EDUTOPIA

2008-01-20T02:31:00.000-08:00

PROLOGUE: Summerhill

PART ONE - WHAT IS WRONG WITH PUBLIC EDUCATION IN AMERICA?

A Nation At Risk?

Excellence, Mediocrity, or Both?

The Mission of Public Education

Motivation and Learning: Lack of Interest/Improper Placement/Mediocre Instruction/A Narrow Focus on Vocational Goals/A Rigid, Authoritarian Environment

Our Nation's Children At Risk

Societal Influences

Altering Students' Perception of Learning

PART TWO - MEANINGFUL CHOICES FOR STUDENTS (AND PARENTS)

Reform Proposals: Reduce the Number of Required Classes Within the Typical High School Curriculum and Minimize the Number of Standards and Objectives Within Courses

Reform Proposal: Award Different Types of Diplomas or Certificates to Accurately Represent Different Levels of Achievement

Reform Proposal: Allow Students to Select Their Teachers

Reform Proposal: Allow Students (With the Consent of Their Parents) to Elect Not to Be Graded

Reform Proposal: Concentrate Academic Instruction in a Three-hour Block

Reform Proposal: Allow Students to Attend School Full- or Part-time, Days, Evenings, or Week-ends

Reform Proposal: Repeal Compulsory Attendance Laws

Reform Proposal: Remove the Upper Age Limits on Attending Public Schools Free of Charge

Reform Proposal: Remove the Lower Age Limits on Attending Public Schools Free of Charge

Reform Proposal: Allow Students to Attend Any Publicly Funded School in the State in Which They Live

PART THREE - IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF INSTRUCTION

Reform Proposal: Increase Pay for Teachers

Reform Proposal: Make More Effective Use of Technology and Existing Staff

Reform Proposal: Improve Working Conditions for Teachers

Reform Proposal: Develop a More Comprehensive Evaluation System for Teachers

Reform Proposal: Use Pre- and Post-Test Data Properly to Compare Teachers, Programs, and Schools

PART FOUR - PROPER PLACEMENT OF STUDENTS

Reform Proposal: Use Standardized Test Scores As Part of the Process of Determining Grades

Reform Proposal: Utilize Reading Tests to Insure Proper Placement of Students

PART FIVE - SCHOOL GOVERNANCE

Reform Proposal: Govern Schools Individually and Democratically

CONCLUSION: It's Time for a Change

Prologue: Summerhill

2008-01-20T02:27:00.000-08:00

Summerhill began as an experimental school. It is no longer such; it is now a demonstration school, for it demonstrates that freedom works. - A. S. Neill

Summerhill is a small private school in Great Britain. It was founded by A. S. Neill in 1921 and since that time has served as a clear and compelling demonstration of the full range of choices that could and should be offered within our system of public education. At Summerhill there are no required classes, no tests, no grades or grade cards. Students are given complete freedom to decide what they want to learn and when they want to learn. Some students have gone months or even years without taking any classes at all, yet numerous studies and reports indicate that the graduates of Summerhill have led happy and productive lives. Even allowing for a good measure of skepticism, it must be admitted that Summerhill’s students have suffered no apparent harm, or been handicapped in any way by the freedom they were given, and may very well have benefitted from the self-directed nature of their educational experience.

Within our public school system the option of an education based on the Summerhill philosophy could be made available by offering students and parents a full range of meaningful choices. Students should be able to attend any public school within their home state. A variety of programs should be offered within each school. We should award different types of diplomas or certification (college prep, a standard diploma, a certificate of completion, etc.), with at least one form of certification that involves fewer required classes and fewer requirements within classes, thereby allowing students more time for self-directed learning. Students should also be allowed to take classes without seeking a diploma. They should have the option of taking classes without being graded, or to be graded on the basis of exhibitions of mastery. Students should be allowed to choose their teachers. The option of attending regular classes at different times of the day, as well as attending part time should be offered, especially to older students who are working during the school year. We should repeal compulsory attendance laws and remove the age limits on attending public schools without charge.

While some parents and educators might react with horror to the idea of students being given this much freedom to determine the nature of their educational experiences, Summerhill offers compelling evidence that allowing students to direct their own course of study is not as crazy as it might seem to some people. It is highly unlikely that many parents would be willing to grant their children the amount of freedom given to students at Summerhill. Many parents might be interested in having their children educated in an environment that is less restrictive than the one that is presently in place, while stopping short of the Summerhill approach. Other options, including the status quo, should continue to be available for those parents who want a more structured educational experience for their children.

We must accept the fact that students differ greatly with regard to their needs and interests, their academic abilities, the degree to which they are motivated to pursue a formal education, their learning styles, and their goals. Rather than waste time and energy trying to agree on a single system or approach, we should simply agree to disagree. Within and beyond a course of study designed to acquire the skills and knowledge needed to be an effective citizen within a democracy, we should allow students to select the educational experiences that most effectively address their individual needs and interests. We should allow students (and their parents) to make the choices that are right for them from a range of options representing the full spectrum of educational philosophies and practices.

Excerpt from:
Edutopia: A Manifesto for the Reform of Public Education

Permission is hereby granted to make or post copies of this excerpt from Edutopia for personal, non-commercial use, provided that each posting or printed copy attributes the source and includes the copyright notice.

A Nation At Risk?

2008-01-20T02:12:00.000-08:00

For as long as we have had schools, critics of the existing institutions have felt there were better ways to organize and run them. For as long as we continue to have schools, that will be the case. The level of concern ebbs and flows and only occasionally reaches a level that translates into meaningful action.

The most recent cycle of widespread reform began twenty years ago. It endures in large part because the changes implemented thus far have had little impact on the perceived problems within public education. A broad consensus among educators, business leaders, and politicians, that public education was, and is, in a state of crisis, has resulted in a deluge of legislation at both the state and national level and a steady stream of reforms at schools throughout the country. The net result, up to this point, has been small pockets of modest, and often temporary, improvement. We are still searching for effective means of improving student achievement and the quality of education offered by our schools.

The publication of A Nation At Risk in 1983 deserves much of the credit for bringing the present educational crisis to the attention of the political establishment and the media, and through them, to the general public. A federally funded report published by the National Commission on Excellence in Education, A Nation At Risk included several memorable lines that were widely quoted at the time of its publication: ". . . the educational foundations of our society are presently being eroded by a rising tide of mediocrity that threatens our very future as a Nation and a people." "If an unfriendly power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war."
The primary concerns voiced by the authors of A Nation At Risk were related to our ability to compete with other industrialized nations within the global economy:

The world is indeed one global village. We live among determined, well-educated,
and strongly motivated competitors. We compete with them for international
standing and markets, not only with products but also with the ideas of our
laboratories and neighborhood workshops.

The report stated that “. . . on 19 academic tests American students were never first or second and, in comparison with [students from] other industrialized nations, were last seven times.” While the report also included statements of concern related to our failure to achieve the “. . . high level of shared education [that] is essential to a free, democratic society . . . ” the emphasis throughout was tilted strongly in favor of economic matters.

tudent achievement (more specifically, the lack thereof) was the primary evidence cited to support the fact that our nation was at risk. All of the thirteen “Indicators of the Risk” cited by the commission are related, directly or indirectly, to declines in achievement as measured by standardized tests. The report also echoed and further stimulated the complaints of colleges, business leaders and the military regarding the necessity of providing remedial programs, in reading and other basic skills, for high school graduates who were not adequately prepared for either college or the workplace.

In the wake of A Nation At Risk additional studies were commissioned, and a seemingly endless stream of books and articles were published further detailing and defining the problems plaguing public education in America and proposing various solutions. Among the most influential of these was a series of books by E. D. Hirsch, Jr., beginning with Cultural Literacy, which stressed the importance of being literate in a much broader sense of the term than is typically used. Hirsch maintained that in order to communicate effectively within a particular culture, certain terms, names, and events need to be familiar and understood. An individual lacking knowledge of these common references will not be capable of meaningful participation in civic affairs.

While A Nation At Risk marks the onset of the present cycle of reform, Cultural Literacy and subsequent related titles by Hirsch represent the essence of one of the most common responses to the perceived crisis in public education - the development of standardized lists of curricular objectives.

In Cultural Literacy, Hirsch included an appendix entitled "What Literate Americans Know" containing a rather lengthy list of names, events, titles, terms, phrases, and places with which Americans should be familiar in order to be culturally literate. In response to the interest of many readers regarding the items included in the list, and perhaps reflecting the intellectual laziness of many of those readers, Hirsch and his associates published A Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, which offered brief summaries related to each item, A First Dictionary of Cultural Literacy (for younger students), and a series of books designed to let parents determine the degree of cultural literacy of their elementary school children: What Your 2nd Grader Should Know, What Your 3rd Grader Should Know, etc.

Although questions regarding what should (and shouldn’t) be included in a student’s course of study have always been, and always will be, a topic of debate among educators and other interested parties, the publication of A Nation At Risk and Cultural Literacy inspired educational organizations, school districts, state legislatures, and commissions formed at both the state and national level, to develop and publish detailed lists of standards and objectives for each subject and grade level setting forth the knowledge that should be acquired and the skills that should be developed by a student at each grade level, or in each course.

Many of these curriculum proposals have been adopted by school districts and/or enacted into law by state legislatures. Standardized tests have been developed and/or rewritten to measure whether individual students have mastered the required objectives and met the specified standards. Some states and school districts have begun to hold students accountable if they fail to meet stated expectations.

Approaches such as “outcomes-based education” and “mastery learning,” which make promotion from grade to grade contingent upon demonstrating the accomplishment of stated objectives, have been introduced. (In some districts these strategies have already come and gone.) Exit exams are becoming more common - requiring a student to score at a certain level in order to be awarded a high school diploma.

Improving the quality of instruction offered in our schools has also been the focus of a wide variety of reform initiatives. Research on effective teaching and learning has been conducted and the results disseminated. A plethora of alternative teaching strategies, including numerous forms of co-operative learning, have been developed and introduced. Madeline Hunter rose to prominence as the guru of lesson planning for teachers. Lee Cantor emerged as the “sage on the stage” regarding classroom discipline with an approach he called “Assertive Discipline.” To propagate the wisdom of Hunter, Cantor et. al., and to promote the use of “effective” teaching strategies, workshops, seminars, and other professional development activities have been offered to teachers, and in many cases required of teachers. (Sort of an adult version of compulsory attendance.)

Textbooks and supporting materials have been rewritten to conform more closely to adopted standards, particularly the standards of larger states, theoretically making those teachers who rely on them more effective. Some states have introduced competency tests and replaced lifetime certification for teachers with temporary certification, making continued employment contingent upon additional training. Colleges and universities have added additional requirements for prospective teachers.

here has also been a broad range of other responses to the crisis in public education. Schools and school districts have adopted wonderfully inspiring mission and vision statements. Countless books and articles detailing the nature of the crisis facing our schools and offering a wide range of relatively moderate solutions have been published. Although most of the sets of standards that have been put in place seem reasonably demanding, calls continue for expectations to be raised still higher. State legislatures have mandated improvements in education, and have occasionally even increased funding as part of the legislation. The federal government has now weighed in with its own mandate that “no child [be] left behind.”

Nearly all of the goals and objectives included in the standards that have been developed and adopted have some merit. Raising pay for teachers certainly helps to attract a larger pool of qualified applicants to the profession, although compensation for teachers has not been increased to the point that significant numbers of talented individuals are being lured away from other professions. Some of the opportunities for professional growth have helped the teachers already in our schools improve and refine their skills.

Although many experienced teachers maintain that Hunter and Cantor simply re-packaged and re-introduced time-tested methods, their recommendations are worthwhile. Alternative teaching strategies have helped to improve the quality of instruction offered in our schools, although in many cases they accomplish little more than making the classroom a somewhat more tolerable place for non-readers. Now, however, after two decades of earnest, but superficial, attempts to reform public education, we have seen very little improvement. Average student scores on standardized tests - the primary evidence cited to demonstrate the existence of a state of crisis in public education - have not improved significantly. The “crisis” continues.

Excerpt from:
Edutopia: A Manifesto for the Reform of Public Education

Excellence, Mediocrity, or Both?

2008-01-20T02:07:00.000-08:00

We are not likely to turn the tide in our battle for a more effective educational system until we achieve a better understanding of the true nature of the crisis. Scant attention has been given to the question of what caused a “tide” of mediocrity to “rise” in the first place. Ironically, at least some of the culpability of our public schools, with regard to any increase in mediocrity, is directly related to the success of our efforts to keep students in school.

