Some Thoughts on Charter Schools

Let me  get something straight here among  my high school friends, Tweeps, and  my many other cyber-acquiaintances, I am NOT against charter schools. I think what is being missed in the conversation surrounding  “Waiting for Superman” is what a charter school really is.

Quite simply, the definition of a charter school is a publicly funded school that provides for an experimental learning environment; typically a charter school is exempt from certain state and/or local educational guidelines in the interest of flexibility and autonomy.

That’s it. The original charter schools were not designed with intent to be  managed by commercial organizations. However, private management of public schools seems to become something of the normal expectation of what charter school is.

Let me get another thing straight,  I am NOT against privately managed public schools. That is, as long as there is a clear value-add provided by the managing organization. If taxpayers are on the hook for a new school (funding both its operation, AND a corporate profit margin) then the school & charter management company should be able provide a strong value-propositon. If not, why bother with more of the same, but at  ahigher price?

The prevailing wind in education reform seems to be more charter schools (again not necessarily a bad thing). However, for the likes of Oprah, Ed Secretary Duncan, Newt Gingrich, and Al Sharpton to keep chanting the mantra “…with more charter schools.” is not going to help with ed reform if there is not consideration given to what the charter schools are offering a community.

We (parents, teachers, administrators, politicians) need to start thinking in terms of “more quality learning” That includes early childhood development, tutoring and mentoring, and  yes, more “good” schools (regardless of whom they are managed by).

When districts or states are weighing whether to outsource services to a commercial organization, it it important to consider what value an can organization provide the community? One question might be, does the commercial entity offer highly specialized services that are not readily available among the educators and administrators currently serving the community? If so, then it may be justifiable to outsource educational services to an outside organization.

Another question: does the school provide a truly innovative approach to learning? In my area there was a decision to build a charter school that will have an aviation theme. This is true innovation because it offers a chance for learners to tap into specific interests throughout their academic careers. In addition to college-prepatory coursworks there would be opportunities for focused vocational training for of number of careers (airline pilots, engineers, military…). Quite frankly, this idea would never would have gotten off the ground (pun is intended) in a traditional school district.

If an an organization can justify that it can offer specialized services, or an innovative curriculum then perhaps outsourcing to a commercial organization might indeed be the best option for a school district. If such case cannot be made, then its much harder to justify the added expense of outsourcing to an outside company. In that scenario, a better use of funds might be to restore offerings that might have been previously cut (art,  music,  pedagogical resources…) from failing schools.

Posted in Education | Tagged , | 32 Comments

My Perfect Education-Reform Solution: Do Something Different

I will get this out in the open: education reform is a big, freakin’ personal issue with me.

I realize that I will likely face criticism by some parties for my claims or comments about the state of education because I don’t work in a school system, and  have never been a teacher, principal, school board member…so be it.

True,  I didn’t stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night, but I am in a graduate program, studying educational technology and special education. I am also a taxpayer in a state that had an 8-year head start on the current recession.

And I am the parent of a child who is starting first grade in a few weeks  after a tumultuous year in Kindergarten. Like I said this is a personal issue.

We Need To Do Something Different (There’s My Solution!)

In pondering education reform, I often recall a night in Chicago when I attended a lecture by the author Ken Kesey. After Kesey spoke for an hour or so, he took questions from the audience.  Most of them were inane, such as “Do you think I should move to Oregon?” and one that was something like  “In the ‘Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test’ it almost seemed like (that book’s author)  Tom Wolfe was inside your head. Do think that somehow he was?”

WTF? Most of the Q & A session was ridiculous;  I contemplated leaving, but I hung around only because I wanted to get a book signed by Kesey.

The mood shifted when a man with a thick Irish accent, who admitted to being an IRA sympathizer, questioned Kesey about the conflict in Northern Ireland (this was in 1993). Kesey calmly responded: “I have ‘the’  solution to that situation. Do you want to hear it?”

He didn’t wait for an answer before he said something like this: “You, and when I say ‘you’ I mean you, and the IRA, and the governments…YOU  need to do…something different!” By that time he was no longer calm, and exclaimed “Because what YOU ALL are doing ain’t working! So YOU ALL have to do something different!”

