This weekend I took my car in to the shop for a couple of small things -- a tire change, an alignment, and replacing a burnt out bulb. When I picked up the car, I found that there had been a miscommunication and something different had been done than what I thought I had requested. I found myself getting annoyed over the miscommunication, and the manager very quickly moved to make things right. I appreciated that but was upset that I had become annoyed and crabby about the whole thing. I apologized, and so did they, and things ended on a good note. But this incident made me think about the whole saying, "The customer is always right," which of course is not true. The customer is NOT always right! Sometimes the customer is wrong! Sometimes the customer is crabby! Sometimes the customer is rude! It's a scenario in which the pendulum has perhaps swung too far, when the interactions should instead always be polite and courteous on both sides.
This incident led me to thinking about one way in education in which the pendulum has perhaps also swung too far. Years ago, it was entirely attributed to a child if he/she didn't learn. It was reasonable for a teacher to say, "I taught it, but they didn't learn it," and it was thought that some children just couldn't learn everything that others could. In my elementary school years, there was a boy in my class who was still unable to read and write by 8th grade. He sat in the last row in the back of the class and took all the same tests as everyone else, only all he did was write his name on them. We corrected each other's papers, and if you got his, all you had to do was write a big "F" on top of it. Reading this in 2012, it's appalling that no one did anything more to help him (although, of course, it's possible that someone tried and I just didn't know about it). At the time, though, it was just taken for granted that some kids were "good at school" and others weren't. (For those who are wondering, he dropped out of school as soon as he legally could, and did quite well in life.)
Now, of course, this scenario could not happen. When we have a child who is having difficulty with something, for example with reading, we do everything we can to figure out what the problem is and do everything we can to help him/her succeed. I think this is wonderful, and would never want to return to the "good old days" on this front. However, in some ways I think that the pendulum has perhaps swung too far in the other direction, where teachers and schools are accountable for everything children are accountable for too little. Sometimes the reason a child isn't learning well is that the child is not doing his/her homework, is not practicing his/her math facts, is not paying attention and working hard in class, is not managing to write down his/her assignments, and/or has been absent because of a family vacation and is not putting in the extra time needed to catch up. For children to learn well, there needs to be a solid partnership between home and school. Educators do need to do everything in their power to help children learn, going "the extra mile" and working hard to make things work for every child in their school, but children also need to put in their best efforts, doing their homework, working hard in class, and putting in extra time when needed, and parents need to help children with this, modeling it for them and reminding them about the importance of working hard. In my view, the pendulum should be in the middle -- with children supported in their learning by a good partnership between home and school.
Monday, November 12, 2012
Sunday, November 4, 2012
Musings About Children and Consequences
Since my last post, I've been doing some thinking about kids learning from the natural consequences of their actions and thought I'd write a bit about my own experience with that, as well as sharing a recent book that relates -- How Children Succeed: Grit, Curiosity, and the Hidden Power of Character, by Paul Tough. Tough's thesis is that helping children develop curiosity, perseverance, and other character traits is essential in helping them achieve success in life, and he has some interesting thoughts on that.
In my own experience, some years ago, when I was perhaps 8 or 9 years old, I went with my family to the annual county fair. I had saved up a fair amount of money for the occasion, maybe $1.25 or so, which in those days was significant. That evening, among all the rides and treats and exciting experiences, I saw a booth where you could take a chance on choosing a colored plastic duck, out of many different-colored ducks floating in a stream past the front of the booth, that would win you a wonderful stuffed animal. I was sucked in, and spent the rest of my money on chances, but did not win the stuffed animal. In tears, I told my father what had happened. He was sympathetic and caring, but did not rescue me. He did not give me more money so I could go on rides, and he and I had a conversation, sympathetic and caring on his side, but also very clear, about decision-making and choices, and the risks of gambling. I spent the rest of the evening just looking at the exhibits, except that the whole family had supper at one of the booths and at the end of the evening we all went on one ride before going home.
Looking back on this incident, it seems to me that my parents achieved an excellent balance in helping me deal with this problem. They listened, were sympathetic and caring, but did not rescue me. Instead, they helped me learn an important lesson from my choices. What would I have learned if they had rescued me? Would I have learned to think about and be responsible for the consequences of my decisions? Or would I have learned to feel entitled, and to think that someone would or should always rescue me?