Throughout the history of public education in America, we have been engaged in a delicate balancing act with regard to the conflicting goals of excellence and inclusion. Maintaining excellence is much easier when opportunities for advanced schooling are limited to the academically talented. Mediocrity is more difficult to avoid when all children are allowed, encouraged, and/or required to remain in school.

Over time the scales have tipped slowly, but surely, toward inclusion. The United States has come tantalizingly close to achieving the goal of a high school education for every member of our society. The percentage of students attending, and graduating, from high school has grown steadily throughout most of the history of public education in America. In 1890, only 6.7% of people between fourteen and seventeen years of age were enrolled in school. By 1970 that percentage had increased to over 90%. In 1890, a mere 3.5% of adults between the ages of 25 and 29 had earned high school diplomas. As recently as 1940 that percentage was still only 38.1%. Between 1940 and 1980 it more than doubled to 85.4%. Since 1980 the graduation rate has more or less leveled off, although efforts continue to lower the drop-out rate still further. At the present time a significantly greater percentage of adults in our society have earned degrees from four-year colleges than had earned high school diplomas in 1920.

This success has not come without a price. Standardized test scores peaked in the mid-1960s and then entered a lengthy period of slow, but steady decline, only recently beginning to rebound ever-so-slightly. It is worth noting, however, that during the period from 1970 to 1980 the percentage of Americans between the ages of 25 and 29 who had graduated from high school rose from 75.4% to 85.4%. Percentage-wise that increase is greater than the decline in test scores during the same period.

The “bell curve” is a reality. Just as some people are gifted with more musical, artistic, or athletic ability than others, some people learn faster than others. Some people are able to retain more knowledge than others. Even within the realm of education some students are gifted readers, but weak in math, or vice versa. While extraordinary effort on the part of students with less natural academic ability can narrow the gap, there are limits to how much each individual is capable of learning. There will always be differences in achievement.

It may well be the case that the percentage of people within our society who are capable of meeting the standards we claim to expect of high school graduates is less than the seventy-five to eighty percent who are presently receiving diplomas. The easiest way to increase test scores would be to stop requiring and/or encouraging students with limited academic abilities to remain in school. On the other hand, making it even easier to get a high school diploma by lowering standards and reducing requirements is the easiest and most logical method of increasing the graduation rate. As much as we might like to achieve both excellence and inclusion, there will always be a trade-off between the two.

Keeping marginal students in school longer has contributed to lower average test scores. On the other hand, the welfare of our children is more important than test scores or other statistics. Convincing students to stay in school is a worthwhile goal when they are putting forth a reasonable effort to learn what is being taught. Keeping students enrolled in school is a hollow victory, however, when they are putting forth little or no effort to learn. We have been increasingly successful in our efforts to keep students in school longer. We have been noticeably less successful in helping marginal students achieve at the levels we claim to expect.

In spite of the fact that published standards have been raised in many states and school districts, de facto standards have been lowered at many schools, primarily through social promotion and grade inflation. To accommodate students who work during the school year and to keep marginal students from becoming discouraged and dropping out, we have lowered our expectations with regard to both the quantity and the quality of work required. Students are passed along from grade-to-grade and given credit for classes, despite the fact that they have not truly mastered the objectives within the approved curriculum for that class or grade level. As a last resort, summer school and night-school classes offer marginal students an easy way to earn credit without having to meet the alleged standards for a particular course. The end result of all these machinations is that many under-performing students are awarded high school diplomas without acquiring the knowledge or developing the skills that we claim to expect of a high school graduate.

The key to striking the proper balance between excellence and inclusion is to stop obsessing about both test scores and drop-out rates. We should do everything possible to improve the quality of the educational opportunities we offer through our public schools. We should make a broad range of meaningful alternatives available to students, especially those who are not succeeding within the present system. We should encourage every student to put forth their best effort in learning. On the other hand, we should allow young people who are not interested in formal instruction to choose a different path. A system of public education that afforded every member of our society the chance to discover and fully develop their gifts and talents would be an “excellent” system, even if some people failed to take advantage of the opportunities available to them.

Excerpt from:
Edutopia: A Manifesto for the Reform of Public Education

The Mission of Public Education

2008-01-20T02:02:00.000-08:00

Freedom can exist only in the society of knowledge. Without learning, men are incapable of knowing their rights, and where learning is confined to a few people, liberty can be neither equal, nor universal. - Benjamin Rush

Assessing the success or failure of our schools with any reasonable degree of validity is complicated by the fact that there is confusion and disagreement regarding the mission of public education in America. Although philosophical matters pertaining to education are rarely discussed, there are fundamental differences of opinion regarding the basic goal of our public schools.

In the early years of the republic, Thomas Jefferson and others who lobbied for the establishment of public schools, argued that educated citizens were an essential component of effective government in a democratic state. The primary justification for educating all children at public expense was that education would make it more likely that voters would elevate the most worthy candidates to office. Jefferson’s plan also called for additional education at public expense for the most talented students, thus grooming them for positions in government. The nation, as a whole, would experience the benefits of good government.

In addition to preparing students for informed participation in civic affairs, Horace Mann and other early supporters of public education saw our schools as a place to combat immoral behavior. As our nation continued to grow, through westward expansion and immigration, this idea evolved into the belief that schools should provide a means of civilizing and homogenizing the burgeoning population of the United States. Public schools were to function as a “melting pot,” assimilating the children of Native Americans, African-Americans, and recent immigrants, into the mainstream of our society, by inculcating the values and beliefs of the white, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant majority.

Frustration with the gap between the ideals stated in the Declaration of Independence and the reality experienced by many groups and individuals led some reformers at the turn of the nineteenth century to attempt to turn public schools into crucibles of genuine democracy. Revisiting the idea that the primary mission of public education should be preparing students for their role as citizens, Margaret Haley, Ella Flagg Young, and others argued that our schools should function as democratic communities. They promoted the idea of democratically governed schools as the most effective means of promoting and protecting democracy within the broader society. They believed that genuine democracy in our schools required the active involvement of both teachers and students in decision-making, as well as a great deal of freedom for self-direction on the part of students.

The Industrial Revolution was the catalyst for the most powerful transformation of our schools. Support for public education, the number of children enrolled, and the number of years of schooling each child received, all began to grow steadily as the idea that our schools should be preparing children for their roles as workers in an industrial society began to take hold. The development of intelligence tests and other types of standardized testing gave rise to an “improved” version of preparing students for their roles in the workplace, providing an apparently scientific means for schools to perform a sorting function. Tests were used to determine what classes students should take to prepare them for their appropriate positions within the economy.

Another level of tracking and sorting was added as American colleges and universities pushed for, and won, the right to act as gatekeepers to the professions. As our institutions of higher education standardized and certified the requirements for entry into a growing number of professions, backed by state laws requiring such certification, they also managed, quite successfully, to dictate standardized curricular models for secondary schools.

Today, more than two hundred years after the founding of our nation, arguments regarding the missions and goals of public education continue. Competing views of the mission of our schools tend to co-exist. Our system of public education has attempted, with widely varying degrees of success, to fill all of the roles described above. Over time, however, vocational goals have slowly, but surely, claimed the dominant role in public education. “Tech Prep,” “Career Pathways” and “School-to-work” programs, as well as other reforms promoting vocational skills, are being implemented in more and more schools and school districts.

Within education the term “tracking” refers to the practice of sorting students into different courses of study based on their academic abilities. Brighter students are enrolled in a “college prep” curriculum that includes more of the elements of a traditional liberal arts education. Students with limited abilities are tracked into classes focused on the development of job-related skills. Tracking has come to be viewed as discriminatory, and the term itself has fallen out of favor. In reality, the practice is alive and well. The difference is that more and more students are being tracked, and are tracking themselves, into “vocational” classes. Wood shop, metal shop, and homemaking have been replaced by programs that have a more direct connection to the job market of today. Computer programming, appliance repair, auto mechanics, and other career-oriented classes are very popular. Even students who are preparing for and attending college are focused on vocational goals. An ever-increasing number of community college programs have a career focus. The primary goal of most students attending four-year colleges is acquiring the certification necessary to enter a “profession.” For all intents and purposes, our colleges and universities have been converted into “vocational” schools.

At both the high school and college levels, some elements of a liberal arts education remain in place, but the primary focus of most students is on preparation for the job market. Although a few lone voices cry out in the wilderness, very few students, parents, educators, or politicians seem to question the dominant view that the primary purpose of public education is to prepare our children for the workplace. The original justification for educating all children at public expense has been relegated to the back burner. There is very little discussion about the importance of developing the skills necessary for informed citizenship. Our schools and the school day are structured and designed to simulate the workplace and help students develop the habits that they need as workers in an industrial society: arriving, eating, and being dismissed by bells, working diligently at assigned tasks (no matter how boring or irrelevant those tasks might seem), and following orders.

While the contention that higher levels of formal education are necessary to meet the requirements of the modern workplace is reasonable up to a point, there is a continuing demand for unskilled and semi-skilled labor. Our factories may have more and more robots scattered in among the workers and typewriters may have been replaced by desktop computers, but there is still a need within our economy for workers with limited skills, but good habits, workers who will be in their assigned place on time and who will follow orders without question, workers who are not stifled to the point of ineffectiveness by jobs that are repetitive and boring. Although there is always room for improvement, our economy seems to be doing reasonably well. There may be some structural unemployment as a result of the rapid pace of technological change, however, a bit of skepticism seems to be in order when employers bemoan the lack of qualified workers and then lay off workers with college degrees and/or years of experience in the process of “downsizing” to improve profitability.

Our system of public education is doing a fairly effective job of cranking out dull, uncritical individuals who will quietly accept their role as cogs in the machinery of our economy. A sufficient number of reasonably talented individuals are developing the skills and acquiring the knowledge needed to service the machines that are taking over the workplace. And a fortunate few are surviving their journey through our educational system with their curiosity intact. The work of this elite group continues to fuel the expansion of the frontiers of human knowledge. Much of that knowledge is applied to the marketplace. There are winners and losers, of course, but our overall level of material wealth is impressive. If the essential purpose of public education is to prepare our children for their role as workers, neither the low test scores of many students, nor the elements of coercion and control that dominate our present system of public education, need trouble us too greatly.

On the other hand, if we are attempting to prepare students for the role of citizens in a democracy, we should be greatly concerned about our present approach to education. Effective citizenship requires the acquisition of a broad base of knowledge and the development of the critical thinking skills necessary to make informed decisions. We are in grave danger of seeing the electoral process in our country turned into a political version of “The Jerry Springer Show.” The ability to listen to, or read, opinions that are contrary to our own, with an eye toward understanding the perspectives of others, has always been rare. Today, open-minded individuals, capable of considering a range of viewpoints before formulating an opinion on public issues, are rapidly becoming an endangered species.

Developing the skills necessary for informed participation in civic affairs is a lengthy and difficult process. Students must be given frequent opportunities to read and discuss opposing viewpoints related to a variety of contemporary issues. Furthermore, they need opportunities to engage in authentic decision-making. Students are almost never involved in the decision-making process within a school, even when those decisions impact their own schooling experience. Our schools are administered in a bureaucratic, top-down manner, with students on the bottom level of the pyramid . It is difficult to acquire the skills necessary for informed participation in civic affairs within a dictatorial environment. They are much more likely to be fully developed in an environment that encourages freedom of thought and allows students to be meaningfully involved in the government of their schools.

When considering the purpose of public education, we must also weigh the public good, as opposed to the private good, of various missions. Our nation as a whole should benefit from schools that are funded with tax revenues, particularly considering the fact that a sizeable percentage of those revenues are generated from levies on people who have no children enrolled in school. On an individual basis, the financial benefits of staying in school and getting good grades are beyond dispute. There is a strong correlation between income and level of education. Money, in and of itself, is a powerful incentive to develop job-related skills. Students whose educational focus is on enhancing their marketable skills, and the businesses and industries that will profit from their labors, should pay for the cost of classes that are directly related to preparation for the job market. There is also some benefit to our nation as a whole, in having each individual acquire the skills needed to succeed in the workplace. As the percentage of the population properly prepared for gainful employment increases, crime and violence decrease and productivity increases. Still, taxing all members of our society so that some individuals can get better-paying jobs, is an approach that could be questioned and challenged.

