts, McCarthy convened a group of his closest advisors in order to come up with a cause. The country was relatively stable despite the winding down of the Korean War. The economy was rebounding nicely from the post war era and images of Ozzie and Harriet prevailed.  What then could be his Issue? To the rescue came a Catholic priest, Father Edmund Walsh, who suggested campaigning on the idea that Communist subversives were working in the Truman Administration. The rest, as they say, became history. Or as Edward R. Murrow put it, “The line between investigating and persecuting is a very fine one and the junior Senator from Wisconsin has stepped over it repeatedly. This is not the time for men who oppose Senator McCarthy’s methods to keep silent. We can deny our heritage and our history, but we cannot escape responsibility for the result.”

Undoubtedly McCarthy had many followers such as Max Eastman, Whittaker Chambers, Roy Cohn and interestingly enough Joseph Kennedy Senior (father of Jack, Bobby and Ted Kennedy, who ironically played a key role in the passage of NCLB or more correctly identified as the re-authorization of ESEA which was to be the centerpiece of our current Education Reform.

He also had many harsh critics including two presidents of opposite political parties.

 When one now compares that era to the attention given to Education in recent years; it is not difficult to make the connections.

 Many of our elected officials came to their respective Education crusade not born of any real commitment to the fair and effective education of our nation’s children, but rather the need for a campaign rallying cry during a period of international peace, economic boom, and high employment coupled with a relatively new middle class prosperity.

 So let’s make Public Education the target. When all those teachers and administrators were paid at a pauper’s level, we really didn’t notice or care about them.  But they are now effectively unionizing and starting to make pretty decent salaries.

We certainly did have pockets of low performing schools as identified by the Nation at Risk in 1983. The clearly identified Education problems are of an urban, rural and poverty nature so let’s begin our assault on Public Education.

 Why does this connection matter at all? If you don’t identify the real problem you cannot possibly arrive at an effective remedy!!

Both the current education reform movement and McCarthyism have elements of truth to them and both were wrong headed and minded in their approach to a solution. Because of that, we as taxpayers were asked to foot a bill for things that could not nor would not fix the root cause of the problem.

The No Child Left Behind Act was passed in 2001 and signed into law on January 8^th 2002 by then President George Bush. One of its key sponsors was Senator Edward Kennedy. Both were hailed as Saviors of the American Education System.

The two men had entirely different perspectives on what the Law’s primary purpose was.  For the President the law was about accountability through a single testing activity. For the Senator, on the other hand, Title 1 of the Law gives a clear indication of his intent, “Improving the Academic Achievement of the Disadvantaged.”

 Two very well intentioned men with what appears to be a noble and worthwhile cause, what could possibly be wrong with that!

As Diane Ravitch, one of President Bush’s top level assistants and a strong supporter of choice and accountability thru testing says in her Book The Death and Life of the Great American School System: “I concluded that this NCLB style approach has been a failure.” She also refers to her previously supported position on School Choice as a “Lead Bullet”.

 In next week’s edition we will explore her rationale and its’ factual premises and how NCLB’s good intentions were gamed and sacrificed on the altar of choice and a single test.

Leadership Skills for the 21st Century:

I.                 Five Skills to Create a Better Tomorrow

Ø  Anticipation

Ø  Vision

Ø  Value Congruence

Ø  Empowerment

Ø  Self-Understanding

II.               Establishing the Philosophy and Mission of the School

Ø  The Mission – the direction of our efforts and talents

Ø  The Mission/Philosophy – the Restructuring Process

Ø  Applying Business Principles to the Restructuring Process for schools.  What we believe and therefore what we do:

§  Is what we are doing less than what we really want?

§  Then we have a mandate for change, improvement and a vision.

Ø  Six phases of a project

Ø  Success connection

III.             The Basics of the Change Process

Ø  The Problem-solving Process

Ø  Barriers to change

Ø  Conflict

Ø  Confrontation

Ø  Collaboration

IV.            Logistics and School Restructuring

Ø  Scheduling and reporting basis

Ø  What conditions do I really control?

V.              Teaming and Collaboration

Ø  Co-Teaching NCLB

Ø  Why?

Ø  How?

Ø  What?

Ø  When?

VI.            Academic Instruction – The What and How

Ø  What are we doing to support students having difficulty?

Ø  Curriculum alignment (Teach, test, etc.)

Ø  How can we more effectively involve parents in the child’s learning?