As an elementary school principal, I often see parents wanting to rescue their children, to keep them from feeling sadness, discomfort, disappointment or frustration, or experiencing negative consequences. While understanding that it is difficult to see your child being unhappy, I am concerned about this trend. In the elementary years, the consequences for a child are not that large; every year, the consequences of poor decisions become larger. At 8 years old, the consequence of my poor decision-making about money was that I was unable to go on another ride that evening. At 28, as an adult, the consequences of my taking a similar risk, gambling with a large part of my funds, would have been much more serious. It was an important lesson to learn at a young age, when the consequences were relatively small. Similarly, if kids learn in elementary school that hitting another student, for example, results in missing recess, in high school they may not have to learn that lesson by being suspended or expelled. Or if they learn in the early years that not studying for tests results in lower performance, they will avoid experiencing the results of poor academic grades in the years in which academic performance has high-stakes consequences. Of course, it's always a judgment call as to how to intervene in any particular situation for a particular child, but in general it seems to me to be true that people (children, adults, all of us) learn from the results of their actions, and while taking care to be kind, caring, and gentle, we adults need to allow that to happen for kids.
In my own experience, some years ago, when I was perhaps 8 or 9 years old, I went with my family to the annual county fair. I had saved up a fair amount of money for the occasion, maybe $1.25 or so, which in those days was significant. That evening, among all the rides and treats and exciting experiences, I saw a booth where you could take a chance on choosing a colored plastic duck, out of many different-colored ducks floating in a stream past the front of the booth, that would win you a wonderful stuffed animal. I was sucked in, and spent the rest of my money on chances, but did not win the stuffed animal. In tears, I told my father what had happened. He was sympathetic and caring, but did not rescue me. He did not give me more money so I could go on rides, and he and I had a conversation, sympathetic and caring on his side, but also very clear, about decision-making and choices, and the risks of gambling. I spent the rest of the evening just looking at the exhibits, except that the whole family had supper at one of the booths and at the end of the evening we all went on one ride before going home.
Looking back on this incident, it seems to me that my parents achieved an excellent balance in helping me deal with this problem. They listened, were sympathetic and caring, but did not rescue me. Instead, they helped me learn an important lesson from my choices. What would I have learned if they had rescued me? Would I have learned to think about and be responsible for the consequences of my decisions? Or would I have learned to feel entitled, and to think that someone would or should always rescue me?
As an elementary school principal, I often see parents wanting to rescue their children, to keep them from feeling sadness, discomfort, disappointment or frustration, or experiencing negative consequences. While understanding that it is difficult to see your child being unhappy, I am concerned about this trend. In the elementary years, the consequences for a child are not that large; every year, the consequences of poor decisions become larger. At 8 years old, the consequence of my poor decision-making about money was that I was unable to go on another ride that evening. At 28, as an adult, the consequences of my taking a similar risk, gambling with a large part of my funds, would have been much more serious. It was an important lesson to learn at a young age, when the consequences were relatively small. Similarly, if kids learn in elementary school that hitting another student, for example, results in missing recess, in high school they may not have to learn that lesson by being suspended or expelled. Or if they learn in the early years that not studying for tests results in lower performance, they will avoid experiencing the results of poor academic grades in the years in which academic performance has high-stakes consequences. Of course, it's always a judgment call as to how to intervene in any particular situation for a particular child, but in general it seems to me to be true that people (children, adults, all of us) learn from the results of their actions, and while taking care to be kind, caring, and gentle, we adults need to allow that to happen for kids.
Sunday, October 14, 2012
Does More Paperwork Really Improve Student Achievement?
At last Wednesday's school committee meeting, the members discussed a set of model resolutions to be considered at the upcoming MASC conference (the Massachusetts Association of School Committees). One of the resolutions, with which I heartily agree, called for the formation of a special commission to review the government-mandated reports and data required of school districts in order to determine the extent to which the reports and data benefit student achievement or simply take time that could otherwise be used in the service of teaching and learning.
