Today the state of Pennsylvania provided me with some CCSS training (well, not exactly, but we'll get to that). This blog post will probably be on the long side and perhaps not as entertaining, but for those of you who are wondering what some of this stuff looks like up close, let me give you a look. Today's training is
Depth of Knowledge through Performance Tasks (presented in partnership with the Common Core Insitute)
Training today involved about seventy teachers and administrators at the Intermediate Unit office (in PA, there are regional field offices for the PA DOE) in the Hemlock Room. Yes, just like the poison you drink if you're an ancient Greek philosopher who wants to kill himself. You can't make this stuff up.
Welcome
The IU lady, who never actually introduced herself nor wore a name tag, started things off with a pep talk for CCSS. "It's not as much about new content as it is new teaching," she said. "We've been going on an efficiency model." She observed that we would now be moving on to effectiveness, and that word reminded her of the new teacher evals in PA. What better way to start the day than a reminder that our professional evaluations are riding on this stuff.
She introduced Ed Heelifeld (my best phonetic rendering) who taught high school math for 12 years but is now a sales and service rep for Common Core Institute. "We help people implement the common core." So, "institute" here means "program sales company." It's a nice touch. I bet in retrospect Ray Kroc wishes he had started the "McDonalds Hamburger and Fries Institute."
Ed turns us over to the lead dog on this CCSS bobsled today-- Jill Stine.
Jill Stine
Jill Stine works for some combination of CCI and the Center for College and Career Readiness. She has a varied background in ed, ranging from teaching deaf classes at Camp Hill Prison to Title I reading to assistant principal. She worked with Bob Marzano in Florida implementing teacher evaluations. She's not shy-- I know all of the above because she told us. She described working with Marzano as "a fun time" in a tone suggesting it was contentious and that she knows not everyone loves her work.
It would be entertaining to describe her as a difficult, unpleasant human being with horns and foul breath, but she came across as fairly straightforward and likeable. She took questions, generally didn't evade, and was willing to engage with those of us who had issues with the program. A quick search suggested that she has occasionally been a bit too forthright in the past. She was reasonable and human, but unapologetically described herself as having "drunk the koolaid."
The First Thing I Did Not Expect
Stine's brief version of the CCSS origin story was a new one on me. In her story, the creators looked across all the state standards to see what standards they had in common. Then they asked if those standards were getting the job done. Then they overlaid another level of complexity to make them more better. Make of that what you will.
Rigor
I'm actually looking forward to the day that "efficacy" takes over. We had a long discussion about what rigor is and is not. She showed us that little bad animation cartoon where the Britishy principal grills the teacher about rigor. She shared the Barbara Blackburn definition of rigor. We brainstormed a bunch of ideas. I must conclude once again that "rigor" is either A) everything we all already knew was a good thing to do as a teacher, or B) magical fairy dust of learning.
I'm Starting To Understand Randi Weingarten
We began the pivot toward the actual point of the by re-affirming that how we teach should be how we assess. Don't do a project and then give a test-- use the project as the actual assessment. Not for the last time today, I could see that if you squint your eyes and look at the good parts of CCSS (what I like to call "things good teachers already do") it provides, all on its own, a pretty strong indictment of the high stakes testing program that is its conjoined twin.
But I can see how, close up, it might look like testing is somehow twisting CCSS all out of shape, and if you could just get the foot of testing off the neck of CCSS, the standards would spring back to life. Because frequently in the session you arrive at a variation on "Well, that would be swell-- except for the test that's coming." I contend that testing has not bent CCSS out of shape-- that IS it's shape. But I can see how, close up, you'd think otherwise.
I suspect that this is part of the reason that the CCSS reformista package gives so many people gut-level cognitive dissonance even when they don't fully understand it. It's like a bad M C Escher drawing where segments try to be two mutually contradictory things at once. It can't all be true at the same time.
So anyway-- better assessments. Also, kids have changed. Remember that for later.
The Main Event Finally Arrives--Webb's Depth of Knowledge
You know, Bloom's Taxonomy was swell in its day. Nothing wrong with it. But its big weakness was that whole emphasis-on-the-verb thing. You can describe the color of a read ball, and you can describe how you would create a system for playing chess in zero gravity, and both use the verb "describe" but are clearly different levels of operation.
Norman Webb came up with a newer, better tool. The DOK scale (thank goodness he didn't call it depth IN knowledge) delineates four different way that students interact with content:
1- Recall and Reproduction
2- Skills and Concepts
3- Strategic Thinking/Reasoning
4- Extended Thinking
You may be thinking that this sounds an awful lot like a collapsed Bloom's, and I wouldn't argue with you. I actually agree with the Bloom's verby problem, but I'm thinking that's a pretty easy fix. I'm also thinking that nobody is making money teaching people about Bloom's any more, but some folks are making an awful lots of money teaching teachers about Webb's DOK.
We spent much time looking at and categorizing examples of the four levels, and it was at times a tough slog because essentially they're trying to teach us to use a whole new language to talk about things. If you really want to know more about DOK, just google your heart out. There's tons out there.
I will share one insight that I actually found useful. Because DOK focuses on the complexity of the interaction with the material, you can ramp up DOK even with material that's not difficult.
But the real reason you care about DOK is simple-- it's what's being used as a guide by the high stakes test developers. This is why, for instance, we're seeing questions that have the student look at two different works and construct an argument about them based on evidence-- because that would be a DOK 3 or 4 level and will help HST grow beyond the old bubble test stigma.
So we're to be designing performance tasks that represent these different levels because that will better help us bring to life the inner beauty of the CCSS.
More Dissonance
These sorts of performance tasks are supposed to go slow and deep. One sample lesson was going to involve a week spent on one poem. Because we could all just teach 36 short works of literature in high school English classes this year. And elementary teachers with their 180 pre-packaged lessons can totally stretch those out so students can go deep.
Again, what some experts tell us we should do with CCSS and what others tell us we must do with CCSS materials simply don't fit. CCSS is a GPS that gives you directions for driving south toward Pittsburgh and then ends with directions about navigating down town Cleveland.
We also discussed a sample task for third graders and noted that on the HST this sort of thing would require a lot of rigorous time and focused attention for an eight-year-old. The obvious solution-- make sure that your instruction includes long soul-crushing tedious tasks so that your third grader is used to it by the time the test comes.
A Question I Asked
We were talking about how the PARCC (which PA is apparently still pals with; we mostly don't like the idea of the computer testing, perhaps because we actually tried that a few years ago and it was a clusterfig of mammoth proportions), and how it was going to include these nifty performance tasks for assessments, and I asked, "How will the answers to the complex questions be graded and by whom?" I think a lot of people found that question interesting, but Stine admitted frankly that she had no idea, and that yes, that was probably important. IU Lady made some noises on behalf of the state that were less illuminating.
I may also have squeezed in an explanation of how to game the PA writing test.
We broke for lunch
Afternoon Not-Really-Delight
The afternoon opened with a video clip of Taylor Mali's "Miracle Worker," and I always think that reformers' use of Mali is kind of like politician's use of "Born in the USA" and I want to ask, "Are you really listening to this?" But I had resolved not to be an ass today.
CCI has prepared a nifty 128-page deconstruction of the standards, making them easily referrable and broken down in a way that would make local alignment a slightly less-inconvenient piece of paperwork. We looked at that, and we looked at a performance task that, unfortunately, purported to use Close Reading. It was actually Close Reading 2.0, complete with making sure not tell the students anything before having them read the work. Did I mention that the Taylor Mali poem hinges on the idea "I gave you what you needed before you even knew you needed it?" Close Reading 2.0 instead preaches "I won't give you what you need, even when you're floundering without it."
