Lately, I’ve been finding myself wondering if maybe the best strategy for changing education is to join ’em, not fight ’em. I mean, if the only material that we think is important is the stuff that our kids are going to get tested on, well, then let’s have MORE tests! (Play along!)
How about a test that every student has to pass on how to live a more carbon free, planet-friendly life? (Wonder how many of them even know what “carbon free” means.)
How about a test on “managing, analyzing and synthesizing multiple streams of simultaneous information?” (I love the NCTE.)
Or here’s a good one. Let’s make a test for a child’s ability to talk to strangers online, not as in whether or not they should, but as in how they go about doing it. (I want my kids to talk to strangers online, btw.)
What if we made a test to see if every kid knew “20 Easy Ways to Use a Wiki?” (Um, actually, let’s not do that. Too many grownups are doing that already.)
Here’s one: Let’s put together a test to see if our students can “Create, critique, analyze, and evaluate multi-media texts?” (There’s that rascally NCTE, again.)
How about one that checks to see if they can solve a real problem in their communities and create a plan to implement the solution? (Eh, why bother? Probably would never get funded.)
And finally, how about one that tries to figure out whether or not they can effectively use all of the people, resources, technologies and whatever else they have at their fingertips to learn just about anything they want to learn without sitting in a school with a teacher in the room? (Isn’t that our ultimate goal here?)
Not finding too much of that in “Common Core” which will, no doubt, soon lead to the “Common Test” which, no doubt, will be written by folks with a “Common Interest” in making money, deciding what’s right and wrong for everyone, and being able to say that they’ve “reformed” education.
At least those with the means can start getting their kids some not-so-common test prep in kindergarten now. Never too early to think about the test.
Sigh.
you, sir, are passing the snarkiness test 🙂
We end up in the same place everytime. We ask, in a thousand ways “what’s school for?” and contrary to what we’d expect, we get no answers. I keep thinking that everyone has a different opinion about it, but, in the final analysis, the answer is always ‘school is for school’.
Before radio, TV and the internet, the public school system was the main normative driver in our societies. It has fallen behind, I think, become the uncle that buys you socks for your birthday. Yes, i suppose, socks are important, but they don’t play a formative roll in your life. We just have to put them on in the morning and take them off at night.
And don’t tell me school should be to allow ‘people to become creative’ or to make ‘caring adults’ or anything like that. Factories aren’t designed to make individual items, quality control in a factory (read: testing) is designed to make sure things turn out the same. As a colleague of mine is fond of saying “training is what we do to animals”.
I’ve never been able to answer the ‘what is school for’ question, without resorting to platitudes. I care about learning. I love teaching. I’m pushing my own limits as an educator (however stumbly) but I still can’t answer that simple question in a way that I wouldn’t give myself a D++/C- grade on it.
you?
@Dave Scared to answer this, or even attempt an answer, because of where it might lead (since I’m already grumpy). I still believe in the concept of “school” but not, obviously, in its current iteration. I know I want my kids, and more importantly, kids who don’t have the advantages mine do to spend time learning with passionate, caring, nurturing adults who just exude a love of inquiry and problem solving and sharing and collaboration. Kids, just like adults, will come to whatever “knowing” they need if they need or want it badly enough and if they have some models to mentor and guide and support them through the process. And when they get to the point where they want to go really deep, I’d love them to be in a classroom with you and others who are constantly reflecting and unlearning and rethinking. People who I know are pushing them to find their own important questions and answers, not the ones found in a text or expected on a test.
The whole concept of “standardization” so obviously flies in the face of what we should want for our kids (and our teachers), and the system is just too entrenched to provide an adequate answer to the “what is school” question. Standardization is a not so subtle slap in the face to the profession in that it suggests teachers can’t be trusted to account adequately for student learning. In general, with a few well documented exceptions, school is to pass the test of the day. We can paint the picture with different colors, add new acronyms and TLAs, trot out fancy, whizbang tools, but when we hold it all up to the bottom line mirror, it’s about the test.
I’m not optimistic. (Apologies, Tony.) I’ll keep advocating for SLAs and High Tech Highs and other models that come closer to putting real learning at the center of the classroom (as opposed to real knowing), but I’m also going to teach my own kids to be as subversive as they need to be to get to the things they care about. If their schools aren’t going to teach them to roll their own education, we will.
But, it’s not my kids I’m worried about.
The thing is, school is about learning (I love leading with a platitude).
We can’t seem to agree what should be learned in schools – that’s where things get sticky.
And, as was recently shown in Texas and with Common Core, there are both political and economic interests that affect what kids learn, how they learn it, and how that learning is measured.