In the same set of resolutions, it was noted, with respect to the new educator evaluation system, that "the formal regulations, guidelines, rubrics and resource advisory materials produced by DESE [the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education] to ensure compliance by educators and policymakers as they implement [the new evaluation system] are comprised of more than 375 pages of instructions and over 110,000 words." I believe that at this point I have read all these pages (!!!), and I personally find the complexity of the new educator evaluation system, and the paperwork required by it, rather amazing. There are four overall standards of performance for teachers. Under the standards are 16 "indicators," and under the "indicators" are 33 "elements," with four defined levels for each "element." To make a determination of performance under each element, there are 3 categories of evidence to be used and an evidence tracking form to be completed. Overall, there is a defined 5 step evaluation cycle, 4 different types of plans, and 10 different forms to be completed and used throughout the process. The whole thing is amazingly complex and requires a large amount of paperwork. In general, in the corporate world, adequately supervising more than 10 direct reports is considered very difficult to do, but in schools principals generally are responsible for supervising 50 or more people, a task that is challenging enough already without adding more paperwork. There is nothing in the new law and regulations to provide schools with more resources to do this work, other than a provision for providing a "subsidy" to consultants who can be hired by school systems to "train" everyone in how to implement the system. (Perhaps in another post I'll discuss the topic of government regulations that are so complex that schools don't have the resources to figure out how to comply with them and thus have to hire consultants to develop forms and programs -- there are better uses for district funds, such as purchasing materials and supplies for classroom use, or funding useful professional development for teachers.) In any event, I believe that the level of paperwork required by the new evaluation system will actually make it more difficult to provide good supervision by taking time away from actually meeting with, observing, and working with teachers and students.
Overall, my prediction is that the new system will focus everyone on the onerous task of just completing the paperwork, and that it will decrease the time that can actually be spent in observing instruction and discussing it with teachers. It makes me wonder -- are there really people who believe that requiring more paperwork of school administrators is going to contribute positively to student achievement, and how did they come to that conclusion?
In the same set of resolutions, it was noted, with respect to the new educator evaluation system, that "the formal regulations, guidelines, rubrics and resource advisory materials produced by DESE [the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education] to ensure compliance by educators and policymakers as they implement [the new evaluation system] are comprised of more than 375 pages of instructions and over 110,000 words." I believe that at this point I have read all these pages (!!!), and I personally find the complexity of the new educator evaluation system, and the paperwork required by it, rather amazing. There are four overall standards of performance for teachers. Under the standards are 16 "indicators," and under the "indicators" are 33 "elements," with four defined levels for each "element." To make a determination of performance under each element, there are 3 categories of evidence to be used and an evidence tracking form to be completed. Overall, there is a defined 5 step evaluation cycle, 4 different types of plans, and 10 different forms to be completed and used throughout the process. The whole thing is amazingly complex and requires a large amount of paperwork. In general, in the corporate world, adequately supervising more than 10 direct reports is considered very difficult to do, but in schools principals generally are responsible for supervising 50 or more people, a task that is challenging enough already without adding more paperwork. There is nothing in the new law and regulations to provide schools with more resources to do this work, other than a provision for providing a "subsidy" to consultants who can be hired by school systems to "train" everyone in how to implement the system. (Perhaps in another post I'll discuss the topic of government regulations that are so complex that schools don't have the resources to figure out how to comply with them and thus have to hire consultants to develop forms and programs -- there are better uses for district funds, such as purchasing materials and supplies for classroom use, or funding useful professional development for teachers.) In any event, I believe that the level of paperwork required by the new evaluation system will actually make it more difficult to provide good supervision by taking time away from actually meeting with, observing, and working with teachers and students.
Overall, my prediction is that the new system will focus everyone on the onerous task of just completing the paperwork, and that it will decrease the time that can actually be spent in observing instruction and discussing it with teachers. It makes me wonder -- are there really people who believe that requiring more paperwork of school administrators is going to contribute positively to student achievement, and how did they come to that conclusion?
Wednesday, October 3, 2012
Where Do They Learn It? Some Thoughts on Bullying
This past Monday (Oct. 1st), there was an interesting item in The Boston Globe entitled "Bullying Common On Children's Shows," regarding a recent study of children's television programs by Indiana University researchers. The study, which was published in the September Journal of Communications, reviewed three episodes of each of 50 popular children's television shows and found that some form of aggression was portrayed on 92% of the programs, "most commonly verbal types such as insulting and teasing, but also nonverbal types such as eye rolling, finger pointing, and ignoring." The researchers also noted that in most cases the aggressors were portrayed as popular or attractive and were not either punished or rewarded as a result of the behavior. In other words, it seems that teasing and bullying are frequently shown as normal, expected behavior. This morning, I read an unrelated article -- a synopsis in the Marshall Memo of a recent article in the Harvard Business Review about the power of social norms to change behavior -- that seems very relevant to this problem. The HBR article described research demonstrating that simply communicating social norms was amazingly effective in getting people to change their behavior. For example, in hotel bathrooms a message saying that the majority of people do re-use their towels resulted in a large increase in the number of people re-using their towels, and a message in Britain to citizens in a particular town stating that "over 93% of citizens living in your town pay their tax on time" resulted in an increase in timely collections from 57 to 86 percent. It seems to me that our children are hearing the message from the media that teasing and bullying is normal, expected behavior and/or that most people speak to others in this manner.