I give credit to Stine, who not for the first or last time was perfectly willing to engage me one-on-one during group time to trade points of view on these things. I am not sure how much I can learn from her, but she could teach people like Cami Anderson and John King a thing or two.
We spent more time on specific sample lessons. You can find some of this stuff on CCI's website, and each performance task comes with a coaching video to help you understand what you're supposed to do, in case you're somebody who doesn't belong in a classroom.This was also an interesting study in how teachers react to CCSS. In the morning, there was a lot of "Well, this actually seems benign, maybe even helpful" in the room, but the afternoon was more "Wait! What? This is the result? Well, this just doesn't seem right."
Annnnnd we were about done. IU Lady said some more hostessy things which I mostly blocked out, though I did jot down the phrase "really rich and authentic data" because I'm curious about the kind of brain in which that is an actual thing that comes out of CCSS.
Last Dissonance Aside
You may have heard that CCSS (and perhaps your evaluation) really values questions with more than one right answer. We hit that a lot. Also, collaboration is a biggie. And independently researching points that come up in the pursuit of answers. This should be part of what we do all the time. Except when we're taking the high stakes test.
My Last Question
At some point we had circled back around to the idea that you could increase complexity of the DOK level without increasing the level of difficulty of the content. Which I totally dig. But I asked "How do we reconcile that with preparing students for the high stakes test that will increase the level of BOTH?" And there were a lot of words that followed, but none of them added up to an answer. This conundrum still seems to rest on rigorous fairy dust-- we'll get the DOK levels of their brains rigorously ramped up so much that it won't matter that half the vocabulary is unfamiliar to them.
The Second Thing I Did Not Expect
Remember how kids have changed? That came up more than once, in basically a "kids these days" manner. I had never, ever hear this one before, but apparently one of the reasons we need CCSS and DOK levels is that kids these days are helpless and lack initiative. Stine told a story about her child calling to ask "Are we out of butter?" while standing in front of the frige. So, CCSS and rigor. Apparently the CCSS will make kids pull up their pants and get off our lawns.
The Third Thing I Did Not Expect
Remember how I said the state of PA didn't exactly provide the training? Well, that's because the training was sponsored by the folks at Office Depot, who paid our registration fees (160-ish bucks/head). They are corporate partners of the CCI, and two representatives of the company sat in the back of the room all day. At the end, a nice lady from Office Depot told us how important CCSS is and how useful we will find it in our classrooms. And they reminded us that Office Depot could help our schools meet the costs of change by giving them cheaper ways to get supplies. They offered us a swag bag, but I actually forgot to pick it up because I was still wrapping my brain around someone from Office Depot giving me advice on how to do my job.
I was not numb. I've sat through far worse, and there were useful nuggets in this day, including a better understanding of where the CCSS/Testing machine is coming from on some particulars. But still no kool-aid for me.
At the very end we saw an inspiration video about a football coach tricking a kid into doing a death march (crawling on hands and feet with another guy on his back) the full length of a football field. I thought maybe the video would end with the kid collapsing of heat stroke and the coach being fired, but no-- everybody felt better, because in the end you can accomplish really painful, difficult, and pointless tasks if you set your mind to it. It's possible I drew the wrong lesson from the video.
Thursday, January 30, 2014
Wednesday, January 29, 2014
Political Theater and Reality
Tuesday presented an interesting juxtaposition of events.
It began with news of the death of Pete Seeger. Stuck at home for a Polar Vortex Day, I sat and watched clips, everything from interviews to original Weavers clips to the video he made for Amnesty International at age 92. I reread accounts of his life-- living in a house he built with his wife of about 70 years, his blacklisting, his travels with Woody Guthrie, his stand on so many issues. I watched him sing, head tilted back, eyes on... something. Something bigger than himself. And I got choked up, moved by this man who absolutely lived his life and his art as if they were the same thing, who lived with integrity and honesty. I may not have agreed with everything he ever said or did, but damn-- the man absolutely fearlessly lived out his truth.
But as the day wore on, Seeger was pushed out of the cyber world by anticipation of the State of the Union address. If there is a more inauthentic, calculated piece of political theater outside of campaign events, I can't think of it. People spent the day on line speculating and agitating for what issues and elements POTUS might name drop in the SOTU, and at the end of the day of speculation, he gave education a side swiped batch of pointless sidestepping and spin. I didn't watch it, and I wasn't sorry. You can read two fine reactions to it; one by Chris Geurrierri and the other by Valerie Strauss. You can get the gist there. If the SOTU told us anything at all, it told us that no magical fairies visited POTUS during the night to make him understand how messed up his education policies are.
It was empty rhetoric, a fine example of how politicians have become accustomed to controlling the conversation, the audience, the setting, and the rhetoric, leading to the mistaken assumption that all of that equals controlling the audience. My biggest fear about the SOTU is the President Obama believes in his heart that he really accomplished something, that teachers and students are sitting out there thinking, "Well, that's mighty fine. He has my full support now." It's one thing when people pee on us and tell us it's raining; it's somehow worse when they think we believe them.
But not too far away from DC, another politician was having a more authentic experience. Cami Anderson did everything she could to keep the parents and teachers of Newark in line-- small meeting location, make them wait outside, control the agenda. But like John King and his New York Victory Lap of Common Core Wait What No I'm Not Going Back Out There Tour, Cami discovered that when people are authentically outraged, political theater and stage tricks will not keep them in line. She had a no good, very bad, terrible evening.
And like many politicians and reformers before her, she was not just surprised, but really offended that people were not well-behaved enough to stay in their place. It's particularly ironic that a personal barb appears to have been her breaking point, as if her actions and statements have not been personal attacks on the personal families of Newark persons.
And so she stomped out.
We are so steeped in the fake in this country, that our leaders have become focused on crafting fake events instead of dealing with real people, and when they have to deal with real people, they literally do not know how to cope.
And yet, part of the lesson of Pete Seeger is that authentic lives, lives in truth and integrity, create real beauty, perhaps the only kind of real beauty that ever exists. To hide from truth is to hide from what is true and beautiful and awesomely human. It's focusing on creating and controlling a completely artificial relationship and experience that is at the cold and lifeless heart of CCSS and reform.
The State of the Union address was one of the least important things to happen yesterday. Give me more Pete Seeger. Give me more Newark parents. Give me less political theater, especially when it comes to education.
It began with news of the death of Pete Seeger. Stuck at home for a Polar Vortex Day, I sat and watched clips, everything from interviews to original Weavers clips to the video he made for Amnesty International at age 92. I reread accounts of his life-- living in a house he built with his wife of about 70 years, his blacklisting, his travels with Woody Guthrie, his stand on so many issues. I watched him sing, head tilted back, eyes on... something. Something bigger than himself. And I got choked up, moved by this man who absolutely lived his life and his art as if they were the same thing, who lived with integrity and honesty. I may not have agreed with everything he ever said or did, but damn-- the man absolutely fearlessly lived out his truth.
But as the day wore on, Seeger was pushed out of the cyber world by anticipation of the State of the Union address. If there is a more inauthentic, calculated piece of political theater outside of campaign events, I can't think of it. People spent the day on line speculating and agitating for what issues and elements POTUS might name drop in the SOTU, and at the end of the day of speculation, he gave education a side swiped batch of pointless sidestepping and spin. I didn't watch it, and I wasn't sorry. You can read two fine reactions to it; one by Chris Geurrierri and the other by Valerie Strauss. You can get the gist there. If the SOTU told us anything at all, it told us that no magical fairies visited POTUS during the night to make him understand how messed up his education policies are.
It was empty rhetoric, a fine example of how politicians have become accustomed to controlling the conversation, the audience, the setting, and the rhetoric, leading to the mistaken assumption that all of that equals controlling the audience. My biggest fear about the SOTU is the President Obama believes in his heart that he really accomplished something, that teachers and students are sitting out there thinking, "Well, that's mighty fine. He has my full support now." It's one thing when people pee on us and tell us it's raining; it's somehow worse when they think we believe them.