Likewise, when I say “we” in regards to education reform, I am talking about you, and me and everybody else. That includes teachers, parents, administrators, students, school board members and taxpayers.

In the area of education reform. WE need to do something different. So there it is, my perfect education-reform solution!

Oh, do you want more specifics? Truth is, I don’t know exactly what that something different is, but it’s almost certainly not No Child Left Behind, or Race To The Top. Though the  great thing about problems in our educational system, is that every stiff who has a blog thinks he has the solution.

Well, I do have a blog, so here ya go….

We Need to Think About WHY People Learn

I have written several recent blogs on  the Universal Design for Learning. As you see in the description here UDL is an educational framework that promotes “varied and flexible ways” for :

  1. Presenting and accessing information, concepts, and ideas (the “what” of learning),
  2. Planning and executing  learning tasks (the “how” of learning), and
  3. Allowing learners to be become engaged–and stay engaged–in learning (the “why” of learning)

This post is not about UDL per se, but take a good look  at item number 3 for a moment. Now, let’s put aside our  pre-conceived notions on what is wrong with the educational system (especially all the animosity and  finger-pointing among the various factions: teachers, parents and administrators,  charter vs. traditional shools, commercial vs. public interests..) and think about learner engagement.

WE need to provide engaging learning experiences.  Learning can occur in the absence of engagement (penmanship comes to my mind), but who WANTS to learn that way?

All of the current trends in education (longer school days, piles of homework, dress codes, privatization of public schools, open content, “Edupunk” etc.) are doomed to be colossal and costly failures if we (parents, teachers, administrators, content publishers…) can’t provide new levels of engagement to our K-12 students.

Each class streaming  into school systems is more  enriched than the class that preceded it. There are so many ways for children to learn, outside of school.  Ask yourself this, are your kids (your students, or your own children) smarter than you?

They are way smarter than you. They might not be as  proficient in Algebra II, or in reading as you were, and much of what they know may not applicable to future professional contexts. Furthermore, some of their knowledge may be of an objectionable nature.

But, they know a lot.  Probably more than you did. Certainly more than I did.

If we don’t recognize the new levels of enrichment each new crop of kids, we won’t be able to teach them.

We Need to Redefine What ” ‘Good’ Education” Means

Humans have always been good at learning. However, schools have not really been all that good at teaching. I’m not trying to discount the efforts of teachers and school staff over the generations. I have had, and I know, many extraordinary teachers, administrators, coaches and other staff members. However, traditional teaching practices cannot keep pace with the brain’s capacity to learn.

Do we really believe that the mantra “everybody learns differently?” If so, why does the lecture-based, sit-still-and- be-quiet-while-I-teach model still persist in so many schools?

Did the traditional sage-on-stage approach to teaching hold your interest? Were you able to sit still?  I wasn’t.

What happenend when you checked out? You might have doodled in the margin of your paper, or passed notes, or perfected your spitball-creation techniques. Or worse. The problem was not that you didn’t WANT to learn, it’s that you WEREN’T learning, because you were hearing something you already knew, or were not engaged by the method in which the lesson was being delivered.

Are there kids who are entering school for the first time who are not intellectually enriched? Absolutely.  Do we need to provide services for those who have not had  the enrichment opportunities that others have had? Double-absolutely.

But we also need to ask whether there are there  kids coming in the education system, or in the school system that don’t WANT to learn? Probably very few.  We need to provide the means to LET the learners learn. Some are going to need extra supports that might include specialized staff or technology. Some are going to immerse themselves in a book or a web site, and require very little scaffolding. Many others will fall somewhere in the middle. They all want, and deserve, the opportunities to learn.

We Need To Back Away From The “Teachers or Technology?” Debates

I had an interesting phone conversation with a friend a few months ago. He is a noted psychology professor who spends a lot time traveling around the country addressing behavioral issues, in classrooms and entire schools. He said that in almost all of his consultations, the problems are rather simple to resolve with often-minor changes to classroom-management practices.

He also said this, “In many of these cases, there would not even be a need for a behavioral consultation if the students were properly engaged in their learning” That was especially interesting, because he and I had no prior discussion about the topic of learner engagement.