So, really, there are at least 4 questions rolled up in this:
1. What is school for?
2. How does the process of learning relate to school?
3. How does teaching relate to learning?
4. What does success look like (aka, how should 1, 2, and 3 be assessed)?
And this, of course, leads us to the elephant in the room: how do we ensure that the interest of kids remain primary when corporate and political organizations have more say about what occurs in our classroom than the teachers who run them, and the children who attend them?
Cheers,
Bill
Bill, I remember the first time I read a question like, “What is school for?” Happily, we were using Teaching as a Subversive Activity as a text and Postman and Weingartner asked a similar question. Of course at that time I was all about complaining the problems of schooling and not so much fixing them, but even then I could see it was important to start at the beginning. About then I began to wonder if we really had lost sight of the very purpose of the thing we seemed lost in. Very much the forest and the trees problem or going so fast we can’t see anything that goes by…
While I work at a public educational institution and will always work hard at steering it (and all education) as much as I can in the directions I have learned to believe are right,my kids are all about private schools and homeschooling. I know what school is for and it ain’t happening in way too many of the public venues. Our job is to talk to teachers and administrators at an opportunity and tell show them what we know. That is change.
As Will ponders too, where does the question, “What is school for?” fit into the curriculum. I am going to let my kids wonder about that. Maybe, by wondering about it and doing it now they will have a better grip on the purpose of “education” and how to do/use it as they grow.
Will,
While I love the message, the grumpiness and cynical nature of your writing bothers me today. My son Ben, wrote three “Tips for Blogging” in his blog last spring and with all due respect (and you know that I have a ton of respect for you, your thinking, and your writing) I feel like you missed out on his second rule. Here’s the link: http://the4thdown.wordpress.com/2010/03/29/blogging
Hey Tony,
Noted, and I appreciate Ben’s view. I sincerely do. But I also think that part of blogging is to be who you are. I’ve got 90% positive uptime, but some of the time, I am cynical. I am grumpy. I read about people doing test prep for their 5 year olds and the movement that wants my kids and Ben to learn the same thing in the same way as every other kid and I just need to cry “Foul!” sometimes.
I know you do, and I hope others will take my blog (and my brain) not for any individual post but for a work that over almost 10 years has been, yes, grumpy and cynical every now and then but for the most part trying to move the conversation forward.
Nevertheless, I sincerely appreciate the reminder. ;0)
Hi Will,
I do take your blog in its “wholeness”, however, I have heard you say that you are “grumpy” relative to where we are in education and I hope that you (and others) don’t start losing hope over time.
I’m willing to fight the good fight for my kids… all kids, and I too get pissed when I see politics win over what is right for kids, when I see test prep for any student, when I see the institution of school getting in the way of it purpose.
But this stuff isn’t easy, if it was, it wouldn’t be worth fighting for.
@Bill
Show me the evidence that schools are for learning sir.
@Tony
I disagree. Humanity includes being mad or angry. Will has certainly put his time in, has contributed many positive things to the education space… he has more than earned the right to be understood as an entire person.
@dave
You’re right. I appreciate all that Will has done to move this shift along and for me as an educator. I hope that we don’t lose hope, that’s all.
Hello, Tony,
There is a clear difference between losing hope and accurately, candidly, and clearly identifying what is at stake.
Humor helps us manage the more painful elements of a longer struggle.
And I will definitely admit, as someone who has worked in and around education for a while, the tenor and content of the current dialogue of educational reform and change is painful.
Cheers,
Bill
This is the kind of writing that made me choose to follow your blog, twitter, and conferences.
Some may call it snarky, cynical, and others writing while angry. But if, by now, teachers, educators, and others who claim they care about education are not yet angry, they aren’t paying attention to what is happening to them (and their children/grandchildren) not to mention our nation (which truly is at risk now.
“Educator politeness” is why politicians, businesses, and chambers of commerce believe it is permissible to push us around and take advantage of generally kindhearted people.
This type of “rhetorical writing” wherein people overstate their point to the level of absurdity communicates the issue better than anything else. It’s for sure that researched, well-thought-out argument (in the sense of serious debate) will not work among the people forcing their will upon our schools.
Sadly, the educators are the ones who seldom get the hyperbole.
Tony – you and I agree on a lot, but I think anyone that has been in education for any amount of time has to be cynical. Being overly optimistic would be lacking in in realism. I struggle to remain optimistic after reading Disrupting Education and Education Unbound.
I feel like the stuff we put out as best practices, which Hess denounces in Education Unbound, are just examples of the train leaving on time. All of the tests described here at least require some higher-level critical thinking skills which is quite unlike most of the tests our kids see.