As a nation, we will derive a much greater benefit from doing a better job of preparing our children for their role as citizens. If more voters are capable of informed participation, we are more likely to elect public officials who will rule wisely. We will all enjoy the benefits of better government. Taxing everybody, including individuals with no children enrolled in public schools, is therefore, much more justifiable, if effective citizenship is the primary mission of public education. Furthermore, the critical thinking, problem-solving, and communication skills acquired as part of a liberal arts education in a democratic school environment also prepare students for any type of job training. (This is important in a society where workers may change jobs and careers a number of times during a lifetime.) An education focused almost exclusively on preparation for the job market, does not include the skills and knowledge needed for effective citizenship.

The character of our society is greatly affected by the attitude toward learning of the populace. A narrow focus on vocational goals has blinded students (as well as parents, educators, and legislators) to the value of being well-educated in a broad sense of the term. Although we claim to value education, the truth of the matter is that we have come to view education as nothing more than a ticket to a good paying job. Although most of the adult members of our society have the skills needed to engage in life-long learning, the inclination to do so is extremely rare. Very few of us survive our journey through the present educational system with our love of learning intact. If we are to be a well-educated society, citizens of all ages must not only be capable of self-directed learning, they must also be motivated to pursue learning opportunities without being compelled to do so. The primary mission of our schools should be to develop an educated and informed citizenry capable of, and interested in, active participation in civic affairs.

Excerpt from:
Edutopia: A Manifesto for the Reform of Public Education

Motivation and Learning

2008-01-20T01:52:00.000-08:00

The heart of the problem with our present system of public education is discussed in a section of A Nation at Risk that has never been widely published or commented upon. The report included the following message to students (a message few students, parents, educators, or politicians have ever seen or read):

You forfeit your chance for life at its fullest when you withhold your best effort in learning. When you give only the minimum to learning, you receive only the minimum in return. Even with your parents' best example and your teachers' best efforts, in the end it is your work that determines how much and how well you learn. When you work to your full capacity, you can hope to attain the knowledge and skills that will enable you to create your future and control your destiny. If you do not, you will have your future thrust upon you by others. Take hold of your life, apply your gifts and talents, work with dedication and self-discipline. Have high expectations for yourself and convert every challenge into an opportunity.

Very few students work to their “full capacity" or "with dedication and self-discipline" within our present system of public education. Most students seem to view learning as an unpleasant task - a chore to be completed as quickly as possible so that they can get back to more enjoyable activities. Many students do not have the benefit of parents who provide the "best example." Some teachers do not put forth their "best efforts." These problems are critical and must be addressed, but in doing so, we must not lose sight of the fact that, ultimately, it is the effort put forth by each individual student that determines "how much and how well" she or he learns.

Effective learning requires the active involvement of the learner. Even relatively "passive" forms of learning, such as listening to a lecture or watching a videotape, require the mental involvement, and to some extent the physical involvement, of the student. In order to learn effectively, a student must be paying attention to the source of instruction (the speaker, videotape, etc.), concentrating on and thinking about what is being said and/or shown. When a student is having trouble understanding any part of a lesson, she or he must ask questions.

There is a direct relationship between the amount of time and the quality of the effort a student devotes to learning and the achievement level of that student. Students who are motivated to learn will learn more, learn more efficiently, retain more of what they learn, and ultimately attain a much higher level of achievement than students who are doing little more than going through the motions.

Finding more effective means of motivating students to consistently put forth their best effort in learning is the key! Nearly all of the problems and shortcomings of our present system of public education are related in some way to the central problem of a lack of motivation on the part of many students to learn what is being taught. We must identify, understand, and address the factors within our schools, our families, and our society that contribute to the fact that very few students consistently put forth their “best effort in learning.”

Understanding the nature of the motivation to learn and why some students are more motivated than others, is a complex matter. Myriad combinations of a number of variables affect the degree to which students are motivated. Within the parameters of public education, the most important factors are: a lack of interest in what is being taught, improper placement, mediocre instruction, a lack of appreciation for the intrinsic value of being well-educated, and the institutional environment within schools. To further complicate matters, the relative importance of each of these factors varies from student to student and may also change over time.

Excerpt from:
Edutopia: A Manifesto for the Reform of Public Education

Our Nation's Children At Risk

2008-01-20T01:46:00.000-08:00

The fact that the schooling experience of many students contributes to a diminished interest in learning is a matter that should be of great and immediate concern to all of us who care about our children and the future of our country. The failure of our schools is typically measured in terms of the things our students don't know and the dismal performance of our students on standardized tests, especially as compared to students in other industrialized nations.

While it is indeed lamentable that a substantial percentage of our students emerge from thirteen years of education with little knowledge and few skills to show for their efforts, the most basic failure of our schools does not lie in the things our children do not learn, but rather in one thing that far too many students do appear to learn. They come to associate “learning” with school and to believe that learning is a boring, tedious process that has little, if any, intrinsic value.

That is a very damaging misconception. There is a great deal of value in being well-educated, and the benefits go well beyond the size of the paycheck one can eventually earn as a result of a diploma or degree. The educational experiences of students should be structured to work in harmony with our natural curiosity. If we allow students the freedom to learn what they want to learn, or recognize a legitimate reason to learn, we could eliminate or minimize the elements of compulsion and control that tend to diminish students’ motivation to learn.

Some people will argue that students will not learn as much if they are given the freedom to direct their own learning. With some students this might be true. However, as long as an individual maintains an inquisitive nature, growth and development continue, gaps in knowledge can be closed, and missteps or mistakes can be overcome. (In many cases, we may even learn from our mistakes.) When the motivation to learn is diminished or destroyed, realizing the goal of a happy and productive life can be considerably more difficult. Our schools should be actively nurturing our love of learning. At the very least our schools should not be run in a manner that contributes in any way to a diminished desire to learn.

Excerpt from:
Edutopia: A Manifesto for the Reform of Public Education

Societal Influences

2008-01-20T01:43:00.000-08:00

Our schools do not operate in a vacuum. Some of the catalysts for the lack of interest in schooling evident in many students fall outside the domain of our educational institutions. While addressing these concerns may not be the responsibility of public education, our schools can help to draw attention to, and increase awareness of, the effect of societal factors on students.

The percentage of high school students who work during the school year has increased dramatically in recent years. Some of them work because their families need the extra income, but in most cases they are working for “spending money,” to keep their wardrobe up-to-date, or to support a car. We live in a materialistic and consumption-oriented society. Billions of dollars are spent every year convincing us that we “need” things we don’t really need and that we need them right now, not at some point in the distant future. Furthermore, even the things we already own are considered to be “obsolete” the moment a newer version of the same product becomes available.

Teenagers are not immune to the effects of the barrage of advertising, much of it specifically directed at them, promoting the idea of having it all and having it now. Many teenagers are mortified at the thought of being forced to go to school in anything but the latest fashions. How can we expect a teenager to get by with a Nintendo 54, when a Sony Play Station offers superior graphics? And what good is a Play Station, once Play Station 2s are available? Every self-respecting teen wants his or her own car to drive, and wants it to be nicer and newer than the cars the other kids at school are driving. After all, don’t we, as a society, compete with (and judge) each other on the basis of, the cars we drive, the clothes we wear, the things we own, and the amount of money we earn? There was a time, a generation or two ago, when owning a new car and accumulating material possessions was typically deferred until one left school and began working full-time. That time has passed.

After World War II, to avoid having our economy lapse back into depression, we made a concerted effort to keep teenagers out of the job market. Keeping them in school longer helped to accomplish that goal. Now, while most parents and educators continue to encourage students to stay in school, some business owners are actively recruiting them to work during the school year. The fast-food industry, movie theaters, retail stores, and many other employers, rely on students working evenings and week-ends.

Students who work twenty or thirty hours per week (or more), while attending school full time, cannot possibly devote the amount of time and attention to school work that is necessary to perform at the level we claim to expect. Their lack of achievement in school often comes back to haunt them. Six or seven dollars an hour provides a lot of spending money for teens who are still living at home and not expected to contribute any of their wages to the family budget. Trying to live on that amount after you leave home is a completely different manner.

Play, as well as work, has contributed to a decline in the performance of students. School-age children and young adults today select from a cornucopia of entertainment options only recently available. Once upon a time there were three television networks dividing up the viewing day into programs designed to appeal to different age groups, with most of the programming aimed at children limited to a few hours each afternoon and Saturday mornings. Today, the number of channels seems to increase daily. Programming aimed at school-age viewers is available twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, and very little of it is educational. Playing video games, watching movies on videotape or DVDs, and listening to music on headphones, are also popular entertainment options. The Internet, which began as a research tool for universities, has evolved into a marketplace and a source of entertainment. Many school-age youngsters spend a considerable amount of time on-line. Little, if any, of that time is spent in educational activities.

An increase in recreational drug use has also contributed to the lackluster performance of some students. Smoking marijuana has been shown to have an adverse effect on memory. Altered states of consciousness typically impair the ability to concentrate. Drug use also affects the motivation to learn. Students who use drugs are less likely to attend school regularly or devote time to schoolwork outside of class. It is not merely a coincidence that scores on standardized tests began to decline at the very moment in our nation’s history when the use of marijuana and other mind-altering drugs became much more commonplace.

As a result of these enticing alternatives, most young people spend less time reading. People who don’t spend much time reading tend to be poor readers. Students who read poorly tend to have difficulty with schoolwork, since (despite our best efforts to accommodate “non-readers”) reading with comprehension is still the key to academic success. We are not likely to turn back the hands of time. On the other hand, our educational system, if it were operating more efficiently and providing students with a better education, could have a positive impact on our culture. We could help students consider the consequences of rampant materialism, the use of mind-altering drugs, the over-valuation of being entertained, and the under-valuation of education.

Excerpt from:
Edutopia: A Manifesto for the Reform of Public Education

Altering Students' Perception of Learning

2008-01-20T01:39:00.000-08:00

When these variables combine to lead a significant percentage of students to “withhold [their] best effort in learning,” it is not only the students themselves who suffer. Our present system of public education is not effectively serving the interests of students, parents, or society. The basic assumptions of the system are flawed. We are attempting to force children to learn and/or coerce them into learning, instead of harnessing the power of their natural curiosity.

What little success we do achieve with the present system comes at a steep price. Students become so focused on grades and points that they fail to develop an appreciation for the intrinsic value of being well-educated. Their natural desire to learn often gets lost in the process. We need to rise to the challenge of constructing an educational system that promotes and nurtures the devotion to learning that is an essential ingredient in a good education and a prerequisite for life-long learning.

For the most part, students seem unconvinced of the need to alter their behavior or attitude. With few exceptions, they seem blissfully unaware of the fact that our educational system is considered to be in a state of crisis. They are extremely complacent about their own educational progress, however meager that progress might be. Realizing significant improvements in student achievement will be impossible unless we succeed in changing the attitudes of students toward school and learning.

Altering students’ perceptions and modifying their behavior can only be accomplished through the enactment of meaningful reforms. We will not achieve significant improvements with superficial changes or by simply encouraging students and teachers to try harder within the present system. All of the reports, books, articles, goals, aims, objectives, and mission statements in the world will have little effect on student performance if we can not convince the intended beneficiaries of the system (and its primary participants) to devote more time and greater effort to learning.

We must reexamine the philosophical foundations of our public education system. We must enact reforms that offer meaningful alternatives to those students who are not being well-served by the present system. At the same time, we must remember that there are students and parents who are happy with the system that is in place. Even if they are offered meaningful alternatives, some students, perhaps even a majority of students, would choose to follow the same basic course of study that is mandated for students at the present time. An educational program consisting of the current comprehensive approach found at the vast majority of American high schools should continue to be one of the basic choices offered to students and their parents. There is nothing in the reform proposals that follow that would force any student or parent to accept changes with which they disagree. Those students and parents who prefer the status quo would be free to continue with our present approach to schooling.

The reforms proposed herein can be divided into four basic categories: Providing a full range of meaningful alternatives to students and parents who are not satisfied with, and do not feel well-served by the present system, improving the quality of instruction, eliminating practices that result in students being promoted beyond their ability to do the work expected of them, and restructuring the governance system within our schools to give students, parents, and teachers a more active role.

These reforms are based on three self-evident truths: We learn most effectively when we are learning something we want to learn, or recognize a need to learn. There is intrinsic value in being well-educated. The primary mission of public education should be the development of the skills necessary for informed participation in civic affairs.