This is a difficult message to counter, as much as parents and teachers work at it, but we clearly need to keep trying. (Perhaps we also need to push for changes in what is portrayed to children, but that's another topic.) After reading the HBR article, one thing that occurred to me was to advocate for continual, explicit teaching about consideration for others. For example, I remember that as a child I was continually hearing messages from my parents regarding consideration for others -- "Don't leave that in the way; someone might trip over it," "Don't take the last brownie; someone else may want it," and the like. I wonder sometimes if those messages are getting lost in the high-speed pace of life these days. As I drive into a supermarket parking lot, for example, and find shopping carts left all over rather than being returned, or cars parked in places that make it difficult for others to park, I wonder if children are instead getting the message that thinking only of one's own convenience and not of others is OK. I think I am going to experiment at school with messages that indicate social norms ("most people avoid saying mean things to others," and the like -- whatever I can find based on facts), and I would encourage all of us to do more explicit teaching of consideration for others, like returning that shopping cart while saying to a child something like, "We need to return this so it's not in other people's way and so others can use it."
It will take all of us to change what we, as a society, are teaching our children, and I do believe that this continual explicit teaching, by our modeling and our language, will be more effective than any anti-bullying assembly or program can possibly be. I also think we should push for changes in programming for children to more truly portray how most people really do treat each other so that children learn that the norm is politeness and civility, not teasing and bullying.
This is a difficult message to counter, as much as parents and teachers work at it, but we clearly need to keep trying. (Perhaps we also need to push for changes in what is portrayed to children, but that's another topic.) After reading the HBR article, one thing that occurred to me was to advocate for continual, explicit teaching about consideration for others. For example, I remember that as a child I was continually hearing messages from my parents regarding consideration for others -- "Don't leave that in the way; someone might trip over it," "Don't take the last brownie; someone else may want it," and the like. I wonder sometimes if those messages are getting lost in the high-speed pace of life these days. As I drive into a supermarket parking lot, for example, and find shopping carts left all over rather than being returned, or cars parked in places that make it difficult for others to park, I wonder if children are instead getting the message that thinking only of one's own convenience and not of others is OK. I think I am going to experiment at school with messages that indicate social norms ("most people avoid saying mean things to others," and the like -- whatever I can find based on facts), and I would encourage all of us to do more explicit teaching of consideration for others, like returning that shopping cart while saying to a child something like, "We need to return this so it's not in other people's way and so others can use it."
It will take all of us to change what we, as a society, are teaching our children, and I do believe that this continual explicit teaching, by our modeling and our language, will be more effective than any anti-bullying assembly or program can possibly be. I also think we should push for changes in programming for children to more truly portray how most people really do treat each other so that children learn that the norm is politeness and civility, not teasing and bullying.
Friday, September 21, 2012
What Really Counts
I was talking with a teacher this morning about her goals for the various children in her class. She was able to talk about each child, and had a good idea already, even though it's early in the year, about what she wanted to emphasize in working with each of them. Now you may be thinking, "OK, so probably one child has more difficulty with place value in math and another child has more difficulty with spelling multisyllable words. . ." and the like. Yes, it's certainly true that this teacher knows all that, but the goals she was talking about this morning for the children in her care are more individual and more important than that. With one child, she will be working on helping him to become more organized, to slow down and plan his work, to put more thought into it. With another child, she will be working on helping her to become more assertive and to analyze and express her opinions more effectively. With yet another child, she will be working on helping him to see others' points of view and to be more kind to his classmates and a better friend. . .