I love Ben’s message, but think Will’s tone is blunt and to the point. He has been talking about the way need to change in schools much longer than either you or I and he has seen little/no significant change on a large scale. If he started getting all warm and fuzzy I would probably unsubscribe to this feed.
Unfortunately, I see Will’s message as one grounded in realism.
Tests are not our problem. It is what we are testing for that is the issue.
Patrick,
Boy, I guess I upset Will’s Army with my comments, which is all well and good. Perhaps my comments were a bit abrupt because I agree with all of your posts relative to his ability to write candidly, provokingly, etc. My concerns revolves around the fact that I have seen/heard him speak of this “grumpiness” and I don’t want him or others to lose hope.
I check my grumpiness meter all the time. ;0) But don’t ever feel like you can’t keep me in check. I sincerely value your opinion.
Tony,
It’s a good conversation. I think we all need to be grounded in reality. We both know that it can be depressing sometimes, but I think we all need to keep a sense of perspective and get to a place where we feel like we can move forward.
I think we are coming from the same perspective.
I like the edginess.
Common Core leading to common test written by those with a common interest…seems we have lost our ability to use our common sense.
What about those who feel that the current educational trajectory is right where it should be? I talk to plenty of parents who are all for lots of homework and see school/teacher ranking that stems from test scores as helpful. They WANT their children to go to the schools with the higher test scores, IWBs in every classroom, shiny new textbooks, and homework as evidence of rigor. They nod in understanding/approval when teachers tell them that they will be spending the next 3 weeks intensively preparing for the next standardized test. They see quiet rows of students as evidence o teacher excellence. These are often the “successful” parents who became that way in the very same type of system. When their teachers didn’t assign enough homework, their parents gave them more at home. They went to math classes on weekends. They took summer classes to get ahead. They paid lots of money for test preparation programs. Terms like “high standards”, “accountability”, “competition”, “raising the bar” and “incentive” are quite appealing to them. In some degree, current policy direction is giving them exactly what they want (or think they want). The bigger problem here as that the more socially/economically well-off can absorb some of the negative consequences of this. The schools that serve poorer communities cannot. As you, Will, and many parents do – we offer many enriching types of experiences at home that are not happening at school. Children of poverty often get very little outside of school.
I just think that the struggle that we are all feeling here is so much bigger than we would like to admit sometimes. We desperately want to see changes, but not everyone is on board the same ship. Power seems to drives education policy as much as best practice (for lack of a better phrase). Those who have risen to the ranks of the powerful may not have the same progressive, democratic ideals that these discussions are founded on.
We need to celebrate the SLAs and continue to work at grassroots levels. We also need voices that reach the echelons of power. As Ric points out, we (in general) need to stop being so polite and passive in this discussion. We need those with these convictions to put discussion into practice at all levels.
Well said, Steve. I recently read Tony Wagner’s book (The Global Achievement Gap) and found it tries to address the oft-misunderstood issue of rigor. Wish more of those parents would read it.
Oh – one more thing… the comments on this post are worth re-reading… part of this issue, for sure!
http://weblogg-ed.com/2010/a-summer-rant-whats-up-with-parents/
If this enlightened community can’t point to more examples than SLA or High Tech High, we are doomed and just as susceptible to rudimentary criticism as the folks who answer every education question with KIPP, Teach for America or merit pay.
Are we capable of a grander vision?
Great point Gary. Either we have nothing to offer as a means of alternatives, or we are our own worst enemy in the form of publicity and Public Relations.
Gary, add the link to your compiled list of progressive school for folks.
I’m serious…is there a list? Why not start one if not with some description around why these schools are “progressive” in terms of their use of technology to create new learning spaces and connections.
@Will, Gary, Steve, Yes, so glad you brought it up!! I have been wondering about a list of progressive schools for some time. Thinking someone, somewhere must have started one by now. We are all hungry for more. Enlighten us, please!
Your post reminded me of my instructional design class I had in graduate school. My professor looked around the room and told us the only reason we were there is that at some point we figured out how to play the game. He reminded us that there were lots of really smart, creative people that didn’t know how to play the school game. Nothing has really changed. School is still a game that some kids never learn how to play and others just refuse to play.
I am also frustrated with standardized tests. Expecially when a student has to retake a version of the same test multiple times! If a child passes a test after the sixth administration should we as educators feel as though he/she achieved success? Maybe she was just lucky or has somehow found a way to navigate the test. I agree with the author. Our tests don’t relate to the real world in which they will be living. If we are supposed to be preparing our students for this world, why don’t our tests reflect that idea?