Excerpt from:
Edutopia: A Manifesto for the Reform of Public Education

Reform Proposal: Reduce the Number of Required Classes and the Number of Standards and Objectives Within Classes

2008-01-20T01:31:00.000-08:00

Every adult likes to be respected and enjoys being given responsibility. Truly controlling one's own destiny is a powerful attraction. Adolescents are no different from us in this respect. Therefore, set them a clear goal, give them some sensible guidance...and put the burden of learning on them. Such responsibility will liberate energy now lost because of the impersonality and the patronizing inherent in the lock-step approach of many schools. - Theodore Sizer

We learn most efficiently when we are learning something we want to learn, or recognize a genuine need to learn. The myriad elements of compulsion within our present system of public education stand in direct conflict with this simple reality. Within the normal school day, so much time is absorbed by meeting externally imposed requirements that students rarely, if ever, have the opportunity to pursue topics of personal interest. While it is true that talented educators can stimulate interest on the part of students, self-directed learning, fueled by curiosity, is a considerably more reliable means of promoting effective learning.

The best way to provide students with more time for self-directed learning, is to reduce the number of required classes and the number of requirements to be met within each class. Although there are some “reformers” who favor lengthening the school day and/or the school year, considering the nature of the problems within public education, “more of the same” is not the answer. An over-abundance of required courses and mandated standards and objectives within courses, combined with an emphasis on preparing students to do well on standardized tests, can only result in a standardized education. That is not a satisfactory approach to the education of free individuals in a diverse and democratic nation.

Mandated standards fall into two categories - content standards and process standards. Content standards are related to specific subject matter knowledge. Process standards measure a student’s ability to gather, process, and utilize information, and to communicate effectively. Proficiency with regard to process standards can be demonstrated with topics chosen by students, without regard to specific academic departments. Depending on the nature of the topic a student has selected, a single project could include content knowledge and process skills from any combination of the core subject areas - Social Studies, Language Arts, Mathematics, and Science.

Content standards and the objectives related to them are subject-matter specific. They represent "essential" knowledge (in the opinions of the various educational "experts" who have served on the committees charged with writing them). In the process of developing content standards, there is a tendency for the educators on a committee to readily indulge each other with regard to what constitutes “essential” knowledge. By the time each member of a committee has tacked on his or her treasured bits of information, the list of mandated content standards is typically long enough to consume all of a student’s time within a course.

Developing an objective means of assessing the degree to which a student has met content standards is relatively simple. In most cases, a series of multiple-choice questions, with right and wrong answers, will suffice. Process standards do not lend themselves so readily to objective assessment. While a panel of educators may be capable of achieving some reasonable level of agreement with regard to the quality of expository writing, educational displays, videos, or other means of demonstrating the skills involved with process standards, a certain degree of subjectivity is inherent in judging these types of products. Thus it is difficult, if not impossible, to devise a standardized test to measure mastery with regard to process standards. Although an effort is made to test both content and process standards, content standards tend to dominate most test instruments. The old chestnut - that not everything worth knowing can be tested and not everything that can be tested is worth knowing - applies here. Process standards involve skills that are critical for life-long learning and effective citizenship, yet we allow content standards and objectives to dominate instruction in most schools.

In the case of state-sponsored standards, the degree to which students have mastered the objectives or met the standards is often determined by means of a standardized test. The results of these tests are often cited as a means of comparing the effectiveness of various school districts, schools, and even individual teachers. As a result, most school administrators and teachers take the tests very seriously. Students are expected to devote a significant amount of time and effort to mastering objectives related to the bits of knowledge that are likely to be tested.

While the content standards and objectives that have been adopted throughout the nation represent knowledge that has some value and may be worth acquiring, it is important to understand that very little of what is mandated is truly "essential" in any meaningful sense of the term. Throughout history people have managed to lead happy and productive lives without knowing how to solve a quadratic equation or being familiar with the works of Shakespeare.

Every adult member of our society knows full well that, as adults, we make little or no use of much of what we learned in school and that, as a result, many of the skills we develop atrophy, and much of the detailed knowledge we are forced to learn, quickly fades from our memories.

While there is a great deal of intrinsic value in being well-educated, the memorization and regurgitation of isolated facts hardly qualifies as a good education. A brief review of the required classes that are included in the typical high school curriculum, and some consideration of the degree to which each of these requirements are truly essential, will indicate the possibilities for reducing requirements and allowing students to direct more of their own learning without sacrificing the quality of the education acquired by students.

Most high schools require two or more years of math - which typically includes algebra and geometry, at a minimum, and sometimes trigonometry and calculus, as well. Outside of the classroom very few students are called upon to utilize any but the most basic math skills.

Knowing how to add, subtract, multiply, and divide, and how to work with fractions and percentages are useful skills. Functioning independently in modern society requires the ability to balance your checkbook and to complete, or at least understand, your tax returns. Other skills requiring a basic understanding of math also come in handy, for example, being able to compute the cost per unit of items in the grocery store, or to measure ingredients while cooking or baking.
On the other hand, the vast majority of individuals in our society make no use whatsoever of the concepts and processes that are taught in advanced math classes.

Our nation needs individuals who are gifted in math and science in order to maintain our position as a leading economic and military power. A relative handful of talented mathematicians and scientists have made the discoveries and done the work that has kept us at the forefront of the technological revolution. Individuals with the potential to contribute to scientific and technological progress, tend to be self-motivated. They do not need to be required to learn. They may, in some cases, need financial assistance to pursue post-secondary studies. It is in our national interest to see that individuals who are blessed with the ability to expand the frontiers of human knowledge be given the opportunity, and the financial support if needed, to fully develop their abilities. More than anything, they need as much time as possible to engage in projects and activities generated by their own curiosity.

Many of the most interesting and best-paying jobs in our economy require advanced math skills. This type of work is challenging and stimulating, and tends to be amply rewarded, both in financial terms and in terms of job satisfaction. It is certainly in the best interest of an individual with the potential to meet the requirements of these jobs to fully develop his or her mathematical abilities.

On the other hand, there are some students who struggle with math, no matter how hard they try. We do not need every member of our society to develop the skills, or acquire the knowledge, needed to be a rocket scientist. There is no rational justification for forcing youngsters who have not been able to master basic math skills to take advanced courses in mathematics. A student who has great difficulty mastering basic concepts is never going to succeed in advanced classes where basic skills and knowledge are prerequisites. They are not likely to find themselves involved in a career or occupation requiring the knowledge or skills gained in higher level courses. Forcing them to take such courses is not only unnecessary, it is cruel.

Science classes should focus on process standards. The most important objective in science is an understanding of scientific methods. This understanding can be developed by allowing students to utilize scientific methods as they conduct experiments and study self-selected topics. They should be encouraged to report results and share what they have learned with other students. In this way students will learn from one another, developing their communication skills in the process. Qualified instructors should be available to advise students as they design and conduct experiments. Adequate supervision would be necessary in some cases, to avoid dangerous or harmful unintended effects.

We should entice, rather than force, students to study science. Students should have the opportunity to attend lectures, labs, and demonstrations, but attendance should not be mandatory. Videos should be available for students to view individually, or in groups, with a teacher available to lead a discussion of the video or to answer questions, if called upon to do so. Any individual with a shred of curiosity will be able to find plenty of food for thought within the broad subject matter of science.

The natural focus of English/Language Arts classes is also process skills. Increased proficiency in communication skills is both an integral part of becoming well-educated, and one of the most important benefits of a good education. Any person involved in the process of getting a liberal arts education should be reading and writing continually, and doing so under the tutelage of a qualified instructor is beneficial for most students. The typical requirement of three or four years of Language Arts instruction is, therefore, not particularly onerous.

The problem in Language Arts courses, is that we fail to take advantage of the freedom, inherent in process standards, to allow students to decide what to read, or to select the topics about which to write. Most of the books, short stories, and poems that are to be read and discussed by students are selected by teachers or committees of teachers. Typically an entire class reads the same selections at the same time. If the reading is done during class time, the entire class reads the material at the same pace. The teacher then lectures about, and/or leads the class in a discussion of, what has been read.

There are three serious flaws in this approach. First, no matter what reading selections are assigned to a class, they are not likely to be of interest to all of the students in the class. Secondly, some students might need more time to read (or perhaps re-read) the selections in order to understand them, while others will not. Finally, discussing what has been read is critical to deriving as much meaning as possible from a reading selection, but the typical high school English class has far too many students to facilitate the active participation of all of the students in a discussion. In most classroom discussions only a few students participate actively and enthusiastically. A few more participate if called upon by the teacher. Many students only listen. A few may not even bother to do that.

The primary improvement we could make with regard to Language Arts requirements would be to allow students more freedom to select the books they read and the topics about which to write. This could be done within each English course or by offering a variety of courses focusing on different areas of literature and different types of writing. We should develop lists of recommended readings. We should encourage students to contribute suggestions of their own to these lists and to write short reviews in the process. We should allow groups of four to eight students to select a reading and then lead them in a discussion of the material. Students should be guided through the process of conducting a discussion - learning to formulate questions and select ideas and concepts within a reading selection that they would like to discuss - so that they could engage in meaningful discussions on their own.

Self-directed learning is often difficult or impossible without the ability to read challenging materials with a reasonable degree of comprehension. Many young people today do not read anything beyond what they are required to read in school. In some cases, they are unwilling or unable to do even that amount of reading. Reading aversion is a serious affliction and it is a growing problem. Many students are caught in a vicious cycle. Since they do not read well, they do not like to read. Since they do not like to read, they rarely do. Since they do not read regularly, they do not read well. Requiring them to struggle through materials that do not address their needs, and that they do not enjoy, only reinforces their negative perceptions of reading. If we hope to help them break out of this cycle, we need to help them find books and magazines that match their interests, leaving the final selection to them. That is the most effective way to develop and nurture a genuine appreciation for reading.

The freedom to select topics to write about is even more important. It is difficult enough to write well when you care about what you are writing. The writing process can be excruciating when you have no interest in the subject matter. If students are allowed to select their own topics, they are much more likely to invest the amount of time and effort needed to develop the ability to communicate effectively in writing.

Coaching is the critical form of instruction related to writing. When students have taken the time to write an essay, poem, story, or paper, they deserve much more feedback than a few brief comments and/or letter grades on a paper, when it is returned to them. Teachers should provide constructive criticism in a one-on-one session with each student who is interested in developing his or her writing skills. On the other hand, students who want nothing more than a grade, should be given nothing more than a grade. If students do not wish to be graded, they should not be graded.

Humans are social animals. We want to communicate with one another. If we hope to cure students of reading aversion and nurture a love of reading, we must make the reading process enjoyable and/or thought-provoking. Giving them more freedom to select topics to read and write about is the surest means of accomplishing this important objective.

We must also eliminate the arbitrary division of learning into math, science, language arts, and social studies. Intra-disciplinary projects and assignments should be encouraged. We should encourage students to select topics to study that include various combinations of any or all of these disciplines. If students are being graded, they should be awarded credit in all of the classes related to a project. Teachers from the relevant departments should work together to providing coaching or other assistance, as needed or requested. While Language Arts teachers may focus more specifically on developing communication skills, reading and writing effectively is important across the curriculum.

The social sciences address most directly the goal of helping students develop the skills and acquire the knowledge needed to function as an informed citizen in a democracy. It is in our common interest as a nation to promote an understanding of, and appreciation for, the values and ideals that are necessary for democratic government to be effective. The social sciences are also the most logical place to address the task of socializing individuals. An understanding of the “social contract,” including both our rights and the limits on those rights, can be learned through encounters with the police and the judicial system, but our schools offer a less expensive and less painful way to learn these same lessons. Even with these vital tasks to be accomplished, there is considerable room to reduce requirements.

At most schools, history classes dominate the Social Studies curriculum. As a result, the primary contacts of most students with the social sciences are long, slow, forced marches through history, memorizing names, dates, and isolated bits and pieces of knowledge along the way. Most students are introduced to both world history and American history in the upper elementary grades. At the middle school (junior high) level and/or in high school they are required to take classes in both world and American history again. Students who go on to college after high school are often required to take survey courses in history yet again. A survey course in history can be helpful in providing a framework for understanding the chronology of the development of the modern world and the human race, but instead of forcing students to repeat this journey, albeit at a somewhat more complex level, two or three times, we should pick an appropriate age for a single pass through the history of the world, with a particular emphasis on American history as part of the course. This would allow more time for other courses within the social sciences that have more relevance to the lives of students.