But not too far away from DC, another politician was having a more authentic experience. Cami Anderson did everything she could to keep the parents and teachers of Newark in line-- small meeting location, make them wait outside, control the agenda. But like John King and his New York Victory Lap of Common Core Wait What No I'm Not Going Back Out There Tour, Cami discovered that when people are authentically outraged, political theater and stage tricks will not keep them in line. She had a no good, very bad, terrible evening.
And like many politicians and reformers before her, she was not just surprised, but really offended that people were not well-behaved enough to stay in their place. It's particularly ironic that a personal barb appears to have been her breaking point, as if her actions and statements have not been personal attacks on the personal families of Newark persons.
And so she stomped out.
We are so steeped in the fake in this country, that our leaders have become focused on crafting fake events instead of dealing with real people, and when they have to deal with real people, they literally do not know how to cope.
And yet, part of the lesson of Pete Seeger is that authentic lives, lives in truth and integrity, create real beauty, perhaps the only kind of real beauty that ever exists. To hide from truth is to hide from what is true and beautiful and awesomely human. It's focusing on creating and controlling a completely artificial relationship and experience that is at the cold and lifeless heart of CCSS and reform.
The State of the Union address was one of the least important things to happen yesterday. Give me more Pete Seeger. Give me more Newark parents. Give me less political theater, especially when it comes to education.
Tuesday, January 28, 2014
Reform and Engineering Systems
Peter DeWitt ran a column last week on NBC's Education Nation advertising site leaping off from the question of how to chart a course through the middle of this debate. I feel his pain. Education has become another area in US life where it is no longer enough to believe that the people you disagree with are wrong-- you must view them as your mortal enemies, motivated by some combination of evil, greed, and stupidity. "Moderate" doesn't just mean a central position on the issues, but also refers to the degree of heat one brings to the argument table.
After some thoughts that you really should go read, DeWitt arrives at this:
If we stop debating on who is right or wrong and actually work together to figure out how to move forward, we may find that our end goals are the same, and only our means are different. Perhaps I’m too idealistic.
And that got me thinking, not for the first time, about the different goals in play in education reform and reclamation these days.
I think of myself as a moderate. I don't see any value in having national education standards, of any sort, at all, ever. But I do understand why some people think such standards have merit, and I don't assume that they are horrible people.
But I am afraid, despite DeWitt's hopes, we don't all have the same goals. I'm not talking about the profiteers. Lightyears of words have been strung together to tell that story, and I'm not going to address to that today. I think something else is driving the architects of school reform, and I think that explains, even more than greed, why we're pulling in different directions.
I've lived most of my life around engineers and their modern offspring, computer systems guys (as an English teacher, I'm a bit of an anomaly). And here are two things I know about folks in those fields:
1) They love neat, pretty systems.
2) Human beings often fail to behave the way they think human beings ought to behave.
Point #1 is important to understand. Engineers like elegant systems. Whatever it is-- stereo equipment, a way to move dirt in the back yard, a system for remote access a particular program-- they love to design a smooth, elegant means of accomplishing it. That is the goal. Given the choice between a sloppy cobbled-together system that gets the job done and a sleek elegant system that doesn't-- but should --they will pick the elegant non-functional system every time.
Who has not had this conversation with their tech department?
Teacher: This hardware/software you set up isn't parsing the widgets for me.
Tech guy: Really? That should work. [accusing tone] Are you sure you didn't mess up the fribulator?
Teacher: Didn't touch it. This thing doesn't work. Can you just do a workaround so I can finish
Tech guy: No no no. This should work. [followed by hunching over equipment having prolonged conversation with himself]
Three weeks later the tech guy is still trying to tweak the setup. Meanwhile, you've parsed your widgets with a pencil and some 3x5 notecards. File this with all the times you were going to use that cool hookup in your class and 95% of the period was wasted with tech guys trying to get things to work the way they were supposed to.
I don't know Bill Gates, but given my experience with engineers and computer guys, I wonder-- does he want to rule the world and make money from it, or does he just want to organize. I wonder if he and other engineery types don't look at our traditional education system and see a system that is so higgledy-piggledy, haphazard, random, and messy that it gives them hives.
I think it's possible they just want to see a smooth, elegant system.
Do they care about results or students or teachers or communities? Probably, but their core belief is this: if you get the proper system in place, the results will take care of themselves.
So if it seems as if the architects are talking about teachers and students and schools as if we're all just cogs in some big shiny machine-- well, yes. To them, we are. And as soon as the machine is properly tweaked and aligned and calibrated and set-up, we will all be whirring along, happy, productive cogs who are getting everything we ever wanted.
They're wrong. Human beings don't operate well as cogs, and system perfection is largely inachieveable. The day will never come when every single student will successfully take Smarter Balance test online in one day without a glitch. "But it should happen." And rather than bust out paper and pencil and do what works, the engineers will keep striving for perfection. And because our goal is to perfect the system, it doesn't matter if the clock is still running and years are wasted for the students while the machine is set up.
In the meantime, engineers see humans in the education system as functions-- teachers are Content Delivery Specialists and students are Data Generation Units. And all functions must be standardized to certain tolerances in order for the system to run smoothly. Worst case, engineers can see humans as a problem. By refusing to behave the way they ought to, humans will keep messing the system up. Either those cogs must be brought into compliance or replaced with other cogs that do what they're supposed to. For the good of the system.
So no, Dr. DeWitt, in the end I don't think we want the same things, and the differences in what we want end up being rather critical. In the best of times, when the system is running smoothly and the students are prospering, there's no conflict. But when crisis time comes (or is created artificially), and we have to decide where to focus our dwindling resources, it makes a critical difference whether our imperative is "Save the kids" or "Save the system."
I don't think the engineers are malevolent (though I think some profiteers are using them to break trail). But I don't think they get it. And I'm not sure how to help them get it, because the other obstacle to dialogue here is a power differential. The architects aren't speaking to us, and they don't have to. At least, not yet. I don't think it's hopeless-- I know several engineery types who get along quite well with other carbon-based life forms, so I know it's possible. So in the respect at least, Dr. DeWitt, I share your idealism.
After some thoughts that you really should go read, DeWitt arrives at this:
If we stop debating on who is right or wrong and actually work together to figure out how to move forward, we may find that our end goals are the same, and only our means are different. Perhaps I’m too idealistic.
And that got me thinking, not for the first time, about the different goals in play in education reform and reclamation these days.
I think of myself as a moderate. I don't see any value in having national education standards, of any sort, at all, ever. But I do understand why some people think such standards have merit, and I don't assume that they are horrible people.
But I am afraid, despite DeWitt's hopes, we don't all have the same goals. I'm not talking about the profiteers. Lightyears of words have been strung together to tell that story, and I'm not going to address to that today. I think something else is driving the architects of school reform, and I think that explains, even more than greed, why we're pulling in different directions.
I've lived most of my life around engineers and their modern offspring, computer systems guys (as an English teacher, I'm a bit of an anomaly). And here are two things I know about folks in those fields:
1) They love neat, pretty systems.
2) Human beings often fail to behave the way they think human beings ought to behave.
Point #1 is important to understand. Engineers like elegant systems. Whatever it is-- stereo equipment, a way to move dirt in the back yard, a system for remote access a particular program-- they love to design a smooth, elegant means of accomplishing it. That is the goal. Given the choice between a sloppy cobbled-together system that gets the job done and a sleek elegant system that doesn't-- but should --they will pick the elegant non-functional system every time.
Who has not had this conversation with their tech department?
Teacher: This hardware/software you set up isn't parsing the widgets for me.