Ø  Why align the curriculum?

Ø  A “J” curve distribution.  The “Did we”?

Ø  Questions to ask:

§  What they need to know?

§  How are we going to teach this?

§  Do they really know it?

VII.           Data Collection/Analysis and Decision Making

Myth:  Schools don’t control the conditions of success.  What conditions do we control?

Ø  Linkage between Mission/Philosophy and Data

Ø  How factual do we know we are good

Ø  “Read ‘em and Weep – The numbers don’t lie”

Ø  WAR – Reports their impact

Ø  NCLB – The easy, effective way to comply

VIII.         Technology

Ø  Technology:  How it changes the school and the way we do business

Ø  Using technology to accomplish age-old educational tenet’s effectiveness:  instant feedback, individualizing instruction, establishing school and community partnerships, communications, diagnosis and prescription of learning/instruction, staff collaboration.

Ø  How technology can be utilized to assist administrators in the development of Individualized Education Plans for students

Ø  How to use technology to assist with NCLB (No Child Left Behind)

IX.            Communicating Education

Ø  Scaling up

Ø  Change

Ø  Replicate

Ø  Expectations

Ø  The “Good News” in a society that loves “Bad News”

Ø  What are the facts according to ETS and how do they compare to the political and media frenzy?

Ø  If you always do what you have done, you will always get what you got.

Ø  Why is it that we never do what we know works?

Ø  What we live – we learn

What we learn – we practice

What we practice – we become

What we become – has consequences

X.              Keynote address:  “You Must Make Music”

XI.            “Seven Kinds of Smart”

XII.           Adaptations, Instructional Approaches and Modifications

XIII.         Integration

XIV.        Cooperative Learning

XV.          Learning Disabilities – Strategies and Adaptations

XVI.        WAR (Weekly Academic Reports)

XVII.      “Tips for Teachers”

XVIII.     Direct Instruction

Ø  Definitions

Ø  Characteristics and Elements

Ø  Feedback and Correctives

Ø  Independent Practice

Ø  Weekly and Monthly Reviews

Ø  Expected Outcomes

Ø  Myths

XIX.        Strategies to Motivate

Ø  Tactics to motivate students for common problems, for most special education exceptionalities and by academic subject area

Much has been written and reported:

In numerous media outlets recently ( NBC nightly News, MSNBC, FOX, The Washington Post, The Daily Much has been written and reported American and numerous others ) discussing the concept of YRE (Year Round Education). Indeed as far back as 1894 this countries’ Commissioner of Education, William T. Harris, argued against the reduction of school days from 193.5 to 191 when he stated, “The constant tendency has been toward a reduction of time. First the Saturday morning session was discontinued, then summer vacations were lengthened, morning sessions were shortened, afternoon sessions were curtailed, new holidays were added, provisions were made for shorter days during stormy weather, teacher absences for institutes…  The boy of today must attend school 11.1 years in order to receive as much instruction as the boy of 50 years ago received in 8 years. It is scarcely necessary to look further than this for the explanation for the greater work accomplished in the German and French schools than our American Schools.” In 1980 A Nation at Risk Report and the National Governors Association Report both called for a change in calendar and school day schedules in order for this country to maintain its first rate international competitive edge!

Unfortunately, despite these efforts at reporting and debate it is still one of the most mis-understood concepts. It is often erroneously assumed by reporters and readers alike that the concept of YRE automatically implies and requires many more days be added to the school calendar.  Nothing could be further from the truth; in fact in many places where it has been implemented successfully it has only meant a reallocation of the current contractual days already in place. Why this increased attention to YRE now?  Because it is an idea whose time has come and is long overdue. We are as a Nation beginning to accept the reality that our current school calendar and day has some very serious unacknowledged design flaws and therefore places our entire educational reform movement both past and present on a foundation of sand.

We have built that foundation on five faulty premises: 1. the assumption that students arrive at school ready to learn in the same way, on the same schedule, all in rhythm with each other. 2. The notion that academic time can be used for non-academic purposes with no effect on Learning. 3. The pretense that because yesterday’s calendar was good enough for us, it should be good enough for our children, despite the major changes in the larger society. 4. The myth that schools can be transformed without giving teachers the time they need to retool and reorganize their work. 5. The new fiction that it is reasonable to expect the world – class academic performance from our students within the time bound system that is already failing them and their teachers.