I agree. If a child gets multiple times to pass a test that they could have easily passed if they had simply studied the first or even second time, then we are providing an injustice to him since this does not reflect anything in real life circumstances. It’s simply enabling!
Many “real life” test allow its participants multiple opportunities to pass. The Series 7 (stock brokers), The Bar Exam (it took John Kennedy 4 chances to pass the bar), a Driver’s test, Realtor’s exam, and tests in martial arts that allow students to earn different “belts” just to name a few. I even know several excellent teachers who did not pass the Praxis exam the first time despite hours of study. Students routinely take SAT’s, GRE’s, ACT’s multiple times to improve their scores and increase their chances to get into a competitive college – although I would argue that that points to a real deficit of our education system. Often, tests given in the classroom are the only ones in which a student only has one opportunity to show mastery. Truthfully, most tests in school are not designed to show mastery, instead they are designed to show what a student can memorize for just that test.
Part of this shift that we all keep talking about includes an assessment model that allows for multiple forms of performance-based assessment, one that allows the student to display competence in multiple modalities and circumstances. Single opportunity, single modality tests that measure memorization more so than performance and competency are more of the problem than the answer to ed reform.
Will Richardson writes:
“I know I want my kids, and more importantly, kids who don’t have the advantages mine do to spend time learning with passionate, caring, nurturing adults who just exude a love of inquiry and problem solving and sharing and collaboration.”
Comment: Of the 23 teachers I had throughout my school years, three matched this description: a low-paid seventh grade teacher in a tiny (60 students) private school; a sixth grade music teacher in a public school; and the woman who taught me to read but had to buck the system by threatening to quit when it eliminated the instructional methods she’d had so much success with (the system was one of the top performing ones in the nation before the “reform” of its curricula; this teacher was given permission to conduct an “experimental” reading class in which she taught 2nd grade one year and 3rd the next, keeping the same students, of which I was one, for both years). Three out of 23 is better than a lot of kids ever experience.
On another note, there is danger (though not for yourself) when you advocate compulsory measures (public schooling) for the good of “other” kids — those who lack the advantages you’ve provided your own. You become embroiled in all manner of defining what is good for others — good enough to be shoved down their throats (coated with sugar, of course). Many low-income, “low opportunity” families are coming to resent the arrogance and presumption, not to mention compulsion (I’m not saying that applies to you), of the do-gooders who plan endless ways to rescue their children from them. Others have resigned their role as parents to the activists and make noise only to occasionally demand more, but for the most part they accept the sorry places in which we force them to incarcerate their children.
You write, “Not finding too much of that in “Common Core†which will, no doubt, soon lead to the “Common Test†which, no doubt, will be written by folks with a “Common Interest†in making money, deciding what’s right and wrong for everyone, and being able to say that they’ve “reformed†education.
Comment: How is the “Common Core†that terribly different from what’s already going on? Schools already cover a basic core of subjects and content that vary little from place to place. We already have stifling standardization and commonality. We already have a common interest in making money from the cash cow of public schooling. We already have an army of “interested parties†deciding what’s right and wrong for everyone – and it’s pretty much the same from one school to another. The jump to a common core curriculum would be a small one, hardly even noticeable.
Opportunity is critical. It hardly exists in most schools, and it exists even more rarely in inner city and many rural schools. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if the really good teachers would reject the system, walk away from the government model (which, by the way, never was wonderful), and use their passion and talent to create actual opportunity?
Not realistic, many say. Why not? There are hundreds of thousands of people in our country creating all manner of opportunity and possibility in endless areas without fear of living outside the safety net of government benefits, guaranteed employment, and a customer base secured by force of law. Some of them even operate in the education field.
RE: “Wouldn’t it be wonderful if the really good teachers would reject the system, walk away from the government model (which, by the way, never was wonderful), and use their passion and talent to create actual opportunity?”
This statement is not accurate, and it assumes that the alternatives are wonderful, which is also not accurate. I have seen countless mediocre schools outside the “government” system. I have also seen some incredibly ignorant, shortsighted, and self-serving suggestions coming from some self-branded “reformers.”
I had the good fortune to go to an excellent public school, K-12. Not surprisingly, it was in a small town, and the educational system was well funded, with parents, teachers, and administrators who knew their kids, and cared.
The challenge in moving forward with meaningful improvement is to retain the good, from wherever it comes, while removing as much as possible of the bad, no matter the pressure to retain it.
And this, of course, assumes that consensus is possible about the “good” and the “bad”, and that once consensus is reached it can be articulated in a comprehensible way.