A question he has asked some of his clients, “Have you noticed that the behavior problems that you see at Kindergarten circle time (or in 6th grade math class) don’t occur in the computer lab?”

The answer is that in the computer lab, students are learning at their own pace. That is something that is absolutely not going to happen in the lecture-based,  1-to- 30, (teacher-to-students) classroom of yore.

“Teachers OR technology?” was a question that  came up during budget discussions in my home district. We need to start thinking in  terms of  “Teachers AND technology” Computers are not a replacement for teachers, but they augment the learning experience of  students who need special supports (such as enlarged text, audio,) and can deliver content and assessments at the learner’s pace. And aside from the pedagogical value, they go along way to reducing the amount of waiting in the classroom. Put up your hands if you like waiting?

We Need to Recognize That  20th Century Robber Barons Can’t Hurt Us

Schools are no longer a pipeline for workers in Mr. Pullman’s, or Mr. Carnegie’s factories. Therefore, we don’t have to embrace their ancient vision for US schools.  The vision in which a classroom’s  purpose is to condition children to sit still and to follow instructions, without question,  so that they can work on the assembly line for Mr. Pullman or Mr. Carnegie.

If students are achieving learning goals (with or without teacher support), and not disturbing others,  does it really matter if they are if they are sitting on the floor, or walking around the classroom? If the lesson’s learning goals are to demonstrate knowledge of the Battle of Bunker Hill does it matter if they acquire  that knowledge from a textbook, or from a streaming video?

In a blog earlier this year, Lisa Parisi, an elementary school teacher  made a wonderful case for a classroom that is universally designed for learning. One of her key points for  a  successful transition was this:

  • “Educators must give up that position of power to allow students the freedom to do what they need to be successful.”

It should be noted that Lisa Parisi is a teacher with over 20 years of experience and is a self-described control freak. She made the transition because it was the right thing to do so that all of her students would learn.

Pullman and Carnegie would just freakin’ hate her.

We Need To Get Over The Rose-Colored Views of  The Past

I think one of the confounding factors with the national education reform discussion is that people (long-time educators, parents, administrators, pundits, etc.) are comparing the current state of education to fond memories (probably with some distortion) of the schools they attended, or in which they taught. There are and there have always been both good and awful schools.   I don’t think most schools have ever been very adept at reaching all students.

Let me provide an example from the  “good old days” of education. Here is a repost of something that I had written on a discussion forum sometime ago:

A few weeks ago I picked up “A Life Decoded” the autobiography of Craig Venter, the scientist whose team recently announced the development of a self-replicating synthetic life form (ethical debates aside, this is a gargantuan accomplishment, with potential applications for clean water, nutrition, alternative energy…).

I had picked up the book for a couple of different reasons. First, I had the good fortune to work as an assistant to Venter for several months, when I was placed in his National Institutes of Health lab by a temp agency when I moved to DC (no jokes about ‘Mr. Smith going to Washington’ wise guys). Those were good times in my life and I enjoyed reading about the people on Venter’s core research team of the early 1990’s.

However the primary reason, that I picked up the book is that I have been writing a lot about learner engagement and I had become familiar with Venter’s personal history from media articles over the years. Here’s a brief overview of his achievements (reverse order):

1. Creation of a self-replicating synthetic life form, announced a few weeks ago.
2. Led the private sector-side effort to sequence the human genome .
3. Was founding member of the Human Genome Committee, while still with Federal government.
4. Distinguished researcher and lecturer for many years before becoming a “media celebrity.”
5. Completed his undergraduate studies and PhD in six years.
6. Turned down a swimming scholarship to Arizona State, because he didn’t think he would make it in college.
7. Serial underachiever, with chronic behavior problems throughout his elementary and high school career.

Venter refused to take tests in middle school. He almost flunked out of high school; though was able to escape with slightly more D’s than F’s his senior year. Back then (in those good old days) he was probably written off as “just a troublemaker”

In retrospect, he was the quintessential under-engaged student. This was a child that the school system was prepared to leave behind, in the halcyon days of Eisenhower and Camelot.

So what happened between Venter nearly failing out of high school and his rapid-paced college career?