Tech guy: Really? That should work. [accusing tone] Are you sure you didn't mess up the fribulator?
Teacher: Didn't touch it. This thing doesn't work. Can you just do a workaround so I can finish
Tech guy: No no no. This should work. [followed by hunching over equipment having prolonged conversation with himself]
Three weeks later the tech guy is still trying to tweak the setup. Meanwhile, you've parsed your widgets with a pencil and some 3x5 notecards. File this with all the times you were going to use that cool hookup in your class and 95% of the period was wasted with tech guys trying to get things to work the way they were supposed to.
I don't know Bill Gates, but given my experience with engineers and computer guys, I wonder-- does he want to rule the world and make money from it, or does he just want to organize. I wonder if he and other engineery types don't look at our traditional education system and see a system that is so higgledy-piggledy, haphazard, random, and messy that it gives them hives.
I think it's possible they just want to see a smooth, elegant system.
Do they care about results or students or teachers or communities? Probably, but their core belief is this: if you get the proper system in place, the results will take care of themselves.
So if it seems as if the architects are talking about teachers and students and schools as if we're all just cogs in some big shiny machine-- well, yes. To them, we are. And as soon as the machine is properly tweaked and aligned and calibrated and set-up, we will all be whirring along, happy, productive cogs who are getting everything we ever wanted.
They're wrong. Human beings don't operate well as cogs, and system perfection is largely inachieveable. The day will never come when every single student will successfully take Smarter Balance test online in one day without a glitch. "But it should happen." And rather than bust out paper and pencil and do what works, the engineers will keep striving for perfection. And because our goal is to perfect the system, it doesn't matter if the clock is still running and years are wasted for the students while the machine is set up.
In the meantime, engineers see humans in the education system as functions-- teachers are Content Delivery Specialists and students are Data Generation Units. And all functions must be standardized to certain tolerances in order for the system to run smoothly. Worst case, engineers can see humans as a problem. By refusing to behave the way they ought to, humans will keep messing the system up. Either those cogs must be brought into compliance or replaced with other cogs that do what they're supposed to. For the good of the system.
So no, Dr. DeWitt, in the end I don't think we want the same things, and the differences in what we want end up being rather critical. In the best of times, when the system is running smoothly and the students are prospering, there's no conflict. But when crisis time comes (or is created artificially), and we have to decide where to focus our dwindling resources, it makes a critical difference whether our imperative is "Save the kids" or "Save the system."
I don't think the engineers are malevolent (though I think some profiteers are using them to break trail). But I don't think they get it. And I'm not sure how to help them get it, because the other obstacle to dialogue here is a power differential. The architects aren't speaking to us, and they don't have to. At least, not yet. I don't think it's hopeless-- I know several engineery types who get along quite well with other carbon-based life forms, so I know it's possible. So in the respect at least, Dr. DeWitt, I share your idealism.
Monday, January 27, 2014
NEA Sees News from NY, Punts
As everyone following the continuing CCSS adventures knows by now, New York State United Teachers' Board of Directors this Saturday voted "no confidence" on the policies of John King and recommended his ouster.
The resolution was sweeping in its rejection, but also came packed with a whole set of specific recommendations and requests. You can read the whole NYSUT release here.It's a pretty canny piece of political needle-threading.
"Educators understand that introducing new standards, appropriate curriculum and meaningful assessments are ongoing aspects of a robust educational system. These are complex tasks made even more complex when attempted during a time of devastating budget cuts. SED's implementation plan in New York state has failed. The commissioner has pursued policies that repeatedly ignore the voices of parents and educators who have identified problems and called on him to move more thoughtfully," said NYSUT President Richard C. Iannuzzi. "Instead of listening to and trusting parents and teachers to know and do what's right for students, the commissioner has offered meaningless rhetoric and token change. Instead of making the major course corrections that are clearly needed, including backing a three-year moratorium on high-stakes consequences for students and teachers from state testing, he has labeled everyone and every meaningful recommendation as distractions."
So, not a direct repudiation of CCSS. Just all its arms and legs and ears and everything done by the much-unloved guy who made it the cornerstone, bedrock, and giant stone albatross of his every policy.
I'm not a "CCSS is swell once you get rid of testing and implement it properly" guy. I am a "kill it with fire" guy. I believe that testing is the whole inseparable point of CCSS. That said, I can see the flip side-- remove testing, and you've removed the point of CCSS, and it's just more paperwork. Pull out its fangs and it is, in the words of that great philosopher Yukon Cornelius, a humble bumble.
Well, there's been much to discuss about the NYSUT repudiation of King's policies. It's the biggest stand taken against reform so far, all the more ballsy because it required the state teachers to take a flier without any expectation that a national union had their back. After the resolution, Randi Weingarten quickly popped up with messages of support and approval-- more commendable evolution on her part.
Now, about 48 hours later, Dennis Van Roekel finally finds his voice. Well, sort of anyway. NEA's PR office released a message from the office of DVR, and of course the NEA leader is stepping forward to support and encourage the brave and ballsy teachers of-- oh, no. Wait. No, no that's not it.
The new Common Core State Standards provide real opportunities for the students in our nation’s public school system, but we owe it to them to provide teachers with the time, tools, and resources to get it right. Educators in New York were given no choice but to make a strong statement against the inadequate implementation of the standards. Teachers, administrators, parents and communities must work together to align the standards with curriculum, instruction and assessment, and this isn’t being done in New York.
Yep-- given a slam dunk union-leading opportunity, one that required nothing more than simply leaping up on an already-moving bandwagon, DVR took a flying leap and landed right in the middle of one more CCSS promotional piece.
Look at the two excerpts again. NYSUT is expressing concern that the interests of teachers, students, family, and community members are not being heeded and represented. DVR is concerned that the standards aren't getting all the love and care they deserve. And while this opening graf lists the people who aren't properly implementing the standards, DVR gets through all four paragraphs without mentioning John King by either name or title. Here, briefly, is the rest of the statement.
Graf #2) We've been telling people folks need time to implement this stuff. Kentucky and California are exemplars. Argle-blargle common sense principles. Blah blah blah college and career ready.
Graf #3) Believe it or not, we'll once again tell you about our poll that shows our members overwhelming support the standards. They love the standards. They would like to have the standards' baby. However most of them don't get to help implement it. Here are some things they would like to have, we hear.
Graf #4) "Our members support the standards because they are the right thing to do for our students..." Then bleep bloop embrace the promise and blurp blorp critical thinking and creative skills. Also, "implementation" many many times. NEA has been working to do stuff.
PS: Here's a link to our resources.
So there you have it. Given the opportunity to send a message of support and solidarity for the teachers of NY, NEA instead played Mad Libs with PR boilerplate and a list of stock phrases from every puff piece written about CCSS. DVR barely mentioned the substance or point of NYSUT's resolution, but instead used it as an excuse to issue one more love song of support for CCSS. Lordy. How many months left till the summer?
The resolution was sweeping in its rejection, but also came packed with a whole set of specific recommendations and requests. You can read the whole NYSUT release here.It's a pretty canny piece of political needle-threading.
"Educators understand that introducing new standards, appropriate curriculum and meaningful assessments are ongoing aspects of a robust educational system. These are complex tasks made even more complex when attempted during a time of devastating budget cuts. SED's implementation plan in New York state has failed. The commissioner has pursued policies that repeatedly ignore the voices of parents and educators who have identified problems and called on him to move more thoughtfully," said NYSUT President Richard C. Iannuzzi. "Instead of listening to and trusting parents and teachers to know and do what's right for students, the commissioner has offered meaningless rhetoric and token change. Instead of making the major course corrections that are clearly needed, including backing a three-year moratorium on high-stakes consequences for students and teachers from state testing, he has labeled everyone and every meaningful recommendation as distractions."