While history offers some valuable lessons, a history course is not the only way to learn those lessons. Examining contemporary problems in courses such as Economics and Government frequently involves examining how those problems have been addressed in the past. Most of the important political and economic issues we deal with have a long history. When placed in the context of contemporary issues, the lessons that history has to offer often seem considerably more relevant. Comparative studies of political and economic systems should include frequent opportunities for students to discuss and debate issues of interest to them.

Psychology and Sociology are typically offered as electives, if they are offered at all. Psychology courses help explain why people think, act, and feel the way they do. Comparative studies of cultures and religions can nurture an appreciation for diversity, as well as providing students with an opportunity to examine their own values and beliefs. The dominance of history courses in the social science curriculum leaves little room for the study of these other disciplines. Many high school students would undoubtedly find some of the topics covered in elective courses very interesting and relevant to their own lives.

We would be well-advised to shift our emphasis away from the study of inert knowledge that characterizes most history courses and toward process standards within the broad range of social studies topics. Fully developing the skills needed for informed and effective participation in civic affairs is considerably more difficult than most people realize. Spouting opinions is easy, reasoned consideration of a variety of viewpoints is much harder. Anyone can shout down someone with whom they disagree, or engage in name-calling. It doesn’t require any special skill to simply contend that the person with whom you disagree is wrong, simply because you are “right.” Listening carefully and patiently to the ideas and opinions of people with a point of view that is in conflict with your own is much more difficult.

We need citizens who are capable of disagreeing reasonably, who can discuss and debate an issue in a rational manner. People with these skills are rare in our society. The ranting, raving, and name-calling that dominates many of the “talk shows” on television and radio, purporting to provide a discussion of civic issues represent a serious threat to democracy. Our schools should take a leading role in providing an effective antidote to the venom that is spewed on these types of programs.

The give and take of a well-moderated discussion is an excellent way to develop critical thinking and communication skills. Students should be exposed to, and given the opportunity to participate in, reasoned debates on a regular basis. Social Studies classes are a logical place for these discussions to take place. Here again, the element of compulsion is not necessary. By sponsoring forums and debates (open to the community, as well as to students) and ensuring that they are conducted in a civilized manner, our schools could accomplish what is needed in this regard. We should allow students to select the issues and topics they wish to study and discuss, as well as the forums they wish to attend.

Beyond the core academic subjects, high schools typically require students to take a number of other classes including physical education, fine and performing arts, foreign languages, etc. These requirements should be eliminated entirely. We don’t need to require students to participate in sports, sing or play music, receive art lessons, or learn “practical” skills. If we provide them with the opportunity to engage in these activities, nearly all of them will do so of their own volition.

We should organize intramural leagues in various sports, open up the swimming pool at schools that have one, let students join a choir or band, give them access to instruction in the fine and performing arts, and let them enjoy these activities without being coerced into participating.

The educational opportunities we offer should be available upon demand rather than presented as a series of demands. There is a world of difference between encouraging students to take a class and requiring them to take a class. There are only so many hours in a school day. Reducing the number of required classes and mandated standards is an absolute necessity if we are going to allow students more time for self-directed learning. This does not mean that students will be left on their own. Effective guidance from teachers, counselors, and parents should be available and students should be encouraged to take advantage of such guidance, but ultimately the choices regarding what to study at a given time should be left to individual students. Allowing students the freedom to direct their own course of study is the key to nurturing the love of learning that is an essential component of effective and efficient learning.

With freedom comes responsibility. Minimizing the number of required courses and mandated objectives would shift a considerable amount of responsibility from teachers and administrators to students and their parents. Students have grown accustomed to being told what to learn. They will need time to adjust to a system that lets them make important decisions about the nature of their educational experiences. At Summerhill, Neill noticed that new students went through a period of “lesson aversion” and that there was a direct relationship between the length of that period and the degree to which a particular student had come to hate school and learning.

There are certain to be some students, particularly students who are already in middle or high school, who will be unable to make the adjustment. It is even more likely that, at least initially, few parents will have enough faith in their children to allow them to participate in a Summerhill-type program. As mentioned previously, parents would have the option of keeping their children in a more structured program. That does not alter the fact that students who are self-motivated, who are able to handle the responsibilities that come with freedom, and who are truly interested in becoming well-educated, should be given considerably more latitude to direct their own learning. We should allow those parents, teachers, and students who believe in freedom the opportunity to demonstrate that coercion and compulsion are not necessary components of the educational process.

We should focus on process standards, rather than content standards. Educators have always debated, and will always debate about, what knowledge and which skills are most essential, but even if we could temporarily reach a consensus on the matter, the fact that our knowledge is constantly expanding, combined with the limits imposed by time, precludes a final resolution to the discussion and debate about what students should know and what they should be able to do. As we continue to add to our knowledge, and as history continues to unfold, the choices about what should be taught can only become more and more difficult. This will be the case regardless of whether it is students, parents, teachers, or curriculum writers making the choices.

Reducing the number of required courses and requirements within courses will not alter the fact that life has a tendency to impose requirements of its own. Our focus should be on helping students learn how to learn. People who know how to gather and process needed information, have the ability to acquire the additional skills and knowledge that prove to be truly "essential" as they live their lives.

Excerpt from:
Edutopia: A Manifesto for the Reform of Public Education

Reform Proposal: Offer Different Types of Diplomas or Certificates to Accurately Represent Different Levels of Achievement

2008-01-20T01:28:00.001-08:00

The clash between the conflicting goals of excellence and inclusion reaches its climax with the awarding of diplomas. Academically talented students often cruise through high school, especially their senior year, earning good grades and a diploma almost effortlessly, falling far short of the degree of excellence they could attain with a full effort. Academically challenged students may put forth considerably more effort and still fail to meet stated standards and expectations.

Within our society there is a stigma attached to dropping out. As a result, students often face intense pressure to complete high school. Many teachers feel sorry for students with below-average abilities and pass them on the basis of “effort,” even if they have not mastered the objectives for a given grade or course. Some parents and students have come to regard a high school diploma as an entitlement. Schools and teachers often face intense pressure from parents to pass students along.

There should be requirements within any system that awards diplomas. The acquisition of a high school diploma should represent the attainment of a certain level of education. This is not the case under our present system. Graduates who have excelled are given the same certificate as students who perform at a much lower level.

As part of our attempt to see that every student graduates from high school, the de facto standards for a diploma have been lowered. We have awarded high school diplomas to so many poorly educated individuals that earning a high school diploma has been rendered nearly meaningless. In response to this situation there has been a movement to raise standards. In reality, actually expecting all students to meet the standards that are already in place would represent “higher standards” for many students.

Anyone who professes to believe that we can simultaneously raise standards and lower the drop-out rate is either out of touch with reality or speaking rhetorically. When you raise standards, you increase the likelihood that students who are unwilling or unable to meet the higher standards will drop out. On the other hand, allowing students to move from grade to grade in elementary school, when they have not met the standards for that grade level, or to receive credit for classes in high school when they have not mastered the objectives related to that class, may decrease the drop-out rate, but represents a lowering of standards, even if the published standards remain high.

Maintaining high standards can be effective and productive in cases where the higher standards motivate and challenge students who are capable of meeting the challenge. Raising standards is a cruel practice when it punishes students with below average ability for failing to achieve what is, for them, impossible.

The solution to this dilemma is to award various types of certificates and diplomas representing different levels of learning. A portfolio of each student’s work, demonstrating their level of mastery with regard to process standards should be evaluated by a panel of teachers. A standardized exit exam should provide an objective basis for assessing mastery of content standards. Various types of diplomas and certificates could then be awarded based on each student’s overall performance.

The "elementary" portion of a student's education should culminate with the awarding of a "Basic Skills Certificate," which would indicate the fact that the student had achieved the basic levels of literacy and numeracy necessary to function independently, as well as to succeed in high school. At the high school level we should allow students to work toward a diploma representing the completion of a program similar to the present curriculum, a program similar to the present one, but with fewer required subjects, or to earn a college preparatory diploma by completing a more rigorous course of study designed to meet the entrance requirements of colleges and universities. Students should also have the option, during the regular school day, of taking classes designed to help them pass the exam for a General Equivalency Diploma (GED) without taking any more classes than necessary to do so successfully. Students who attend classes regularly, but who are unable to meet the standards set for a diploma because of learning disabilities should be awarded a “certificate of completion.”

Many schools and school districts already offer some of these alternatives. If a student successfully completes a course of study that includes the courses recommended or required by most colleges, a stamp or seal is placed on their diploma or transcript certifying that they are adequately prepared for college. The G. E. D. is already an option for students who drop out of regular high school programs. By offering different types of diplomas representing different levels of achievement we could legitimize and maintain the value of each type of diploma, while offering students a much broader range of meaningful choices with regard to formal education. Under such a system, students of varying abilities would all be motivated to put forth their “best effort.”

Excerpt from:
Edutopia: A Manifesto for the Reform of Public Education

Reform Proposal: Allow Students to Select Their Teachers

2008-01-20T01:24:00.000-08:00

The nature of the relationships between a student and his or her teachers has a great effect on that student’s attitude toward school, and on how well a student performs in a particular class. Genuine respect for a teacher on the part of a student makes the learning process a more positive experience. A series of problematic relationships with teachers can lead to a very negative attitude toward school and learning. Some students, who do quite well with some teachers, have problems with other teachers that interfere with the learning process.

A teacher has a great deal of control over the atmosphere in the classroom. Some teachers prefer, and some types of learning require, tightly controlled surroundings. Other teachers function quite well in a less structured setting. Some students need, or their parents prefer, the support that a rigid, disciplined classroom offers. Other students perform better in an environment that allows more freedom.

There are significant and honest differences of opinion among educators with regard to which educational approaches and instructional strategies are most effective. A particular technique or approach may work well with some students and not so well with others. Some people have been taught to read through the whole language approach, others have learned through the phonics method, and still others through a combination of the two methods. Some students work best in groups, others prefer to work independently. Some students learn very effectively from lectures and discussions, other students seem to benefit more from simulations, role-playing, or other alternative methods. Students who read poorly may need alternative approaches more than students who read well.

Just as learning styles vary from student to student, some teachers are more comfortable with, and/or more adept at utilizing, certain strategies and methods as opposed to others. Teachers should be free to employ the techniques they feel are most effective. Most teachers also have areas of expertise that may or may not match the interests or needs of a particular student.

It is very important to do everything possible to ensure a good match between the personality and learning style of a student and the personality and teaching style of a teacher. Students, with the consent of their parents, should be allowed to select the teachers with whom they want to work. This is done at the college level without noticeable problems. There will be practical limits to the range of choices that can be offered within a particular school, but we should offer students as much latitude as possible in making this important decision.

As long as teachers are assigning grades subjectively, some students would elect to take classes from teachers with a reputation for being less demanding. In some cases, parents might even side with their children in this regard. In that situation it is the student who is being short-changed. Little, if any, harm would come to the institution of public education from acquiescing in this matter.

Of course, this problem could be eliminated if grades were based, at least in part, on standardized test scores. Students would then have an incentive to select the teachers who could best help them master the material in a given subject area. By employing pre- and post-tests in each required subject and providing students and parents with information regarding the average improvement shown on the tests by groups of students as a result of working with a particular teacher, we could help students and parents make informed decisions. We would develop an effective evaluation tool for one aspect of a teacher’s performance in the process.

One potential flaw in this regard is that if standardized testing is the primary basis for assigning grades, there would be even more pressure on teachers to focus exclusively on the aspects of a course most likely to be tested. Concepts and topics beyond the minimum requirements enrich the quality of the education offered by our public schools. The best teachers are those who have the skill and knowledge to take students well beyond minimal expectations. This is another reason it is important to keep the list of standards and objectives to be tested as short as possible.

Considering the importance of the relationship between a student and his or her teachers, as well as the need to fundamentally alter students’ perception of school, the benefits of allowing students the opportunity to select their teachers far outweigh the risks.

Excerpt from:
Edutopia: A Manifesto for the Reform of Public Education

Reform Proposal: Allow Students (with the consent of their parents) To Elect Not to be Graded

2008-01-20T01:16:00.000-08:00

The philosophical foundation of our present approach to education is based on the assumption that students must be forced to learn and/or enticed into learning with a system of external rewards. This is a very damaging misconception. When we are learning something that we want to learn, or recognize a genuine need to learn, learning can be a joyous process.

It can also be an arduous process, but when we have a true interest in learning, we put forth the effort necessary. The satisfaction that comes from a job well done is usually greatest when learning requires a substantial effort. A good education is a valuable asset in the pursuit of happiness. If we do a better job helping students develop or retain a genuine appreciation for the intrinsic value of education, we will not need to rely on grades to motivate them to learn.