  1. Escalation of troops in Vietnam during his senior year in high school
  2. Enlistment in US Navy where testing revealed this “failure” had an IQ of 143.
  3. He chose to join the Medical Corps
  4. Assignment to a Marine Base Hospital in Da Nang (where he treated hundreds of patients during the Tet Offensive).
  5. An attempt to end his own life by drowning. His change of heart occurred when he was more than a mile from the shore of China Beach.
  6. Chance meetings with key mentors, in the military (and later in junior college and at U of California) that helped to him find motivation and define a career path.

My opinion is that schools have never effectively reached the type of child that Venter was.  Oh, did I mention that education reform was a personal with me? My son like Venter, has a big IQ and like Venter’s parents, we have endured a generous share of dubious behavior at school by our child.

He’s six.

My son often checks out in the clasroom, and is usually quite  vocal about being checked out, often this has frequently escalated to highly disruptive behavior. I realize that we might be in for a long 12 years. I am prepared for that.

My son loves to learn, but unfortunately, many schools have become a place where a child’s passion for learning goes to die. However, I like to think that things will be different enough such that my son doesn’t have to go through a Vietnam-like experience to find his motivation and to capitalize on his strengths.

We Really, Really, Really Need To Examine Our Priorities

We are absolutely not  providing engagement with any of the following trends:

  1. Strict Dress Codes
  2. 10 hour school days
  3. Firing the entire staff of a school that is deemed as underperforming
  4. Privatization of public school systems
  5. Persistence of the “sit down and be quiet” model of teaching
  6. High-stakes testing in two curriculum areas, which leads to…
  7. Teaching to standardized tests (and the expense of art, music and SCIENCE)

If our goal is higher scores on standardized tests , maybe strict dress codes and longer school days might get you a little closer. However, if the goal is learning, the only way we are going to improve our lot is to provide engaging learning experiences for our students.

It’s hard for me to imagine that any of the “flavor of the month” options for education reform would have had an impact on Venter. If I’m missing something, please tell me how compelling a student like Craig  Venter to go to school until 5:30 or to wear a Polo shirt,  would have made a difference in his K-12 achievements, (or lack thereof)?

We Need To Stop Worshipping Sacred Braus

In my home school district we have often been given answers that contain the phrase “…because of budget cuts”  I really have a tough time swallowing that. I understand that money is tight, but my feeling that is only because it’s being spent in the wrong places.

It’s interesting that there have been such severe cuts at school districts around the nation, but concurrent to that there is unprecedented spending spigot opened from the federal government, stemming back to the passage of No Child Left Behind. WE spend more on education than ever. We just don’t spend it well.

I recognize that there won’t be an epiphany on the part of state and federal government or school districts that will stop wasteful spending and cause funding to flow into appropriate buckets. Any immediate change is going to require alternative sources of funding.

Funny I should mention that, an interesting point was made about school funding in Michigan a few months ago, by a local radio commentator. His point, state school funding has been shrinking for many years, while the BEER TAX hasn’t been touched since 1966…when it was lowered!

The  price of a bottle of beer is  sacred while school funding is not. That is a truly WTF-worthy realization for me.

We need to do something different.

Posted in Education, Universal Design for Learning | Tagged , , | 86 Comments

The Universal Design for Learning Utility Belt

Recently I wrote of a bottom-up approach to bringing Universal Design for Learning (UDL) into the classroom. I’m happy to share a fantastic blog by Lisa Parisi which provided a teacher’s perspective  of UDL. As she describes in her blog, she feels that for successful outcomes the following classroom requirements must be met:

  • Educators must believe that they are responsible for teaching every child
  • Educators must teach students how to access tools and then allow them the access
  • Educators must give up that position of power to allow students the freedom to do what they need to be successful

I can’t do justice to Lisa’s blog, by describing it again here.  I urge you (parents, teachers, administrators, school board members…) to read her post. If you have already read it, forward it to your peers, and your school board.

Today,  I wanted to call attention to some resources for UDL content tools. First,  the amazing UDL Toolkit site. This site is a massive resource of content tools, fact sheets, guidelines, etc. that help to facilitate the universal design of learning content.  The creators of this site are teachers, Karen Janowski and Joyce Kasman Valenza, PhD.