So, not a direct repudiation of CCSS. Just all its arms and legs and ears and everything done by the much-unloved guy who made it the cornerstone, bedrock, and giant stone albatross of his every policy.
I'm not a "CCSS is swell once you get rid of testing and implement it properly" guy. I am a "kill it with fire" guy. I believe that testing is the whole inseparable point of CCSS. That said, I can see the flip side-- remove testing, and you've removed the point of CCSS, and it's just more paperwork. Pull out its fangs and it is, in the words of that great philosopher Yukon Cornelius, a humble bumble.
Well, there's been much to discuss about the NYSUT repudiation of King's policies. It's the biggest stand taken against reform so far, all the more ballsy because it required the state teachers to take a flier without any expectation that a national union had their back. After the resolution, Randi Weingarten quickly popped up with messages of support and approval-- more commendable evolution on her part.
Now, about 48 hours later, Dennis Van Roekel finally finds his voice. Well, sort of anyway. NEA's PR office released a message from the office of DVR, and of course the NEA leader is stepping forward to support and encourage the brave and ballsy teachers of-- oh, no. Wait. No, no that's not it.
The new Common Core State Standards provide real opportunities for the students in our nation’s public school system, but we owe it to them to provide teachers with the time, tools, and resources to get it right. Educators in New York were given no choice but to make a strong statement against the inadequate implementation of the standards. Teachers, administrators, parents and communities must work together to align the standards with curriculum, instruction and assessment, and this isn’t being done in New York.
Yep-- given a slam dunk union-leading opportunity, one that required nothing more than simply leaping up on an already-moving bandwagon, DVR took a flying leap and landed right in the middle of one more CCSS promotional piece.
Look at the two excerpts again. NYSUT is expressing concern that the interests of teachers, students, family, and community members are not being heeded and represented. DVR is concerned that the standards aren't getting all the love and care they deserve. And while this opening graf lists the people who aren't properly implementing the standards, DVR gets through all four paragraphs without mentioning John King by either name or title. Here, briefly, is the rest of the statement.
Graf #2) We've been telling people folks need time to implement this stuff. Kentucky and California are exemplars. Argle-blargle common sense principles. Blah blah blah college and career ready.
Graf #3) Believe it or not, we'll once again tell you about our poll that shows our members overwhelming support the standards. They love the standards. They would like to have the standards' baby. However most of them don't get to help implement it. Here are some things they would like to have, we hear.
Graf #4) "Our members support the standards because they are the right thing to do for our students..." Then bleep bloop embrace the promise and blurp blorp critical thinking and creative skills. Also, "implementation" many many times. NEA has been working to do stuff.
PS: Here's a link to our resources.
So there you have it. Given the opportunity to send a message of support and solidarity for the teachers of NY, NEA instead played Mad Libs with PR boilerplate and a list of stock phrases from every puff piece written about CCSS. DVR barely mentioned the substance or point of NYSUT's resolution, but instead used it as an excuse to issue one more love song of support for CCSS. Lordy. How many months left till the summer?
When School Choice Works
Under what circumstances would school choice work?
I've written a great deal over the years about all the many many many ways that I think school choice and/or vouchers would be a terrible idea for everybody (including most school choice advocates, many of whom I think are continually played by people whose interest in choice extends only as far as making a buck). But today is a snow day, my wife is at a conference, and I am home alone with the dog , so I have time for a little thought experiment. Let's see if I can come up with the circumstances under which I would support school choice?
Here, in no particular order, are my conditions. I'll stipulate right up front that these mostly would require government regulation and intervention, which is its own kettle of stinky fish. For the time being, we'll pretend that's not a problem.
Representative School Population.
Voucher schools must have a representative cross-section of the community. We'll allow the community itself to define what this means, but in general, here's the deal. No predominantly white school in a predominantly ethnic community. If the community is 40% free and reduced lunch, then so shall any school operating there. Choice schools must take the same proportion of special needs students. No voucher schools set aside exclusively for just the football players or just the Asian kids or just the cream of the crop. The school will be funded with the community's money. It must be just as reflective of that community as any public school would be.
Professional Staffing.
Teachers will be certified teachers. All of them. Administrators will have real credentials and not a certificate from Bob's Big School O'Superintendents. I'm sure you know some enthusiastic young people who would make great teachers; we all do. They should go to school to become teachers. You may, however, subject your employees to whatever requirements you wish. You can have a voucher school without tenure or seniority rules about hiring. You can pay whatever you like. Having trouble finding enough qualified people to work for you? Welcome to the free market-- you're failing your first test.
Oh, and real buildings, too. Buy it, build it, or rent it. And not in a public school building. There's already a school there. If students want to attend that school, do so.
Minimal Standards.
Being a voucher school will not be a license to teach about cavemen riding dinosaurs, nor will it be okay to be a basketball academy with fifteen minutes of academic studies a day. Your curriculum will pass muster by whatever group does the mustering in your state-- local school board, state legislature, roving education ronin. Yes, I know these sorts of safeguards are already sort of in place in some states, and it is providing about as much restraint as wet tissue paper trying to restrain a rampaging stegosaurus carrying the Baby Jesus. My only requirement is that the standards must be enforced by people who are elected to the office. If people want to elect dimbulbs to undercut their own educational system, that's the price we pay for messy democracy.
Increased Funding.
The bar-none flat-out stupidest thing about how we currently handle forms of vouchers is the funding. Specifically, we start with the premise that we can run two or three or ten school systems for the same money that used to run one. This is like claiming that you can solve your tight household budget problems by owning a second or third home. If the legislature of your state wants you to run two concurrent school systems, it's going to have to pay for them.
There are lots of ways to do this. For instance, when a student goes to a voucher school, 75% of his per capita cost goes to the choice, and 75% of his per capita stays with the home school. Or like any subcontractor, choice schools can "bid" for state contracts ("We can educate 150 students for $300K") and that's what they get, while the home school is paid according to the usual funding formula, rather than having to give up money for the choice.
"But," say choice fans, "That makes school choice more expensive." No, it just recognizes that a school choice system IS more expensive, always, every time. The extra cost may be shifted to taxpayers or parents or paid in kind with the destruction of the building and staff of the public school. But of all the dishonesty surrounding school choice, the biggest is the refusal to face one simple fact:
School choice is more expensive than a traditional single-payer public school system.
So if we are going to have school choice, we must recognize, accept and deal with the additional expense up front. If our politicians will not actually foot the bill-- well, that's why some people can't have nice things. It's not a choice system if you are sucking all the money out of public schools to fund it.
But I do believe that if you launched a choice system with these four guarantees-- representative student population, professional staff, minimum standards enforcement, and increased funding, I would no longer oppose school choice. And if a pretty pink unicorn showed up in my front yard, I would ride it.
Happy Pretty Pink Unicorn Week!
I've written a great deal over the years about all the many many many ways that I think school choice and/or vouchers would be a terrible idea for everybody (including most school choice advocates, many of whom I think are continually played by people whose interest in choice extends only as far as making a buck). But today is a snow day, my wife is at a conference, and I am home alone with the dog , so I have time for a little thought experiment. Let's see if I can come up with the circumstances under which I would support school choice?
Here, in no particular order, are my conditions. I'll stipulate right up front that these mostly would require government regulation and intervention, which is its own kettle of stinky fish. For the time being, we'll pretend that's not a problem.
Representative School Population.
Voucher schools must have a representative cross-section of the community. We'll allow the community itself to define what this means, but in general, here's the deal. No predominantly white school in a predominantly ethnic community. If the community is 40% free and reduced lunch, then so shall any school operating there. Choice schools must take the same proportion of special needs students. No voucher schools set aside exclusively for just the football players or just the Asian kids or just the cream of the crop. The school will be funded with the community's money. It must be just as reflective of that community as any public school would be.