We are all quite familiar with the system of external rewards that is in place within our schools. Teachers award points and/or grades for each assignment, test, paper, or project. These points and grades are then averaged or combined in some way to determine a student’s grade for each grading period. In the short term, good grades may earn recognition and praise from the school and from teachers, as well as money or other rewards from parents. In the long term, a high grade point average, combined with high scores on college entrance exams, will help a student gain entry to a “good” college.

Students whose grade point average ranks near the top of their graduating class may also be awarded scholarships to help pay for college. Good grades from a good college will be rewarded with a good job, in other words, a job that rewards marketable knowledge and skills with higher pay and with duties which may be more varied and interesting than those associated with other jobs.

This system of external rewards is most effective when parents reinforce the school's actions with their own short-term rewards and punishments. Some students work harder to get good grades than they otherwise might because they receive money or other incentives from their parents. Positive reinforcement is more effective when the rewards are short-term and tangible.
At the other end of the spectrum, the most immediate concern of many students who receive bad grades is the anticipated reaction of their parents and the negative consequences that are likely to follow at home.

In response to this system of external rewards based on points and grades, most students do a number of things they might not otherwise be motivated to do. They listen to lectures they don't want to hear, read books they don't want to read, and watch videos they don't want to watch. They answer questions (generated by teachers, textbook authors, and test developers) that they have no real interest in answering.

This system is not without its merits. The long term pay-off of a more interesting career and a higher income is sufficient to get the majority of students to do what is expected of them. Despite occasional grumbling about the boring nature of the work assigned, the work gets done because the rewards offered at the end of this lengthy process are seen as tangible and worthwhile. In the process of doing what is required to earn diplomas and degrees, students are often surprised at some point to discover that the basic liberal arts education they have acquired is more valuable than they may have realized. While students are focused on earning points, grades, and the pieces of paper that certify them as being adequately prepared for entry into financially lucrative professions, they often become fairly well-educated.

This is a mutually beneficial arrangement for students, for teachers, and for our society. The students gain a greater understanding of themselves, other people, and the world we live in. Teachers benefit when students follow rules, participate in class, and complete assignments no matter how irrelevant or uninteresting the material involved may seem to them. In most cases, society gets reasonably skilled and productive workers, moderately capable citizens, and individuals who are effectively socialized.

There are, however, a number of problems with this system. One fundamental flaw is that grades are notoriously subjective. Standards and expectations vary considerably from one teacher to the next. Each teacher has his or her own method of awarding points and calculating grades. Everyone who has attended school knows that some classes and teachers are harder than others where grades are concerned. A student who takes difficult classes with teachers who set high standards may actually learn more and have more highly developed skills than another student with a higher grade point average who has taken less-demanding courses from less-demanding teachers. The ACT and SAT tests were developed in response to this very problem. Colleges and universities found that grades were not a reliable means of determining which students were best prepared for the academic rigors of a college education.

A second problem with the present grading system is the fact that the competitive aspects of the system are a primary factor in the diminution of the motivation to learn that is evident in the actions and attitudes of many students. In any competitive situation there are “winners” and “losers.” Not surprisingly, the individuals who win are more likely to enjoy competing, and to consider the rules of the game to be fair and reasonable. People who lose consistently are not likely to enjoy competing and eventually their interest in participating wanes. Academic competition is no exception.

The basic difference between the academic competition that takes place in our schools and many other forms of competition is that it is more difficult to avoid. Individuals who are not blessed with athletic ability tend to avoid participation in sports. People with little or no musical ability tend to avoid singing or playing an instrument. Compulsory attendance laws force students to attend school and non-participation within school is not an option in most cases. Furthermore, within our schools students are graded on nearly everything they do.

The academic playing field is not level. Just as some people are blessed with more athletic or musical ability than others, academic abilities vary significantly from one individual to the next. The abilities of a given individual can be improved with effort, but that does not alter the fact that success comes easier when you have a natural aptitude for a given activity. As much as some people might wish it were not so, the ability to learn is not equitably distributed.

There is a direct relationship between academic ability and the nature of the educational experience for students within the present evaluation system. Students with below-average academic ability often struggle to keep up and the fact that they are mastering the material at a slower rate than the rest of the class, if they are mastering it at all, is reflected in low, often failing, grades. For these students the classroom becomes a frustrating and demeaning place to be.

The problems of slower learners are often compounded by policies of social promotion and an aversion to ability grouping. Many students are promoted from grade to grade despite the fact that they have not mastered the basic skills necessary to succeed at the higher grade level. With each promotion, they slip further and further below grade level and doing the work expected of them becomes more and more difficult. Within each grade level any grouping of students on the basis of ability is often avoided because of the perception that "ability grouping" will stigmatize slower students. The students who are the supposed beneficiaries of these well-intentioned policies frequently find themselves in classes where their previous failures come back to haunt them and they have less and less hope of succeeding.

As long as there is some hope of graduating, these students may remain motivated by grades. They continue their often futile attempts to earn passing grades and to meet the requirements for graduation because they believe that getting a high school diploma will make it easier for them to get a decent job. In many cases this is a false hope. The grim reality is that even with a diploma, unless they possess marketable skills, the only positions available to them are likely to be low-paying, dead-end jobs.

Doing away with grades would erase the stigma of failure that often makes the process of getting an education a negative experience for students who are below average in terms of academic ability. These students might have a more positive attitude toward school and learning if they were not forced to suffer the humiliation of constantly being reminded of their lack of ability. If we stop using grades to label students as failures, we might be in a better position to help them understand and appreciate the value of working throughout their lives to discover and develop their talents. When realizing our full potential is the purpose of education, the only failure is to stop trying.

Our system of external incentives based on grades is kinder and gentler in some ways for students with above-average academic ability, but the destructive effects of competition are also evident within this group of students. They compete with each other with regard to rank in class, for scholarships and for admission to the most prestigious universities. The competition among these students can be intense. They know that ultimately they will be competing for the best jobs based, at least in part, on their academic record. At every step of the way there will be winners and losers. Someone will rank first in their graduating class, the others will fall short.

Some of these students will be accepted at the university of their choice, others will be forced to attend institutions that are less prestigious. Ultimately, when they compete for jobs, one person will be hired for each position. Some of our best and brightest students will be hired as the CEOs of major corporations, or be promoted to partner in prominent law firms, others will lose out. The consolation prizes may be more lucrative within the academic elite, but losing can be painful nonetheless.

Competition may be unavoidable in a market economy, but education is not, by its nature, a zero-sum game. It is not necessary for some students to learn less in order for others to learn more. Our schools do not need to divide students into “winners” and “losers.” Although limitations of space at a particular school, or legitimate prerequisites, may make it unrealistic for some students to enroll in certain classes, we should do our best to offer alternative opportunities of some sort to any student who wants to pursue additional knowledge related to topics and courses of study in which they are interested.

The grades associated with schoolwork are a primary source of stress in the lives of students. To a large extent that is by design. While we offer the adult members of our society tips on how to avoid stress, there are times when we deliberately place students in stressful situations to see how they will respond. Particularly at the college level, many departments have “gateway courses” designed to weed out those with less aptitude in a given field. At the high school level, grades are no longer used quite as openly as they once were to “track” students into various courses of study - college prep for some, vocational classes for others - but they are still the primary means by which our schools provide a “sorting function” which is both insensitive and unnecessary. Life does a pretty good job of sorting us out, without any help from the grading system that is in place within our public schools.

Whatever sorting is necessary or unavoidable can be accomplished outside a system of grades in school. As mentioned above, the SAT and ACT tests are more effective than grades as a means of determining which students are best prepared for higher education. In the competition for jobs, tests and other forms of evaluation can be utilized when necessary to determine whether or not an individual is qualified for a particular job. Certain vocations do require abilities that not all of us possess. If the Human Resources departments of various companies are operating efficiently, the most qualified person for each position will be hired.

In a market economy, the marketplace operates with the ruthless efficiency of the law of the jungle to determine who wins or loses in the competition for jobs and income. Some abilities have more economic value than others. In a society that is often guilty of judging people by their occupation and income level, we do not need to use grades to pour salt on the wounds our children suffer prior to their entry into the workforce. Students know when they are struggling. Issuing report cards regularly and relentlessly to notify them (and their parents) that they have failed is a cruel practice. While parents deserve to be informed of the educational progress of their children, there are more constructive means of providing that information. Our schools should be helping students fully develop their gifts and talents, not labeling them as “failures.”

A closely related problem with using grades as the primary means of motivating students is that some students are not motivated by grades. Some students are simply not interested in the subjects and topics being taught in school. Others are simply lazy. In many cases, however, non-motivated students are masking a history of failure by no longer attempting to succeed academically. They have become disheartened and discouraged by a history of academic failure.

Although grades are supposed to motivate students, a steady stream of failing grades may actually become a disincentive for continued participation and effort. Rewards must be seen as attainable in order to effectively modify behavior. When good grades, or even passing grades, seem to be an impossible goal, many students see no reason to go on doing work that seems to be rewarded only by grades.

At some point they stop trying. Once they abandon any realistic hope of graduating, the use of grades to motivate students to participate in academic activities is totally ineffective. For students who see no hope of earning passing grades, lack of effort is often a means of saving face. Some struggling students seem to feel that it is better to give the appearance of not caring, rather than make an effort to do the work only to receive a failing grade.

The most serious flaw with our system of using grades as the predominant means of motivating students to learn is that students get so caught up in earning points that they fail to appreciate the intrinsic value of what they are learning. When external rewards are the principal source of motivation, the primary interest of the learner is earning the reward. Since the main objective of most students is to earn points and grades, there is a tendency to work only as hard as necessary to get the grade or the number of points desired.

There is broad agreement among motivational theorists that intrinsic sources of motivation are more powerful and effective than extrinsic sources. External rewards are effective only to the extent that they are desired (typically because they are directly or indirectly related to intrinsic needs) and are seen as attainable.

Furthermore, behavior that is conditioned upon extrinsic sources of motivation typically ends when the reward is no longer given. Our schools are a prime example of the relative ineffectiveness of external rewards as compared to intrinsic motivation. Consider the behavior and attitude displayed by creative individuals, and by teenagers with regard to getting a driver's license, then compare their work habits with those of students in a typical classroom.

Obtaining a driver's license has become an important rite of passage in our society. Having a driver's license is necessary if teens are to drive legally. Most teenagers are highly motivated to study for both the written and the driving parts of the test that is required to get a license. Even students who are failing most of their classes in school usually manage to learn what they need to learn in order to pass the driving test, including the written portion.

We don't have to require teenagers to learn how to drive. They are very eager to get behind the wheel of a car. They prepare for the test on their own initiative. Parents do not have to bribe them to get them to study for the test, or threaten to ground them if they flunk the test. Those who do fail the test go right back to work, studying for the written test and/or practicing for the driving portion of the test. Eventually almost everybody gets a driver's license. The drop-out rate for that particular course of study is nearly zero. Once they learn how to drive, they don't forget. The knowledge acquired and the skills developed are utilized immediately and continuously.

Creative individuals are motivated by an intrinsic need to give expression to their ideas and feelings, and to experience the joy they derive from utilizing their abilities. They are driven to create and/or perform. Although external rewards (money, praise, recognition) often accrue to talented individuals, they are incidental, or at least secondary, to true artists, who paint, compose, take photographs, sing, dance, or write, in order to express themselves. They do not have to be forced to practice or study. They want to develop their creative abilities because they love what they are doing. They work hard to develop their talents to the fullest, with little regard to external rewards. They strive for perfection and are never content with less than their best effort.

The level of involvement and effort typical of students within our present educational system pales in comparison to the type of dedication and effort exhibited by intrinsically motivated learners in these examples. The common denominator among top students competing for class rank and scholarships, students struggling to pass enough classes to graduate, and the full range of students in between, is that the vast majority of students work only as hard as they believe they need to work in order to attain their own limited objectives within our educational system. Since few students are motivated to consistently put forth their best effort, most students do not learn nearly as much as they are capable of learning.

Most students are willing to play the game pretty much by the rules. They do the work that is assigned and do it as well as they can without straining. They enjoy getting good grades, but will settle for average or passing grades if that is as much as a modicum of effort will get them. There are also significant numbers of students who are quite willing to bend or break the rules. They take any short-cuts available to them, copying the work of other students, attempting to answer review questions without actually bothering to read the material the questions cover, cheating on tests, plagiarizing liberally when writing papers, or passing off papers written by others as their own. Many students see nothing wrong with these practices.