I'm sure that each of us has had some wonderful teachers in our past whom we remember to this day. The teachers who made a difference in my life were the ones who knew me as a person, who showed me a new way to look at what I could possibly accomplish, and helped to open my horizons. I remember my high school German teacher who took the time to work with me on my senior piano recital piece and sparked my confidence and love of music, and my 7th grade teacher who opened up the world of poetry to me and helped me to think that I could write. . . I could go on, and I think that every one of us has stories like that and every parent has stories about a teacher who made that kind of difference in the life of his/her child.
I have recently finished reading an interesting book about children and character (How Children Succeed: Grit, Curiosity, and the Hidden Power of Character, by Paul Tough) that reveals and emphasizes the importance of character, including qualities like perseverance, curiosity, conscientiousness, optimism, and self-control, for achievement and success in life. These qualities are better predictors of both academic success and success in life, and Tough demonstrates how schools that work with children to develop these qualities help to give them the foundation for success that they need. Today I also read a blog post discussing the other side of the same concept -- how blind faith in numbers leads to obsession with winning and failure to realize what's really important ("How Our Love For Numbers Warps School Reform", from "The Answer Sheet" in the Washington Post). As noted in this entry:
I'm sure that each of us has had some wonderful teachers in our past whom we remember to this day. The teachers who made a difference in my life were the ones who knew me as a person, who showed me a new way to look at what I could possibly accomplish, and helped to open my horizons. I remember my high school German teacher who took the time to work with me on my senior piano recital piece and sparked my confidence and love of music, and my 7th grade teacher who opened up the world of poetry to me and helped me to think that I could write. . . I could go on, and I think that every one of us has stories like that and every parent has stories about a teacher who made that kind of difference in the life of his/her child.
I have recently finished reading an interesting book about children and character (How Children Succeed: Grit, Curiosity, and the Hidden Power of Character, by Paul Tough) that reveals and emphasizes the importance of character, including qualities like perseverance, curiosity, conscientiousness, optimism, and self-control, for achievement and success in life. These qualities are better predictors of both academic success and success in life, and Tough demonstrates how schools that work with children to develop these qualities help to give them the foundation for success that they need. Today I also read a blog post discussing the other side of the same concept -- how blind faith in numbers leads to obsession with winning and failure to realize what's really important ("How Our Love For Numbers Warps School Reform", from "The Answer Sheet" in the Washington Post). As noted in this entry:
In education, the question “How do we assess (kids, teachers, schools)?” has morphed over the years into “How do we measure…?” We’ve forgotten that assessment doesn’t require measurement — and, moreover, that the most valuable forms of assessment are often qualitative (say, a narrative account of a child’s progress by an observant teacher who knows the child well) rather than quantitative (a standardized test score). Yet the former may well be brushed aside in favor of the latter — by people who don’t even bother to ask what was on the test. It’s a number, so we sit up and pay attention. Over time, the more data we accumulate, the less we really know.As you may have noticed, the school MCAS scores were released this week. We did well, which I'm happy about, but I am much more happy about the fact that our teachers work with children in the way I described in the first paragraph of this post, and I hope we don't ever lose sight of that.
Friday, September 14, 2012
Some Thoughts On Chicago
I read an excellent post yesterday, written by a teacher in the Chicago Public Schools, explaining why Chicago teachers are striking, and the Los Angeles Times had a very thoughtful editorial on the same subject, discussing the problems with using tests for purposes for which they were not designed, and also explaining some of the issues relating to the seniority provisions. Take a look at the LA Times editorial if you have a chance -- it's very thoughtful and informative.
I do think that many of today's "education reformers" do not understand schools and teachers very well, and I thought I'd also offer my own two cents on a couple of the most important misunderstandings.
First of all, most of the proposed "reforms" only make sense if you assume that most teachers are only doing the bare minimum and if they were just motivated using things like pay and punishments tied to student test scores they would all work harder and do a better job. In my experience, and as noted in the LA Times editorial, this is an assumption for which there is no evidence. After college, I went to Harvard Law School and then worked as a corporate lawyer in a big firm in Boston for 10 years, and when I became a teacher I found that it required just as many hours, if not more. In my time in education, I have met very few teachers who were not also working incredibly hard, spending long hours before school, after school, at home, and on weekends, and the teachers that I know and have known are passionate and caring about their work and doing the best they can to make it work for their students. Attaching rewards and punishments will not help people work any harder if they are already working as hard as they can -- it will simply demoralize them and make it more difficult for them to do a good job.