Professional Staffing.
Teachers will be certified teachers. All of them. Administrators will have real credentials and not a certificate from Bob's Big School O'Superintendents. I'm sure you know some enthusiastic young people who would make great teachers; we all do. They should go to school to become teachers. You may, however, subject your employees to whatever requirements you wish. You can have a voucher school without tenure or seniority rules about hiring. You can pay whatever you like. Having trouble finding enough qualified people to work for you? Welcome to the free market-- you're failing your first test.
Oh, and real buildings, too. Buy it, build it, or rent it. And not in a public school building. There's already a school there. If students want to attend that school, do so.
Minimal Standards.
Being a voucher school will not be a license to teach about cavemen riding dinosaurs, nor will it be okay to be a basketball academy with fifteen minutes of academic studies a day. Your curriculum will pass muster by whatever group does the mustering in your state-- local school board, state legislature, roving education ronin. Yes, I know these sorts of safeguards are already sort of in place in some states, and it is providing about as much restraint as wet tissue paper trying to restrain a rampaging stegosaurus carrying the Baby Jesus. My only requirement is that the standards must be enforced by people who are elected to the office. If people want to elect dimbulbs to undercut their own educational system, that's the price we pay for messy democracy.
Increased Funding.
The bar-none flat-out stupidest thing about how we currently handle forms of vouchers is the funding. Specifically, we start with the premise that we can run two or three or ten school systems for the same money that used to run one. This is like claiming that you can solve your tight household budget problems by owning a second or third home. If the legislature of your state wants you to run two concurrent school systems, it's going to have to pay for them.
There are lots of ways to do this. For instance, when a student goes to a voucher school, 75% of his per capita cost goes to the choice, and 75% of his per capita stays with the home school. Or like any subcontractor, choice schools can "bid" for state contracts ("We can educate 150 students for $300K") and that's what they get, while the home school is paid according to the usual funding formula, rather than having to give up money for the choice.
"But," say choice fans, "That makes school choice more expensive." No, it just recognizes that a school choice system IS more expensive, always, every time. The extra cost may be shifted to taxpayers or parents or paid in kind with the destruction of the building and staff of the public school. But of all the dishonesty surrounding school choice, the biggest is the refusal to face one simple fact:
School choice is more expensive than a traditional single-payer public school system.
So if we are going to have school choice, we must recognize, accept and deal with the additional expense up front. If our politicians will not actually foot the bill-- well, that's why some people can't have nice things. It's not a choice system if you are sucking all the money out of public schools to fund it.
But I do believe that if you launched a choice system with these four guarantees-- representative student population, professional staff, minimum standards enforcement, and increased funding, I would no longer oppose school choice. And if a pretty pink unicorn showed up in my front yard, I would ride it.
Happy Pretty Pink Unicorn Week!
Sunday, January 26, 2014
Vouchers, Non-Schools & Second Homes
We're about to kick off school choice week, a week meant to help market private schools celebrate the awesomely swell things school vouchers have done for the US education system, and many of us in the bloggosphere are sharing our own teacher perspectives on what vouchers have done to meant to us.
In PA we mostly don't have a voucher system. Okay, there have been ongoing voucher shenanigans in the Republic of Philadelphia with the DOJ on one side and charters on another and Eric Cantor, champion of Keeping the Federal Gummint Out Of Local matters, on another, but the school business there is its own special animal. In the rest of Pennsylvania (or as those of us who live there call it, "Pennsylvania"), we don't have a traditional voucher program. Except--
Except for cyber schools. Any PA student can drop out of his actual school and sign up for a cyber school, and his home district will be forced to fork over his per-capita $$ (around 10K on average for non-special students, about twice that for special needs students). So when it comes to cyber schools, PA is operating a voucher system in everything but name.
This system has been around for a while. There may be some data, but for reasons I'll get to, I'm not even going to bother looking it up. I do know how the system looks on the ground for the teachers I know.
Here are some of the students served by cybers in PA:
1) A student with a set of individual circumstances and needs that are better met by a cyber school situation than by the bricks-and-mortar school.
2) A student whose parents are tired of paying truancy fines.
3) A student who is tired of all that stupid homework and having to pay attention and taking tests.
4) A student who wants to be free to pursue his own muse, without the terrible constrictions of schedule and other peoples' demands.
5) A student who has trouble getting along with other students.
The first type of student is the reason that cybers should absolutely NOT be wiped from the face of the earth. He will benefit from cyber school greatly, finish school, and earn a degree. Cyber schools are a brilliant and valuable resource for this student. I don't want to minimize that value for a second.
All the rest of these students will be back next year, one year behind. Whose records they hurt will depend on a fun side-effect of the system-- periodically people in guidance offices will sit down at their computers and try to fend cyber attempts to pawn off failing students before they "count." It's a sort of reverse ebay auction where the loser has to count Johnny McCyberfail against their enrollment/success/graduation numbers.
So what do I think about the effect of voucher schools? The free market competition is supposed to make everybody raise their game. Is that working? In a word, no.
Cybervouchers in PA have realized my worst nightmare about what cybers would mean, while providing the proof of the following equation:
Mandatory purchase of X + people who don't want X = large market for bad versions of X.
If Congress passed a law requiring every household to own a coffeemaker, even the people who hate coffee, there would instantly be a huge market for coffee makers that surfed the net and grilled cheese sandwiches and played video games, but just barely made bad coffee (just enough to meet federal requirements).
There is a fair-sized market share of people who don't really want to go to school, or who want to go but not have to work much, or who want to spend the whole week in church, or who want to just play ball, or who want to go for an hour in the afternoon. Choice proponents will argue that public schools are failing to effectively woo these customers. But just as cable channels learned that survival came not from the pursuit of excellence, but by a rush to the lowest common denominator, vouchers open the door to operators who can use lots of appeals other than, "We'll educate you real good." Schools are poorly positioned to compete with day spas for students who would rather not crack a book.
And every one of those non-schools will take money away from public schools. The other thing we've learned in PA is that a poorly regulated voucher system can suck the blood right out of local schools. In my own district, we lost around $800K to send 72 students to cyber school in the same year that we closed two elementary schools to try to realize savings of, you guessed it, around $800K.
Choice advocates have used a wide array of marketing talking points over the year. Currently we seem to favor the notion that by competing, choice schools are really creating --well, we could call it evolutionary pressure if we believed in evolution-- for public schools to get better. That's just nuts, and not just because voucher schools play by different rules on a different field with hand-picked students.
Voucher systems promise that we can run multiple school systems for the exact same money that we previously used to run one system. That's like saying, "Hey, our household budget is getting a little tight. We'd better buy a second house."
So happy school choice week. As we're bombarded by school choice propaganda this week, just hold your nose and think about the day all these school profiteers end their education tourism and move on to their next money-making scheme. It can't come too soon.
In PA we mostly don't have a voucher system. Okay, there have been ongoing voucher shenanigans in the Republic of Philadelphia with the DOJ on one side and charters on another and Eric Cantor, champion of Keeping the Federal Gummint Out Of Local matters, on another, but the school business there is its own special animal. In the rest of Pennsylvania (or as those of us who live there call it, "Pennsylvania"), we don't have a traditional voucher program. Except--
Except for cyber schools. Any PA student can drop out of his actual school and sign up for a cyber school, and his home district will be forced to fork over his per-capita $$ (around 10K on average for non-special students, about twice that for special needs students). So when it comes to cyber schools, PA is operating a voucher system in everything but name.
This system has been around for a while. There may be some data, but for reasons I'll get to, I'm not even going to bother looking it up. I do know how the system looks on the ground for the teachers I know.