While it may be true that cheaters never win, in our schools, cheaters quite frequently pass classes and ultimately are awarded diplomas with the help of the methods listed above. For students with limited academic abilities these tactics may be the only way to earn a diploma. While students may not value education, most of them want a high school diploma, and they are willing to use any means necessary to get one. Donning a cap and gown and walking across the stage to the cheers of friends and family is the ultimate external reward for high school students.

Babies learning to walk would never be satisfied with being awarded certificates stating that they were able to walk even if they were not actually able to do so, yet many students in our schools are only too happy to be given a diploma, even if they have not acquired the knowledge or developed the skills a diploma is supposed to represent. Clearly, they do not appreciate the intrinsic value of being well-educated.

As with many of the reforms proposed herein, doing away with grades will work best if students are given more freedom to choose what to learn. When students are learning something they want to learn, or recognize a need to learn, mastery is its own reward and students learn for the sake of learning.

Instead of attempting to force students to learn, or to entice them into learning, with a system of external rewards, our schools should be organized in a manner that works in harmony with our natural love of learning. We need to develop an educational system founded on principles and practices that harness the intensity of the motivation demonstrated by babies learning to walk, toddlers asking endless questions, teenagers learning to drive, and artists striving to express themselves.

Grades and other external incentives are poor substitutes for an intrinsic desire to learn. When we have a genuine appreciation for the value of education, we are more committed to learning and are more likely to cultivate the habits and attitudes that make the learning process more effective and efficient.

Self-motivated learners take responsibility for their own learning. They retain more of the curiosity typical of early childhood, which makes it more likely that they will have a broader range of interests and be more open to learning in general. Self-motivated learners recognize that school is only part of the overall process of becoming an educated person. Although they typically derive some benefit from any reasonably competent classroom instruction, much of what they learn is learned outside of the classroom. Life-long learning is a pleasant habit and not an empty phrase for those of us who have a genuine appreciation for the value of education.

Some parents, and some students, prefer a competitive environment. The option of being graded on a regular basis should continue to be available within our educational system. On the other hand, those students who would prefer not to be graded should (with the consent of their parents) be allowed to attend school without being graded.

There are also improvements that could be made in this area short of doing away with grades completely. We could develop standardized tests for subjects that are required for graduation. Some part of a student’s grade in these courses could be computed based on a student’s score on such a test. This would alleviate, to some degree, the problem of grades being subjective. Parents or schools could also decide to continue grading students in required classes, but do away with grades for elective classes. Students should be allowed to play sports, learn to play a musical instrument, or paint without being graded on their efforts.

It may well be that very few parents would elect to dive into the deep end by doing away completely with the practice of having their children graded on the work they do in school. Those few brave souls who do have faith in their children’s ability to appreciate the intrinsic value of learning should be able to act upon that faith. They should be given the option of sparing their children the stress and, in some cases, the humiliation of being evaluated relentlessly as they attend school.

Excerpt from:
Edutopia: A Manifesto for the Reform of Public Education

Reform Proposal: Concentrate Instruction in a Three-Hour Block

2008-01-20T01:09:00.001-08:00

The normal school day at present includes approximately three hours of class time in core subject areas. We would make it much easier for students to focus on meeting basic academic requirements if we were to concentrate instructional activities related to the “core” subject areas of Social Studies, Science, Language Arts, and Mathematics in a three-hour block and offer students a choice of several blocks per day. (For example, from 9 a.m. to 12 p.m., from 2 p.m. to 5 p.m. and again from 6 p.m. to 9 p.m.)

The morning time frame should be the standard. For most people these are the most productive hours of the day. On the other hand, older students attempting to juggle school and work, younger students with working parents, or adults who would like to return to school should be free to select another time frame, if that works best for them.

During each three-hour block we should offer a variety of educational activities, including lectures, demonstrations, presentations, videos, and reading discussion groups. The time frame for each of these activities should be flexible. A lecture, demonstration, presentation or video should be as long, but only as long, as necessary to convey the relevant information effectively and efficiently. A discussion should be free to find its natural length.

It is absurd to divide the school day into periods of equal length regardless of the nature of various lessons or the time required to master a particular objective. The clock may be a necessary taskmaster in factories and offices, but it need not dictate the length of instructional activities within our schools.

The “elective” portion of a student’s schedule should actually be elective. Throughout each day and evening we should provide opportunities for additional activities that would essentially supplant the “elective” portion of a student’s schedule. Instruction should be available in art, music, sports, and other fine and performing arts, but students should also be free to engage in these types of activities without being coached or graded. We do not need to make recess a required course. We should facilitate participation in these activities and let students who are interested in participating do so.

Research has shown that students who participate in extracurricular activities typically have a more positive attitude toward school and perform better academically. Treating electives in this manner would turn a much larger portion of the school day into extracurricular activities for the entire student body.

Those students who need extra help or who want to go beyond the basics in the core academic areas could use this time to work with a tutor, take elective classes, work in the library, access the Internet, read, or do homework. Students who stay all day would receive all of the benefits of a full school day within the present system, but would have a great deal more freedom to decide when to receive basic instruction and when to engage in other activities. Concentrating core instruction in three hour blocks would also make it easier to offer flexible scheduling.

This relatively simple reform would alter students’ perception of schooling in a very dramatic way because it would fundamentally alter the nature of the schooling experience. There is a world of difference between a three-hour school day and a seven or eight hour day, yet we could include just as much instruction in core subjects.

Offering an attractive mix of extra-curricular activities would make it likely that most students would remain at school for a full day. Students would have a more positive attitude toward school and learning, which is essential if we hope to significantly improve student achievement.

Excerpt from:
Edutopia: A Manifesto for the Reform of Public Education

Reform Proposal: Allow Students to Attend School Full- or Part-Time, Days, Evenings, or Week-ends

2008-01-20T01:06:00.000-08:00

Children and young adults between the ages of five and eighteen are expected to devote a considerable amount of time to schooling. High school students are supposed to put in a full day at school and then spend several hours each evening doing homework. The burden on students intensifies even more in college. Students who take a full-load of college courses, especially if they make a serious effort to do their best in every class, frequently have little time for anything but studying. There are some adults who are willing to work fifty or sixty hours per week, or bring several hours of work home from the office every night, but most of us want some time to socialize with friends and families, pursue hobbies, or simply relax. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. Students should not be expected to dedicate nearly every waking hour to schoolwork.

There is a distinct advantage to focusing on getting as much education as possible early in life. It is far more difficult to find the time to attend school full-time once we leave home and need to earn enough money to be self-supportive. It is even more difficult once we have children of our own to support. However, if we want to meet the educational needs of every member of our society, we must accept the fact that many people who are interested in attending school are unable to attend full-time during the day, Monday through Friday. Colleges acknowledge this fact by offering evening and week-end classes.

The present school schedule roughly models the work week for adults. This is convenient for parents who work, and also serves to inculcate the habits of the workplace in youngsters who have not yet become accustomed to the yoke of the clock. For students (or parents) who would prefer a different schedule, there are few real options. If parents who work evenings or week-ends had the option of matching their children’s school schedule more closely with their own, we could ease the cost of child care for them and avoid the problem of children being home unsupervised for hours at a time.

High school students, especially those who work evenings, have great difficulty getting enough sleep when school starts early in the morning. Attending school full-time while working twenty to thirty hours a week is more than many students can handle. In the competition between school work, which is rewarded with grades, and “real” work which is rewarded with a paycheck, school work usually loses out. Working teens would do better in school if they could (officially) take a reduced load. Working adults with gaps in their basic education would be more likely to return to school if class schedules were more flexible. Without abandoning the role of public education as a full-time, week-day program for children between certain ages, we should make basic instruction available part-time, evenings, and week-ends for students and parents who would benefit from those alternatives.

Excerpt from:
Edutopia: A Manifesto for the Reform of Public Education

Reform Proposal: Repeal Compulsory Attendance Laws

2008-01-20T01:04:00.000-08:00

The real tragedy of our present system of compulsory education is that compulsion is not necessary. If a program or course of study effectively addresses genuine educational needs and interests, it will be well-attended. We will not have to compel students to attend. Learning is a big part of what life is all about. We are constantly confronted with, and involved in, situations that make some form of learning advisable, and often unavoidable.

Responding to the genuine needs of people at various stages of their lives will offer plenty of opportunities for educators to be of service. We should make the system fit the needs of people, rather than making people fit the needs of the system.

The other critical point to understand about compulsory learning is that it is not very effective. We can no longer afford to ignore the basic truth that when students are forced to learn, they don’t learn very efficiently. When what is being taught is of no immediate utility or interest to a student, the bits of knowledge acquired will soon be forgotten and any skills developed will soon atrophy.

Spending thousands of dollars per year on young people who have no real interest in learning is a tremendous waste of taxpayers’ money. A “student” who does not pay attention in class, who has a strong aversion to reading, who does not complete homework assignments or study for tests, in other words, someone who generally makes a determined effort to avoid learning, is not a student in any meaningful sense of the term.

All of the factors contributing to a lack of motivation on the part of students are magnified by the fact that education is compulsory up to a certain age. We should repeal compulsory attendance laws, or at least lower the age at which students have the option of leaving school.

Excerpt from:
Edutopia: A Manifesto for the Reform of Public Education

Reform Proposal: Remove the Upper Age Limits on Attending School Free of Charge

2008-01-20T01:00:00.000-08:00

We have infused an unnecessary sense of urgency into the process of getting an education. Despite all of the rhetoric within educational circles regarding the importance of “life-long learning,” we treat education as a process that must be more or less completed before students enter the "real world" of adulthood. We focus nearly all of the resources of our systems of public education on students between the ages of five and eighteen.

If opportunities to attend classes in public schools free of charge were available to people at any age, we could afford to let younger students have considerably more latitude regarding the time frame for completing the requirements for a high school diploma. Drop-outs would be less of a problem if they could drop back into the system with relative ease later in life. The option of completing high school on a part-time basis with day, evening, or week-end classes would make it easier for people to complete their high school education even if they were working full time.

There are already millions of adults who were short-changed, or who short-changed themselves, during their years in school. These adult members of our society have educational needs every bit as pressing as the needs of younger people. In a world where vital information is often conveyed in writing, illiteracy can be hazardous as well as frustrating. Individuals who cannot read well enough to follow the directions on a bottle of medicine may inadvertently harm their children or themselves. The inability to comprehend the terms of agreements we are required to sign, in order to lease or purchase a home or a car, or to obtain credit, can be frustrating and costly. Many of the products that can make our lives easier or more enjoyable come with instruction manuals that can be challenging even for highly literate individuals. (And, of course, we don’t even want to mention the instructions for filling out our tax forms.) Some problems are most effectively addressed by writing a letter. That option is not open to people who lack the ability to communicate effectively in writing.

There have always been, and there always will be, some students who leave school without acquiring the skills necessary to live independently, productively, and/or happily. At the present time there are programs available to help combat adult illiteracy, but there are gaping holes in the “safety net” these programs provide. Getting help with innumeracy and other life skills is even more difficult. We should provide programs through our public schools for people who need additional help in meeting the natural requirements that life imposes. Most importantly, adult members of our society should have the opportunity to learn fundamental skills whenever they recognize the need to learn them, even if that time does not come until they are over twenty-one years of age.

Much of what is taught in high school would, in many cases, prove to be of greater interest to more mature individuals. Some people who are not particularly interested in literature, history, and other elements of a liberal arts education, as teens, become more interested when they get older. Opportunities for personal growth and development should be available to people of all ages. The easy availability of educational programs and classes for students of all ages would make it considerably more likely that members of our society would engage in meaningful educational activities throughout their lives.

Allowing adults to attend high school during the regular school day would have the added benefit of altering the climate within our schools in a positive manner. Those teens who are not yet as mature as they should be, would be less likely to engage in childish misbehavior with more adults around them. The presence of adults would provide role models for students who may have to work harder or longer to master certain skills. Adults in high school classrooms would also provide a compelling example of life-long learning. The life experiences they bring to the classroom, could enrich the learning environment for their fellow students, as well as for teachers.

