Join Focus on Change in Education and Esolution

Monday, December 30, 2013

Poverty, Potential, Genius.

Ju├írez Correa didn’t know it yet, but he had happened on an emerging educational philosophy, one that applies the logic of the digital age to the classroom. That logic is inexorable: Access to a world of infinite information has changed how we communicate, process information, and think. Decentralized systems have proven to be more productive and agile than rigid, top-down ones. Innovation, creativity, and independent thinking are increasingly crucial to the global economy.
And yet the dominant model of public education is still fundamentally rooted in the industrial revolution that spawned it, when workplaces valued punctuality, regularity, attention, and silence above all else. (In 1899, William T. Harris, the US commissioner of education, celebrated the fact that US schools had developed the “appearance of a machine,” one that teaches the student “to behave in an orderly manner, to stay in his own place, and not get in the way of others.”) We don’t openly profess those values nowadays, but our educational system—which routinely tests kids on their ability to recall information and demonstrate mastery of a narrow set of skills—doubles down on the view that students are material to be processed, programmed, and quality-tested. School administrators prepare curriculum standards and “pacing guides” that tell teachers what to teach each day. Legions of managers supervise everything that happens in the classroom; in 2010 only 50 percent of public school staff members in the US were teachers.
The results speak for themselves: Hundreds of thousands of kids drop out of public high school every year. Of those who do graduate from high school, almost a third are “not prepared academically for first-year college courses,” according to a 2013 report from the testing service ACT. The World Economic Forum ranks the US just 49th out of 148 developed and developing nations in quality of math and science instruction. “The fundamental basis of the system is fatally flawed,” says Linda Darling-Hammond, a professor of education at Stanford and founding director of the National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future. “In 1970 the top three skills required by the Fortune 500 were the three Rs: reading, writing, and arithmetic. In 1999 the top three skills in demand were teamwork, problem-solving, and interpersonal skills. We need schools that are developing these skills.”
That’s why a new breed of educators, inspired by everything from the Internet to evolutionary psychology, neuroscience, and AI, are inventing radical new ways for children to learn, grow, and thrive. To them, knowledge isn’t a commodity that’s delivered from teacher to student but something that emerges from the students’ own curiosity-fueled exploration. Teachers provide prompts, not answers, and then they step aside so students can teach themselves and one another. They are creating ways for children to discover their passion—and uncovering a generation of geniuses in the process.

Gopnik’s research is informed in part by advances in artificial intelligence. If you program a robot’s every movement, she says, it can’t adapt to anything unexpected. But when scientists build machines that are programmed to try a variety of motions and learn from mistakes, the robots become far more adaptable and skilled. The same principle applies to children, she says.

Monday, December 23, 2013

Take out the inner-city schools and we lead the world.

The United States has an education apartheid, says 
M. Night Shyamalan, the author of the newly published “I Got Schooled.”  The famed director tells Ali Velshi the five things that could help close America’s education gap: no roadblock teachers, leadership, feedback, small schools and extended time.You gathered a bunch of people together who would know. In fact, you describe this dinner party where it was so obvious. Everybody knew that it was smaller class sizes, get rid of the unions, it is belligerent teachers.  They were all these obvious things, and I guess you were taking mental notes, thinking, "Maybe we've got solutions here."

This is how we need to look at a table of information. There are things, when done together, work. When you do them separately, you're going to get false negatives. Now let's go back at the data and see — when they did this with this, did it always work? Is that a pattern? Can you find that pattern in the data? And that's exactly what we found.And what's interesting is, we always think about Finland, right? Well, Finland, obviously, is mainly white kids, right? They teach their white kids really well. But guess what, we teach our white kids even better. We beat everyone. Our white kids are getting taught the best public-school education on the planet. Those are the facts. 