Second, the whole issue of provisions such as seniority in teacher contracts is a difficult and complicated issue -- much more complicated than it may seem, and it's clear that there is much misunderstanding about it. For example, as the Times editorial also noted, one of the problems for schools is that there is huge pressure to reduce costs. In the absence of contractual protections for teachers, such as seniority, there would be irresistible pressure to keep only newer, less experienced, and cheaper teachers, which would eventually lead to teaching becoming not a profession but a form of public service in which young people would engage for two or three years after college, to the detriment of our children's education. Most well-done teacher contracts, such as ours, are not entirely based on seniority, but have a number of factors, including evaluations, that are taken into consideration with respect to layoffs and the like, in order to balance these interests.
Finally, I want to say again that the characterization of the American educational system as underperforming is incorrect, as has been demonstrated time and time again. The truth is that there are huge differences between and among schools and districts in this country -- U.S. schools with low poverty rates score at or above the level of the top countries in the world, but U.S. schools with high poverty rates are performing at the level of Third World countries. Many of the current "reforms" have been shown to be not helpful and some are actually harming our children's education. Those of us in schools are still working as hard as we can to make it work for the kids, but are becoming increasingly demoralized by the broad brush attacks on schools and teachers. I hope that the Chicago teachers' action will help to foster more conversation about the issues and that we will be able to make appropriate changes before it's too late.
I do think that many of today's "education reformers" do not understand schools and teachers very well, and I thought I'd also offer my own two cents on a couple of the most important misunderstandings.
First of all, most of the proposed "reforms" only make sense if you assume that most teachers are only doing the bare minimum and if they were just motivated using things like pay and punishments tied to student test scores they would all work harder and do a better job. In my experience, and as noted in the LA Times editorial, this is an assumption for which there is no evidence. After college, I went to Harvard Law School and then worked as a corporate lawyer in a big firm in Boston for 10 years, and when I became a teacher I found that it required just as many hours, if not more. In my time in education, I have met very few teachers who were not also working incredibly hard, spending long hours before school, after school, at home, and on weekends, and the teachers that I know and have known are passionate and caring about their work and doing the best they can to make it work for their students. Attaching rewards and punishments will not help people work any harder if they are already working as hard as they can -- it will simply demoralize them and make it more difficult for them to do a good job.
Second, the whole issue of provisions such as seniority in teacher contracts is a difficult and complicated issue -- much more complicated than it may seem, and it's clear that there is much misunderstanding about it. For example, as the Times editorial also noted, one of the problems for schools is that there is huge pressure to reduce costs. In the absence of contractual protections for teachers, such as seniority, there would be irresistible pressure to keep only newer, less experienced, and cheaper teachers, which would eventually lead to teaching becoming not a profession but a form of public service in which young people would engage for two or three years after college, to the detriment of our children's education. Most well-done teacher contracts, such as ours, are not entirely based on seniority, but have a number of factors, including evaluations, that are taken into consideration with respect to layoffs and the like, in order to balance these interests.
Finally, I want to say again that the characterization of the American educational system as underperforming is incorrect, as has been demonstrated time and time again. The truth is that there are huge differences between and among schools and districts in this country -- U.S. schools with low poverty rates score at or above the level of the top countries in the world, but U.S. schools with high poverty rates are performing at the level of Third World countries. Many of the current "reforms" have been shown to be not helpful and some are actually harming our children's education. Those of us in schools are still working as hard as we can to make it work for the kids, but are becoming increasingly demoralized by the broad brush attacks on schools and teachers. I hope that the Chicago teachers' action will help to foster more conversation about the issues and that we will be able to make appropriate changes before it's too late.
Sunday, September 9, 2012
Education is Not a Zero-Sum Game!
Education is not -- or should not be -- a zero-sum game. In a zero-sum game, anything gained by one participant has to be lost by another participant or participants and the net change is zero. For example, in an election, when two people are running for the same office, the total number of votes cannot exceed the number of voters so an increase in votes for one candidate results in a decrease in votes for the other candidate. There are many situations in life where that is the case. If you and I both interview for the same job and you get the job, I do not. If we both bid on the same house and your bid is accepted, mine will not be. Competitive situations are often zero-sum games.