Here are some of the students served by cybers in PA:
1) A student with a set of individual circumstances and needs that are better met by a cyber school situation than by the bricks-and-mortar school.
2) A student whose parents are tired of paying truancy fines.
3) A student who is tired of all that stupid homework and having to pay attention and taking tests.
4) A student who wants to be free to pursue his own muse, without the terrible constrictions of schedule and other peoples' demands.
5) A student who has trouble getting along with other students.
The first type of student is the reason that cybers should absolutely NOT be wiped from the face of the earth. He will benefit from cyber school greatly, finish school, and earn a degree. Cyber schools are a brilliant and valuable resource for this student. I don't want to minimize that value for a second.
All the rest of these students will be back next year, one year behind. Whose records they hurt will depend on a fun side-effect of the system-- periodically people in guidance offices will sit down at their computers and try to fend cyber attempts to pawn off failing students before they "count." It's a sort of reverse ebay auction where the loser has to count Johnny McCyberfail against their enrollment/success/graduation numbers.
So what do I think about the effect of voucher schools? The free market competition is supposed to make everybody raise their game. Is that working? In a word, no.
Cybervouchers in PA have realized my worst nightmare about what cybers would mean, while providing the proof of the following equation:
Mandatory purchase of X + people who don't want X = large market for bad versions of X.
If Congress passed a law requiring every household to own a coffeemaker, even the people who hate coffee, there would instantly be a huge market for coffee makers that surfed the net and grilled cheese sandwiches and played video games, but just barely made bad coffee (just enough to meet federal requirements).
There is a fair-sized market share of people who don't really want to go to school, or who want to go but not have to work much, or who want to spend the whole week in church, or who want to just play ball, or who want to go for an hour in the afternoon. Choice proponents will argue that public schools are failing to effectively woo these customers. But just as cable channels learned that survival came not from the pursuit of excellence, but by a rush to the lowest common denominator, vouchers open the door to operators who can use lots of appeals other than, "We'll educate you real good." Schools are poorly positioned to compete with day spas for students who would rather not crack a book.
And every one of those non-schools will take money away from public schools. The other thing we've learned in PA is that a poorly regulated voucher system can suck the blood right out of local schools. In my own district, we lost around $800K to send 72 students to cyber school in the same year that we closed two elementary schools to try to realize savings of, you guessed it, around $800K.
Choice advocates have used a wide array of marketing talking points over the year. Currently we seem to favor the notion that by competing, choice schools are really creating --well, we could call it evolutionary pressure if we believed in evolution-- for public schools to get better. That's just nuts, and not just because voucher schools play by different rules on a different field with hand-picked students.
Voucher systems promise that we can run multiple school systems for the exact same money that we previously used to run one system. That's like saying, "Hey, our household budget is getting a little tight. We'd better buy a second house."
So happy school choice week. As we're bombarded by school choice propaganda this week, just hold your nose and think about the day all these school profiteers end their education tourism and move on to their next money-making scheme. It can't come too soon.
Here Comes Efficacy!
I'm not sure who injected "rigor" into the education conversation in this country, but there can be no doubt who decided that we will now be talking about "efficacy"-- Pearson has made the term the centerpiece of their newest corporate initiative. And they've put a ton of their corporate information about the efficacy initiative on line where we all can get a look.
It's fascinating and rather involved reading. Michael Feldstein at e-literate has a great examination of the whole package; it's lengthy but worth the read. Feldstein breaks down much of the impetus behind the movement and encourages us not to jump to conclusions that Pearson is Darth Vadering things up, the better to see what they've really gotten right and wrong with this.
I went into the site looking for one simple answer-- what exactly does Pearson (and therefor, eventually everyone who deals with them) mean by "efficacy"?
Pearson wrote the book on efficacy, and the book is entitled "The Incomplete Guide To Delivering Learning Outcomes." The book includes a chapter entitled "What is efficacy?" and it is that chapter that I'm going to break down for you. The chapter is about ten pages long, so as I tell my students right before I cover the history of The Great European War in fifteen minutes, I may cut a few corners.
Pearson borrowed "efficacy" from the pharmaceuticals industry, specifically as it relates to "medical interventions" being proven through "systematic trials." They identify it as an "aspiration we intend to work toward," which I kind of wish it weren't because now I'm wondering how that would work. Will we have to form whole new reading groups and now instead of bluebirds and robins we will have white rats and placebos? I know there are lots of ethical safeguards and protections built into medical research, which is itself terrifically important. But the education = health care analogy is not one that I think holds up; still, I'll save that for another day and not wander off into the weeds before we're even to our second paragraph of this thing.
Here's our definition: An education product has efficacy if it has a "measurable impact on improving people's lives through learning."
They go on to explain. It's not enough that a student pass a test-- he has to experience some actual positive improvement in his life.
Pearson realizes this is a high standard, but inspired by the medical profession, they want to shoot even higher. After all some patients keep coming back (imagine) and some doctors are "incentivized" to order lots of procedures, because $$. And here we introduce one of the central shifts involved in emphasizing efficacy-- replacing focus on inputs with attention to outputs.
And then, charmingly, they confess to the hopelessness of their vision. Emphasizing outcomes requires tests we don't have and agreement on the subjective qualities of excellence, which we'll never have. But since all of that is off in the future, in the meantime we'll just have to rely on tests and graduation rates and all the same old baloney, while in the meantime argle-blargle with partners blah blah blah toward a bold vision of brighter blerg.
Next up: the Three Factors of Efficacy! They are
1) The student(s) and his/her-their incumbent level of motivation. (I'm giving them a bonus point for working "incumbent" in there)
2) The teacher and/or the technology with his/her/its capacity to make an impact. (Emphasis mine. Just in case you were worried that Pearson thought we couldn't be replaced.)
3) The interaction or relationship between them.
And as an add-on bonus, we also recognize that time on task matters as well.
"If this mix is right, learning should happen." That's a quote. So, if these things are present, six-year-olds will learn quantum physics and Shakespeare, I guess. Also, pay attention to the research (and they name check John Hattie). Leaders of schools, universities or systems (?) are the carburetors of education, properly mixing the fuel for the efficacy engine. PISA scores are cited as a useful tool, somehow.
"The idea of efficacy has a lot of support across Pearson" which I guess is how you talk about these things when you are a small corporate nation unto yourself. But this Framework of Efficacy section is interesting because it's more about how product groups within Pearson will now jockey for position.
It's a puzzler. How do we benchmark products without a "neat mathematical formula that spat out numbers"? If we had been collecting data about lifelong effects of our stuff, we'd be halfway there, but only a few divisions within the company were thinking that way. We've developed this framework based on Michael's work evaluating government programs back when he worked at 10 Downing.
The framework for evaluating very diverse products had to 1) Be constructive and practical 2) Be forward-looking and 3) Enable comparison. And there's a cool chart about mapping/evaluating outcomes, evidence, planning & implementation, and capacity to deliver. And the chapter finishes up with a look at each of these four areas.
I have to echo Michael Feldstein here-- it's kind of extraordinary that here on line we can see how Pearson is going to manage themselves and how, exactly, they will judge their various product groups. Anyway, here are the four subsections:
Goals. You remember Outcome Based Education.Apparently it's now in-house for Pearson. Tell management not just your sales goals, but what outcomes your product will create for the learners. We frankly admit that meeting this standard has been hard for some managers of pre-existing products. Yup. Pearson is here admitting that some product groups have a hard time explaining what a learner would get out using Pearson's product.
Evidence. Can you find a way to prove your stated goals have been achieved? Look at the research. And since there's not a lot of good research out there, Pearson's research division is going to focus on the parts of the education mystery that we keep not having answers to. We need more data so we can create programs with deliverable learner outcomes.