You've come up with five fixes.  The first one is teachers
Now, the actual tenet, the actual thing that we're saying, is no roadblock teachers, and what I mean by that is that the research supports that the bottom percentage of teachers, the 1 percent, 2 percent, 3 percent, the very bottom, are pulling such a drag on the system that it's very hard for the other teachers to compensate for it. So, for example, a child that's had one of these teachers, the bottom, 1 percent, 2 percent, 3 percent, for one year, you can't make up that loss with four above-average teachers. So if they get four teachers in a row, which they're not going to, slightly above average, they can't make up for that one teacher.
You talk about leadership in the schools, largely about principals. 
Right. Well, look in the schools that have closed the gap and are closing the gap. It's a very consistent architecture to what the leadership looks like, and by leadership, I mean leadership. So, there's a principal, and then there's another group that takes care of kind of paperwork and fundraising and facilities and all of that stuff. They bifurcate that responsibility, and they have principals. 
So the principal is the chief academic, almost. 
Yes, and they are the coach, so they're spending 80 percent of their time teaching teachers, which seems intuitive. If you're the coach, you can't be in the office while the players are all running around hitting each other. The coach has got to be down there with the players … And they're constantly giving them feedback. 
Which is, by the way, your third point. Feedback.
One of the things that the leader does that's absolutely critical is create a culture that's consistent and specific and loud in their schools. Every school that's closing the gap is screaming a culture. It doesn't even have to be the same culture. It's just a positive, empowering culture. Now, how does a principal do this? They do this with consistency. They do this with feedback. OK, so feedback is the third one, and I use that term in the research to describe a few things. That includes best practices, right? That's the principal's job. They feed back best practices to everybody. 
Let's talk about class size.  There's a general feeling out there that smaller classes are better for kids. You've seen research that says that's not necessarily true. But small schools are good for kids. Tell me why.
This is why classroom size is so confusing to everybody. It's called effect heuristics, which is we go by our gut, right? Your gut says that the smaller the class size, the better the teacher's going to be and the better the kids are going to be off, so that must be one of the things that you do to close the gap.  OK. That's so strong in everybody that politicians can get elected just from saying they're going to reduce class size, which is exactly what happened. In fact, the study that sent the whole country that way was in 1984. It's called the Tennessee STAR study, and it said it had such great results — if you lower the classroom size, everybody wins, and it's huge, huge, huge results. That's never been duplicated, that study, ever, and that study was not done with the rigor that we would say is acceptable. So here's what the end result is when we look at hundreds and hundreds of studies on classroom size. It has some positive effect. It has it mainly in earlier years.
It's not negative, let's put it that way. Having a smaller class size isn't bad. 
But here's where it's negative. To close the achievement gap, it actually has so many ramifications that are negative that you can't do any of the others. So that's why it's confusing. So it would be like if I said, "Ali, the only way you could be healthy is if you swim in an Olympic-size pool," right? Now, you don't have access to it if you're an inner-city kid, right? You don't have access to it, so it's an unrealistic — so by the time he gets in a thing and tries to get transportation and this and that, he can't do studying and he can't do homework, it's an impractical part of anything. In fact, none of the schools that are closing the gap use small classroom size. So, it puts such a burden on everything else that you can't do it. It's not one of the triage things that you do. 
But one of the things you did find is that — and I think this relates back to the whole leadership and feedback idea — if so much goes on to the administration to provide feedback and leadership and go and visit these classes and make sure everybody's doing the right job, a principal can't do that in a school that's too big with too many classes. 
Correct. So the small schools actually turned out to be one of the tenets, and this has been a blurry one for people. Having a small school turbocharges everything else and makes everything else possible. If I need the principal to go in and out of every classroom to know intently every teacher and what they're doing on a daily basis, if I double the amount of classrooms, that's not physically possible, and it's not possible for that principal to give the data on that many kids and do what we need to do. 
Let me get to your final point, because this one really was very interesting, and that is instructional time, the amount of time a kid spends in a school year. 
Now, if you said to me, with a gun to my head, that you'd never do, because you have to do them all together, but if you said, "Only do one," it would be this one, which is extended time, any way you can do it. The challenge that the inner-city, low-income schools have is very different than the ones the white, suburban schools have. This isn't about the kids can't learn, and it isn't about — this is the big surprise — it isn't about the teachers are bad — it really isn't — and the schools are bad. The challenge that they're facing is crushing them, right? So they need a how-to. It isn't about motivation, right? The interesting thing is that you keep the kids in the school longer, no matter how you do it. 
Early childhood, extend the day, and in the summer, in fact, you should do all. They actually close the gap. Now here's the interesting thing. Everyone talks about the summer slide. Summer slide is two kids, and let's imagine there's an African-American, inner-city kid in a low-income school — low-income kid — and his white suburban counterpart and they graduate in June from second grade and they're at the same level. When they return in September, the low-income African-American kid is three months behind where he was in June, and the white suburban kid is one month ahead. So they are four months apart. That summer slide accounts for two-thirds of the entire gap. So you can imagine how important it is.

Thursday, December 19, 2013

PRIVATE "HOME" SCHOOLING is an excuse to segregate our kids.

This privileged rich PRIVATE SCHOOL kid living in Squaw Valley (racist sexist valley) is only 13 and he want's to be 'happy' when he grows up, but he does't want PUBLIC EDUCATION for your kids. He wants "RELIGIOUS and SPIRITUAL" Training for them. Because public education is for getting a job, not happiness.

What really bugs me about this kid's family, he could have gone to public school AND done all the fun stuff, but by doing so he would have been exposed to the poverty and violence that EVERYONE ELSE's kids have to deal with, and he would have learned how to survive in the REAL WORLD, instead of Rich Kid Fantasy Camp. Plus he would have exposed those other kids to his 'hackschooling', benefiting them through the diversity of income experience.

PUBLIC Education is about learning the skills and literacies necessary to survive TOGETHER in our shared environment. That's not possible when one group of kids is 'shredding the spine' with their new ski-equipment up in isolated and wealthy Squaw Valley and the other group is surviving on free-lunches and begging their slum-lord to fix the plumbing. Either we're all in this together, or we'er not. (and if we're not, things just got interesting, cause this kid wouldn't survive a war).

Tuesday, December 3, 2013

Program for International Student Assessment, 2012 results.

The Program for International Student Assessment, or PISA, collects test results from 65 countries for its rankings, which come out every three years. The latest results, from 2012, show that U.S. students ranked below average in math among the world's most-developed countries. They were close to average in science and reading.
"In mathematics, 29 nations and other jurisdictions outperformed the United States by a statistically significant margin, up from 23 three years ago," reports Education Week. "In science, 22 education systems scored above the U.S. average, up from 18 in 2009."
In reading, 19 other locales scored higher than U.S. students — a jump from nine in 2009, when the last assessment was performed.
The math scores of students in Shanghai showed that they are "the equivalent of over two years of formal schooling ahead of those observed in Massachusetts, itself a strong-performing U.S. state," according to the study.

"While the U.S. spends more per student than most countries, this does not translate into better performance. For example, the Slovak Republic, which spends around USD 53,000 per student, performs at the same level as the United States, which spends over USD 115,000 per student."

"While our scores in reading are the same as 2009, scores from Belgium, Estonia, Germany, Ireland, Poland and others have improved and now surpass ours," Rivkin says. "Other countries that were behind us, like Italy and Portugal, are now catching up. We are in a race in the global economy. The problem is not that we're slowing down. The problem is that the other runners are getting faster." - Harvard professor Jan Rivkin, who co-chairs a project on U.S. competitiveness.

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)