There are educational, social, political and economic forces converging to advance the business of restructuring the school year. Throughout history when these forces converge, change does occur!!   The purpose of this series of articles is to engage the public in an educated and factual dialogue. This first installment is merely an introduction to the topic. Later articles will discuss in depth the following four specific areas related to the implications of YRE: educationally, socially, economically and politically. In each of these areas we will examine the pros and cons of YRE as it relates to each of these general categories .We will explore the six common issues raised by YRE: 1. Does the calendar make a difference in the overall learning of students? 2. Can a non-traditional calendar work on the secondary level? 3. Is there a need for uniformity of calendars? 4. What role does choice in education play? 5. How credible is the information we are using to determine our positions? 6. If YRE is such a good idea why hasn’t it been more widely accepted?

We will also  discuss the impact of our mindless love affair with the clock as it relates to education and that the clock controls every aspect of  our schools’ operations and how that often conflicts with the research on student  learning.  

We find ourselves at a crucial crossroads in education. We can overhaul the model A (our Educational System), which was admittedly a marvel in its time, or we can continue to fall prey to the laws of inertia. In which case, we will assuredly become a second rate international power. A comprehensive approach to reform can be the catalyst to our continuance as the world’s Super Power. The maintenance of the status quo will certainly lead to the very ruination of this once proud and great nation. The choice is within each of us. We continue to opt for the safety and security of a system we know does not work for many of our children or we take the calculated risks brought about by insightful change, where nothing is so scared that it cannot be included in the overall system of reform. For me the choice is clear! I cannot and will not support a system of education that is destroying the middle class back bone of our country. Therefore, I must accept and work toward a holistic reform of education by removing obstacles, roadblocks and pit falls brought about by reform. I must approach the education of the public with same zeal as a missionary. To do otherwise would be abdicating my responsibility as an educator. I cannot nor will not do so despite the personal criticisms directed at me by either an approving or disapproving public. This series will be designed to stimulate the local, state, and national discourse. The next article in this series will examine the Educational aspects of YRE!

Sources: NBC News, Fox News, Washington Post, NAYRE, Center for American Progress, US Chamber of Commerce Institute for Competitive Workforce, US Chamber of Commerce Leaders and Laggards: State by State Report, Institute for American Progress.

Year Round Education: A Comprehensive Educational Reform:Curriculum and Instruction

Why has YRE expanded by 37% in public schools and by 149% in charter schools, with a 33% increase in students enrolled in YRE schools? Currently it exists in 46 states with over 2 million students. The answer lies in the many case studies which absolutely point to a reduction in the summer loss of learning by, at minimum, one whole month and because communities have been willing to acknowledge the dire need for holistic reform of education. Beyond the instructional advantage of being more efficient, as every teacher can identify with over the next several weeks of this new school year when much of the instruction is review of previous year’s teachings.  A  new impetus comes about as a result of states now seeing an opportunity to get federal funds from the “Race to the Top Program” which require as part of the grant priorities that states and LEA’s agree to a comprehensive approach to education reform, implementing new structures and formats for the school day or year that result in increased learning time, awarding credit to students based on student performance instead of instructional time, and performance pay evaluations for teachers and administrators. Unfortunately, in the North East, we still arrogantly cling to our past glories and grandeur and refuse to accept the need to do something different.  Professional Associations still are reluctant to accept some of these new approaches, which may be why many of the Northeastern states were left out of the first and second round, grant awards.  Whereas in Washington D.C. where the current Superintendent, Michelle Rhee, has successfully worked with the Professional Associations to dramatically change the teacher evaluation system and connect it to a form of merit pay. By the way: D.C. was one of the successful second round applicants for RACE TO THE TOP FUNDS!

 What should the new Curricular and Instructional approach be to successfully implement YRE?

 Let me suggest the following approaches:

A major re-adjustment in the delivery of the educational program is absolutely required. What we teach and how we teach it must change. We must recognize that we no longer operate an industrial society, but rather an information society which has a distinctly different set of requirements which demand different and unique methods to evaluate success.

 The change that is required can best be seen by a comparison of the old focus of an Industrial Society to the new focus of an Information Age. Several examples of this change are Facts and Memorization based on repetitive work and worksheets to the how to apply data, critical thinking and innovation. Another comparison can be seen in this change in focus whereby learning is broken down into analysis of isolated parts to learning in a holistic manner .Inactive  and Individual Learning will be replaced with will be replaced with Interactive technology based learning as well as well structured cooperative learning. The new age focus will also have as some of its major elements, Real Life Simulations, Algebra for all, Telecommunications, Flexible heterogeneous grouping, Computers as a technological tool, Intergraded Curriculum and Instruction and Multi-Criteria Evaluations and assessments jus to mention a few of these shifts in focus.