I happened upon this site some time ago, but hadn’t really spent much time there until I began pondering summer learning activities for my son, who will soon complete  kindergarten. Upon revisiting this site a few days ago, I realized what an excellent repository this is. Many thanks to Karen, Joyce and all of the wiki’s contributors for making this site possible.

In addition to learning more about the tools in that wiki, I also discovered this blog entry by Ira Socal which describes 10 UDL tools that are freely available.

And of course, there are great tools available from CAST, the UDL mothership. At the CAST site you’ll find tools that will enable you to create digital books, provide scaffolding to your students’ learning, or to check your curriculum to promote flexibility in your learning materials.

Posted in CM, DAM. ECM..., Education/Ed Tech, Universal Design for Learning | Tagged , | 25 Comments

Bottom-Up Approach to UDL (and an answer to my swears).

(Note: I won’t be offended if you don’t read this blog as long as you read that one that I link to: Lisa Parisi’s excellent post on setting up a universal design for learning environment in the classroom.)

Over the weekend I endeavored to write new blog post on the Universal Design for Learning (UDL), the framework developed by the Center for Applied Special Technology (CAST) to reach all learners. My intended focus was how to persuade schools/districts to embrace more flexibility in the design of curricula and the delivery of learning materials, in accordance with UDL’s core principles of providing for:

  • Multiple means of representation, to give learners various ways of acquiring information and knowledge,
  • Multiple means of action and expression, to provide learners alternatives for demonstrating what they know,
  • Multiple means of engagement, to tap into learners’ interests, offer appropriate challenges, and increase motivation.

Over the years, I have approached UDL from several different angles. I discovered UDL in my graduate studies in educational technology, and I have several years of experience in content management, thus there was an immediate professional appeal to me.

Second, I am also a tax payer.  While I recognize that budgets are tight, my feeling is that there is plenty of education money being egregiously spent by all levels of government. My personal opinion is that some funds could be reallocated toward resources that improve learning for all, while mitigating behavioral issues and other distractions.

My most important reason for having such a strong opinion on UDL, and educational reform in general: I am the parent of a highly-intelligent boy ( maybe a little “too smart” as the saying goes) who is already “checked out.” He is in kindergarten. Thus, student engagement is a deeply personal issue in my household.

I do find some comfort in the fact UDL’s tide is starting to rise in the education world. This is evidenced by the following:

  • UDL framework language is included in technology plans of several states (Michigan among them).
  • Inclusion of UDL courses and teaching certificates in the curriculum at major universities, (Grand Valley State in my neck of the woods)
  • Legislation in states such as Maryland has mandated incorporation of UDL into the general curriculum plans
  • David Rose, PhD, co-founder of the Center for Applied Special Technology (creator of UDL) was a lead author of the most recent US Educational Technology plan

Note: one thing that struck me about the Tech Plan was that there no mention of Microsoft or Apple (or IBM or specific educational publishers…) There were 65 mentions of student engagement.

So over the weekend (full of motivation and caffeine) I  bellied up to my laptop….and stared at the screen. As I thought about UDL in the classroom, I began to realize, that despite the research and the top-down activity by states/provinces and the national governments, change absolutely had to come from the bottom-up. That is, this had to be a teacher-led movement.

As a classroom “outsider” I struggled to find examples of teachers who had taken the initiative to implement UDL framework and could describe (better than I ) what a UDL classroom would look like. I was having some difficulty finding examples of such, my frustration was evident by my salty language.

As fate would have it, after a few minutes of uttering cuss words, Twitter seemed to sense my frustrations and made me aware of a brand-new blog posting by an elementary school teacher,  who so eloquently described what I couldn’t. Certainly this had to be an answer to my “swears.”

If you are a teacher, student, parent, administrator, taxpayer, I urge you to read this wonderful blog post on UDL in classroom. In addition to merely describing teaching practices and materials, it makes important points on change management (“Educators must give up that position of power…”).

I will be writing more about UDL from my view as an educational technologist (and a content manager, a parent…) in the near future.  In the meantime, I urge you (as parent, administrator, taxpayer, Secretary of Education)  to read Lisa’s blog on UDL from the classroom teacher’s perspective.

Posted in Education/Ed Tech, Universal Design for Learning | Tagged | 27 Comments