There is no need, however, for education to be a zero-sum game. If I study hard and learn to speak fluent French, there is nothing that prevents you -- or a hundred other people -- from learning to speak French equally fluently. If the students in our school all achieve at a very high level on the state math exam, there is no reason why the students in any or all other schools cannot achieve at the same level. In fact, we would like them to! Unfortunately, though, our current state testing system, the MCAS, which was originally intended to be a "criterion-referenced assessment" (an assessment which measures achievement against fixed standards with no limits on how many students can meet those standards), is being changed by the use of student growth percentiles into a zero-sum game. Student growth percentiles (SGPs) compare a student's change in score from one year to the next to the changes in score of his/her "academic peers," so, for example, if a student receives an SGP of 65 that means that his score grew more than 65% of his "academic peers." If his peers do better, he receives a lower SGP -- a zero-sum game. The state, in its information on this topic, indicates that students with SGPs of less than 40 are considered to have "low growth," students with SGPs between 40 and 60 "moderate growth," and students with SGPs of 60 or better "high growth." The problem, of course, is that no matter how high the actual achievement of Massachusetts students, there will always be 40% of students who will be labeled "low growth," and their schools and teachers will be penalized.
The Massachusetts DESE has taken this even further in its recommendations for district assessments, by suggesting that districts do pre- and post-assessments, calculate the difference in scores for each student, order the results from highest to lowest, and divide the results into thirds, with the bottom third being labeled "low growth." Once again, no matter how well a district's students do -- and they could all be achieving at high levels -- one-third of them will be labeled as achieving "low growth." It's also important to note that if a student in that lowest third moves up into the middle third, that will automatically push a student in the middle third down to the lowest third -- a zero-sum game.
This type of system has very real negative consequences for schools and for our children's education. Particularly in Massachusetts, which had overall math and science achievement at the level of the top countries in the world on the 2009 international math and science assessment, and was the highest state in the nation on the past two national educational assessments, why are we deciding to automatically label 40% of our students (on the MCAS) or one-third of our students (on district assessments) as low achievers? I cannot think of any purpose for labeling students this way other than to make sure that some students and schools appear to be failing even though their absolute level of achievement is high. Is this really what we want to do to our children or our schools? Couldn't we just use set standards, celebrate the students and schools that meet those standards, and help those that don't?
There is no need, however, for education to be a zero-sum game. If I study hard and learn to speak fluent French, there is nothing that prevents you -- or a hundred other people -- from learning to speak French equally fluently. If the students in our school all achieve at a very high level on the state math exam, there is no reason why the students in any or all other schools cannot achieve at the same level. In fact, we would like them to! Unfortunately, though, our current state testing system, the MCAS, which was originally intended to be a "criterion-referenced assessment" (an assessment which measures achievement against fixed standards with no limits on how many students can meet those standards), is being changed by the use of student growth percentiles into a zero-sum game. Student growth percentiles (SGPs) compare a student's change in score from one year to the next to the changes in score of his/her "academic peers," so, for example, if a student receives an SGP of 65 that means that his score grew more than 65% of his "academic peers." If his peers do better, he receives a lower SGP -- a zero-sum game. The state, in its information on this topic, indicates that students with SGPs of less than 40 are considered to have "low growth," students with SGPs between 40 and 60 "moderate growth," and students with SGPs of 60 or better "high growth." The problem, of course, is that no matter how high the actual achievement of Massachusetts students, there will always be 40% of students who will be labeled "low growth," and their schools and teachers will be penalized.
The Massachusetts DESE has taken this even further in its recommendations for district assessments, by suggesting that districts do pre- and post-assessments, calculate the difference in scores for each student, order the results from highest to lowest, and divide the results into thirds, with the bottom third being labeled "low growth." Once again, no matter how well a district's students do -- and they could all be achieving at high levels -- one-third of them will be labeled as achieving "low growth." It's also important to note that if a student in that lowest third moves up into the middle third, that will automatically push a student in the middle third down to the lowest third -- a zero-sum game.
This type of system has very real negative consequences for schools and for our children's education. Particularly in Massachusetts, which had overall math and science achievement at the level of the top countries in the world on the 2009 international math and science assessment, and was the highest state in the nation on the past two national educational assessments, why are we deciding to automatically label 40% of our students (on the MCAS) or one-third of our students (on district assessments) as low achievers? I cannot think of any purpose for labeling students this way other than to make sure that some students and schools appear to be failing even though their absolute level of achievement is high. Is this really what we want to do to our children or our schools? Couldn't we just use set standards, celebrate the students and schools that meet those standards, and help those that don't?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