Part 2: Curriculum and Instruction Continued

The change  in the focus that is required can best be seen by a comparison of the old focus of an Industrial Society to the new focus of an Information Age. Several examples of this change are Facts and Memorization based on repetitive work and worksheets to the how to apply data, critical thinking and innovation. Another comparison can be seen in this change in focus whereby learning is broken down into analysis of isolated parts to learning in a holistic manner .Inactive  and Individual Learning will be replaced with will be replaced with Interactive technology based learning as well as well structured cooperative learning. The new age focus will also have as some of its major elements, Real Life Simulations, Algebra for all, Telecommunications, Flexible heterogeneous grouping, Computers as a technological tool, Intergraded Curriculum and Instruction and Multi-Criteria Evaluations and assessments jus to mention a few of these shifts in focus.

The elementary curriculum of tomorrow will be written and taught    from a thematic approach. Teachers will take an issue such as the Grand Canyon and incorporate language, math, science and social studies skills into studying the Grand Canyon.

You're going to see a high school in the future where students are organized into teams. They will use computers, knowledge, and the human resources (teachers) to become problem solvers and critical thinkers.

The majority of the day will be spent in team work. At different times, students will be scheduled for skill sessions in math, science, language and the humanities. The driving force behind this approach will be technology.

Teachers will no longer be the "Sage on the Stage." Instead their role will be altered from a dispenser of information to a diagnostician and prescriptor of learning with the student being the one doing the work of learning. If you think about it, you need only compare how the students of Aristotle and Socrates were instructed to how contemporary students are taught. The preponderance of activity in both settings was chalk and talk. So how far have we really come and how far do we have to go?

The curriculum of tomorrow will need to include the following academic skills:

Reading:  the ability to read and comprehend correspondence writing:  the ability to communicate in a clear and concise

format, using good grammar and correct spelling, ability to understand ideas and communicate them in writing.

Computer Literacy:      ability to understand computer concepts

Calculation:      the ability to use math skills in an applied

manner

Language:      the ability to use English (or a second language) in an applied manner.

Reasoning:      the ability to put a number of different concepts together in a logical form, draw conclusions, use common sense and good judgments in decision making.

Speaking:        the ability to communicate orally, grammatically and persuasively

Organizing:      the ability to set priorities and manage time Listening:           the ability to listen for content, meaning and

                       Directions.

These can further be viewed as integrated work place literacy skills.

Language and Communication:

The ability to read, writes, and comprehend easily a wide range of printed materials, and speak clearly and effectively.

Quantitative analysis:

The ability to perform basic mathematical computations, understand charts and graphs, and analyze or synthesize quantitative problems.

Problem Solving:

The ability to reason and solve practical problems, follow complex written and oral instruction, and deal with situations in which there may be several variables.

Interpersonal/Attitudinal:

Possess the qualities of self-esteem, motivation, reliability, punctuality, the ability to deal with and work co-operatively with others, and acceptance of the concepts of lifelong learning and change.

Job-Seeking-self/advancement:

The ability to assess one's abilities and ambitions and obtain the skills needed to fulfill them.

The curriculum will also have to be measured differently. It will have to be instantaneous. Assessment/Evaluation of tomorrow must be performance based. Does this mean no more objective assessments? No. It means that the emphasis placed on objective assessments must be decreased and a better balance of these other types of assessment must be established. The NCLB objective testing mania must change. Greater emphasis must be placed on demonstration (both physical and oral forms) such as portfolios or projects in order to more accurately evaluate learner skills. The scoring rubrics associated with this new system require much greater specificity for projects and oral presentations. Technology will afford teachers the opportunity to provide immediate feedback to assessments, which is so crucial to the next day’s lesson design. Instead of teaching the next unit as if all the students had mastered it, the teacher will have instant feedback with which to design suitable daily lessons based on prior demonstrated knowledge.

If we are willing to look at all of the issues discussed in parts 1 and 2 of this treatise concurrently, we have an opportunity to make the necessary improvements to our educational system. If we fail to take the comprehensive approach and continue our piece meal strategy we are doomed to throwing more and more money at the problem with little or no significant improvement being achieved!