Planning. Pretty self-evident. How are you going to get this made and sold?
Capacity. This part is either creepy or encouraging, depending on how much Pearson alarms you. It starts with the observation that it's no longer enough to drop off the materials you sold and wash your hands of it, saying, "Hey, we delivered perfectly good stuff. If they screwed it up, that's their problem."
Frankly, this is not news in many other industries. I am a yearbook adviser who works with Jostens Publishing, and like most yearbook companies, if you want the sales rep to come in on a regular basis and walk you through every part of the process, they will do it-- because they want you to feel successful with their program. (They will also stay away if you ask, which I find invaluable).
If you want the encouraging view, it's a picture of a Pearson rep in your school helping you succeed with their stuff. If you want the creepy view, it's a picture of a Pearson rep in your school acting like s/he's an administrator there. Those of you who have already had some variation of this experience know the other picture-- a publisher's rep in your building demonstrating his/her ignorance of how to work with students in a classroom.
There's a rosy conclusion about how this new path for business leaders within Pearson will stride together into a great future of efficacy.
I don't think it's all bad news. Imagine, for instance, if this framework had been applied to the creation and implementation of CCSS? And the notion that I should be able to ask a Pearson rep, "So what how will my student actually benefit from this in his life, and how do you know that?" is kind of exhilarating. Yes, they may not be able to tell me, but if they get to pretend this is their corporate policy, I get to act like I expect them to follow it.
Still, it clearly doesn't address any of Pearson's terminally mistaken assumptions about how teaching actually works or the scary anti-wisdom of Pearson's one-world view. I'm not ready to cheer for Pearson's next onslaught, but I appreciate their sharing their plans for it.
It's fascinating and rather involved reading. Michael Feldstein at e-literate has a great examination of the whole package; it's lengthy but worth the read. Feldstein breaks down much of the impetus behind the movement and encourages us not to jump to conclusions that Pearson is Darth Vadering things up, the better to see what they've really gotten right and wrong with this.
I went into the site looking for one simple answer-- what exactly does Pearson (and therefor, eventually everyone who deals with them) mean by "efficacy"?
Pearson wrote the book on efficacy, and the book is entitled "The Incomplete Guide To Delivering Learning Outcomes." The book includes a chapter entitled "What is efficacy?" and it is that chapter that I'm going to break down for you. The chapter is about ten pages long, so as I tell my students right before I cover the history of The Great European War in fifteen minutes, I may cut a few corners.
Pearson borrowed "efficacy" from the pharmaceuticals industry, specifically as it relates to "medical interventions" being proven through "systematic trials." They identify it as an "aspiration we intend to work toward," which I kind of wish it weren't because now I'm wondering how that would work. Will we have to form whole new reading groups and now instead of bluebirds and robins we will have white rats and placebos? I know there are lots of ethical safeguards and protections built into medical research, which is itself terrifically important. But the education = health care analogy is not one that I think holds up; still, I'll save that for another day and not wander off into the weeds before we're even to our second paragraph of this thing.
Here's our definition: An education product has efficacy if it has a "measurable impact on improving people's lives through learning."
They go on to explain. It's not enough that a student pass a test-- he has to experience some actual positive improvement in his life.
Pearson realizes this is a high standard, but inspired by the medical profession, they want to shoot even higher. After all some patients keep coming back (imagine) and some doctors are "incentivized" to order lots of procedures, because $$. And here we introduce one of the central shifts involved in emphasizing efficacy-- replacing focus on inputs with attention to outputs.
And then, charmingly, they confess to the hopelessness of their vision. Emphasizing outcomes requires tests we don't have and agreement on the subjective qualities of excellence, which we'll never have. But since all of that is off in the future, in the meantime we'll just have to rely on tests and graduation rates and all the same old baloney, while in the meantime argle-blargle with partners blah blah blah toward a bold vision of brighter blerg.
Next up: the Three Factors of Efficacy! They are
1) The student(s) and his/her-their incumbent level of motivation. (I'm giving them a bonus point for working "incumbent" in there)
2) The teacher and/or the technology with his/her/its capacity to make an impact. (Emphasis mine. Just in case you were worried that Pearson thought we couldn't be replaced.)
3) The interaction or relationship between them.
And as an add-on bonus, we also recognize that time on task matters as well.
"If this mix is right, learning should happen." That's a quote. So, if these things are present, six-year-olds will learn quantum physics and Shakespeare, I guess. Also, pay attention to the research (and they name check John Hattie). Leaders of schools, universities or systems (?) are the carburetors of education, properly mixing the fuel for the efficacy engine. PISA scores are cited as a useful tool, somehow.
"The idea of efficacy has a lot of support across Pearson" which I guess is how you talk about these things when you are a small corporate nation unto yourself. But this Framework of Efficacy section is interesting because it's more about how product groups within Pearson will now jockey for position.
It's a puzzler. How do we benchmark products without a "neat mathematical formula that spat out numbers"? If we had been collecting data about lifelong effects of our stuff, we'd be halfway there, but only a few divisions within the company were thinking that way. We've developed this framework based on Michael's work evaluating government programs back when he worked at 10 Downing.
The framework for evaluating very diverse products had to 1) Be constructive and practical 2) Be forward-looking and 3) Enable comparison. And there's a cool chart about mapping/evaluating outcomes, evidence, planning & implementation, and capacity to deliver. And the chapter finishes up with a look at each of these four areas.
I have to echo Michael Feldstein here-- it's kind of extraordinary that here on line we can see how Pearson is going to manage themselves and how, exactly, they will judge their various product groups. Anyway, here are the four subsections:
Goals. You remember Outcome Based Education.Apparently it's now in-house for Pearson. Tell management not just your sales goals, but what outcomes your product will create for the learners. We frankly admit that meeting this standard has been hard for some managers of pre-existing products. Yup. Pearson is here admitting that some product groups have a hard time explaining what a learner would get out using Pearson's product.
Evidence. Can you find a way to prove your stated goals have been achieved? Look at the research. And since there's not a lot of good research out there, Pearson's research division is going to focus on the parts of the education mystery that we keep not having answers to. We need more data so we can create programs with deliverable learner outcomes.
Planning. Pretty self-evident. How are you going to get this made and sold?
Capacity. This part is either creepy or encouraging, depending on how much Pearson alarms you. It starts with the observation that it's no longer enough to drop off the materials you sold and wash your hands of it, saying, "Hey, we delivered perfectly good stuff. If they screwed it up, that's their problem."
Frankly, this is not news in many other industries. I am a yearbook adviser who works with Jostens Publishing, and like most yearbook companies, if you want the sales rep to come in on a regular basis and walk you through every part of the process, they will do it-- because they want you to feel successful with their program. (They will also stay away if you ask, which I find invaluable).
If you want the encouraging view, it's a picture of a Pearson rep in your school helping you succeed with their stuff. If you want the creepy view, it's a picture of a Pearson rep in your school acting like s/he's an administrator there. Those of you who have already had some variation of this experience know the other picture-- a publisher's rep in your building demonstrating his/her ignorance of how to work with students in a classroom.
There's a rosy conclusion about how this new path for business leaders within Pearson will stride together into a great future of efficacy.
I don't think it's all bad news. Imagine, for instance, if this framework had been applied to the creation and implementation of CCSS? And the notion that I should be able to ask a Pearson rep, "So what how will my student actually benefit from this in his life, and how do you know that?" is kind of exhilarating. Yes, they may not be able to tell me, but if they get to pretend this is their corporate policy, I get to act like I expect them to follow it.
Still, it clearly doesn't address any of Pearson's terminally mistaken assumptions about how teaching actually works or the scary anti-wisdom of Pearson's one-world view. I'm not ready to cheer for Pearson's next onslaught, but I appreciate their sharing their plans for it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)