Excerpt from:
Edutopia: A Manifesto for the Reform of Public Education

Reform Proposal: Remove the Lower Age Limits on Attending Public Schools Free of Charge

2008-01-20T00:55:00.000-08:00

Children are capable of learning a lot in the period between birth and five years of age, yet our present system does not allow them to attend school. This is not much of a problem for children blessed with parents who are capable of providing for their physical, emotional, and educational needs. It is a major problem for children whose parents lack the skills necessary to provide for them effectively. It is during these first few years of life that the gap in achievement between children from low-income families and their more affluent peers begins to appear.

If we are serious about closing the achievement gap, we must be willing to offer children from low-income families some of the same opportunities that are commonly available to children from middle- and upper-income families. All children should have books read to them regularly. All children should have access to educational toys. All children should have the opportunity to interact with adults and other children in a positive environment.

For parents who want to provide these advantages for their children, but who are unable to do so because of their own lack of skills, resources, or knowledge, our public schools should include both children and parents in programs that would offer the training and materials needed to enable parents to provide their children with educational opportunities similar to those of more advantaged families. In cases where the parents are absent or unwilling to get involved, for whatever reason, we should allow children to attend school at any age.

This does not mean that we should force babies and toddlers to engage in “educational activities.” Compulsory learning is damaging to older students, it could be even more destructive with children under the age of five. This doesn’t mean we shouldn’t offer foreign language lessons to children or make the opportunities commonly available to middle and upper-income children available to all children. We could offer story times with parents or teachers taking turns reading to children. We could provide play rooms with educational games and toys, especially for children whose parents cannot afford to provide books, games, and toys. If we could manage to offer parents and toddlers educational opportunities without damaging their natural love of learning by introducing elements of compulsion and control, we could give all of our children a “head start.”

Excerpt from:
Edutopia: A Manifesto for the Reform of Public Education

Reform Proposal: Allow Students to Attend Any Publicly Funded School in the State in Which They Live

2008-01-19T18:00:00.000-08:00

Within the present system the most common way for parents to choose the schools their children will attend is by establishing residence within the attendance area of the desired public schools. The reputation of the schools in a given area is typically one of the primary considerations of families with children, when they choose a house or apartment. Enrolling their children in a private school is an option for parents who can afford to pay tuition. Voucher plans and charter schools offer additional choices to parents in some cities and school districts.

Parents, quite naturally, want their children to attend the best school possible. For most parents, as well as for educators and politicians, the primary indicator of "quality" in a school is student achievement as measured by standardized test scores. A “good school” is a school that has a student body composed primarily of students who perform well on standardized tests of achievement.

The climate within a school is also an important consideration for parents. There are significant differences between schools in terms of student behavior, and the degree to which teachers and administrators tolerate misbehavior. The attitude of students with regard to learning also varies from school to school. In terms of school climate, a “good school” is a school where the students are well behaved and have a positive attitude toward learning.

Although it is seldom discussed or admitted openly, avoiding contact with minority and/or lower class white children has been the primary concern of many parents in choosing where to live and what school their children will attend. The Supreme Court’s ruling in the case of Brown v. Board of Education and subsequent efforts on the part of federal courts to fully implement that decision, have had an enormous effect on our society. Parents who want to avoid sending their children to integrated schools have been left with two means of escape: Moving to a different school district or enrolling their children in private schools. For most families, moving to the suburbs is more affordable and has, therefore, been the most common means of exercising “school choice” over the past fifty years. White families moved en masse from cities to the suburbs. As a result of “white flight,” most urban districts in large metropolitan areas are now predominantly black. A significant increase in the number of white students within urban districts attending private schools has further muted the effects of Brown v. Board of Education. More recently, middle-class black families have joined the exodus from urban districts. Consequently, some suburban schools are somewhat more integrated in terms of race, but segregation on the basis of class is still quite common.

Segregated housing patterns did not originate with the Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education. Wealthy families have always managed to wall themselves off from the rest of society. Poor families have always been kept relatively isolated. Our public schools, operating with public funds, have an obligation to bridge these barriers.

Within the present system, the range of choices parents have with regard to the schools their children will attend is directly related to the income level of the family. Wealthy families can easily afford to establish residence in any school district, or enroll their children in private schools. Middle class families are able to afford housing in almost any school district, and can usually afford tuition at a more limited selection of private schools, typically those operated by, or affiliated with, churches. Low-income families do not have the option of moving into the attendance area of most of the “best” schools since they cannot afford a house or apartment within those districts. Enrolling their children in private schools is not a financial possibility.

Some suburban areas are more affluent than others. There are pockets of poverty within the suburbs. Increased attention to discrimination with regard to housing has made it more difficult to keep minorities out of suburban schools completely, but with little or no low-income housing available within their boundaries, many suburban school districts have been able to limit racial integration to middle class members of minority groups.

Parents cannot be faulted for wanting to protect their children from bad influences or for wanting their children to attend the best school possible. However, when the decision to move to a particular school district or to remove children from the public school system is based primarily on the desire to avoid contact between one's own children and children of another race or class, that decision can not be condoned and should not be supported with public funds.
Students attending public schools should not be segregated by race or class.

Issues related to student achievement and the climate of a school are painfully intertwined with issues of race and class. There are significant differences between schools in terms of climate and achievement. Unfortunately, these differences are largely attributable to the socioeconomic status of the student body. Since a disproportionate percentage of minority families are poor, race is also an issue. Examining each of these factors individually can help us better understand the exact nature of the interactions between them. That understanding will point the way to providing all students with “good” schools.

STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

A considerable body of research related to academic achievement has consistently shown a strong correlation between success in school and two closely related factors: the income level of a student’s family and the level of education of a student’s parents. These variables are closely related for the obvious reason that individuals with more education tend to have higher incomes. In most of the studies, the percentage of the students within a given school who are considered to be from “low income families” is determined by reporting the percentage of the student body eligible for free or reduced-price lunches under federal guidelines. Schools with a higher percentage of students from middle and upper income families consistently have higher standardized test scores, a lower drop-out rate, and a higher percentage of students going to college.

There are a number of factors related to the socioeconomic status of a student’s family, that can affect the probability of success in school. Students from middle and upper-income families typically enter school with a much larger vocabulary than students from low-income families. (Common estimates put the gap at approximately 5000 words versus 2000 words.) There are a number of reasons for this disparity. Well-educated parents are more likely to read to, and with, their children. Books, newspapers, and magazines are more common in the homes of students from upper and middle income families. Middle and upper income parents also utilize a larger vocabulary and often include their children in discussions of current events or other topics of interest. The advantages of beginning school with a larger vocabulary are compounded throughout the school years as some students are able to progress at a normal rate, while others are handicapped by limited comprehension of written materials.

Parents who have graduated from college are more likely to appreciate, model, and promote the value of a college education. Children from low-income families are less likely to have college-educated adults in their lives as role models and are more likely to rule out the possibility of college, for financial reasons. Students from low-income families are also less likely to have a quiet place at home to study, or to have easy access to a computer. Their parents, who in many cases are not well-educated themselves, may be less capable of helping with homework. While there may be some differences between schools in terms of the overall quality of the faculty, administration, and facilities, the socioeconomic status of the families of the student body is far and away the most important factor affecting student achievement.

SCHOOL CLIMATE

The primary concern of many parents with regard to the climate of a school is protecting their children from “bad influences.” Differences between schools with regard to school climate and student misbehavior are more subjective than standardized test scores and the correlation between these factors and the socioeconomic status of the families of the student body is, therefore, more difficult to quantify. While the differences in student behavior and school climate may be smaller than commonly perceived, significant differences are observable. Here again, there is often a correlation between the socioeconomic status of a student’s family and the behavior of the student.

There are some students at nearly every school who drink alcohol, smoke cigarettes, buy and sell drugs, use vulgar language, skip classes, bully and threaten other students, and start fights. Offensive behavior and the use of vulgar language have become much more commonplace in our schools and in our society in recent years. Many of the songs, movies, video games, and television shows, that are popular with teens and pre-teens glamorize and promote various types of anti-social behavior and the more common use of profanity. It has become increasingly difficult to protect our children from “bad influences.” Our schools have been the victims, not the perpetrators or instigators, of this change in our society. Very few schools have been immune. Some schools, however, do a better job than others of addressing and controlling these types of behaviors.

The perception of many parents is that their children are more likely to be exposed to other students with these types of problems if they attend urban schools or schools with a greater percentage of minority or poor students. Some urban schools and other schools serving a predominately low-income student body do seem to tolerate a greater level of inappropriate behavior than schools in more prosperous districts. The frequent use of profanity, incidents of harassment, violence and intimidation, rude and obnoxious behavior, and a general disdain on the part of many students for the benefits of education can create a climate in some schools that is not conducive to educational activities, and in extreme cases, may be dangerous as well. The decision by parents to move to a different school district or to enroll their children in private schools is often motivated by the understandable desire to get, or keep, their children out of this type of environment.

The solution to this problem is to give our public schools much more latitude in dealing with these types of behavior. We must insist on effective discipline within every public school. No student, including those who live in impoverished, crime-infested neighborhoods, should have to attend school with individuals who engage in lewd, criminal, or disruptive behaviors. All of our public schools should be safe havens from these types of misconduct! We must protect the right of every student to learn and study in an environment that is conducive to learning and as safe as possible! In some cases that will require removing disruptive students from regular programs or schools. No school should be forced to accept unruly, disruptive students. When a student commits a criminal act within a school, or is a clear and present danger to others, the juvenile justice system should take responsibility for that student. In less-extreme cases, we should provide alternative programs for students with behavioral problems.

RACE AND CLASS

Isolating dangerous or disruptive students is the only form of segregation that should be allowed within our public educational system. Unfortunately, that is not the case at the present time. The vestiges of segregation on the basis of race and class remain deeply entrenched throughout public education. Nearly fifty years after the Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education, we are still operating school systems that are separate and unequal. While there has been some improvement, there is still a great deal of segregation based on the economic status of a student’s family. The majority of students from poor families are trapped and isolated in less desirable schools and school districts. Since a higher percentage of minority children come from low-income families, this system has had the added effect of limiting racial integration. Dividing schools into districts and the concept of “local control” of schools have been the vehicles for frustrating attempts to fully integrate our schools.

If a “good” school is one with high scores by students on achievement tests and a climate free of distractions and disruptions, and if both of these factors are directly related to the socioeconomic status of the families of the student body, then the best way to insure “quality” in a school is to locate that school in an area filled with families headed by well-educated, prosperous individuals and to exclude low-income families. This is relatively simple to achieve by gerrymandering district boundaries and/or passing restrictive zoning ordinances to prevent low-income housing from being constructed within the boundaries of a given school district. Dividing schools into districts controlled locally has provided a smokescreen and a refuge for individuals who do not want their children to attend schools with students of different races or classes. The ugly truth behind much of the continuing concern for local control of schools is that it has provided a fairly effective means of retaining some degree of segregation within our public schools.

If good schools, offering a variety of programs and educational practices, are available in every neighborhood, most students will choose to attend a neighborhood school. Under ideal circumstances neighborhoods would be integrated in terms of race and class, and as a result, neighborhood schools would also be integrated. In situations where that is not the case we should allow students and their parents to decide whether or not to enroll in a school outside of their community.

Tolerance, and respect for people of different backgrounds, is essential in a nation as diverse as ours. Integrating our schools in terms of both race and family income is the best way to promote this sort of understanding. Our public schools should provide our children with the opportunity to interact with children of different races, religions, and economic classes in an environment that promotes harmony and respect for others. Our schools are our best hope for accomplishing the vitally important task of helping members of our society learn to live together in harmony, celebrating our diversity, instead of letting it divide us.

Low-income families make up a relatively small percentage of the overall population in the United States. If their children were distributed more equitably throughout our public schools, and if effective remedial programs were in place to help them keep pace with students from more affluent families, they would be much more likely to adopt the habits of effective learners. Overall test scores would rise. Behavior problems would be minimized. All of our schools would be “good” schools.

PROBLEMS WITH PRESENT SCHOOL CHOICE PLANS

At the present time voucher plans are the most common method of providing parents with a greater choice of schools. There are several problems with most of the voucher plans that are in place or are being proposed. One basic flaw that has been debated and discussed at length is whether or not schools that offer religious instruction should be included in voucher plans. While the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States says that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” most voucher plans are being proposed and enacted by state legislatures, not by the Congress of the United States. This fact, combined with the Supreme Court ruling in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (2002) upholding a voucher plan in Cleveland which included religious schools, makes it likely that the issue of including church sponsored schools in voucher plans will be decided on a state by state basis. Some states have prohibitions that are stronger and more explicit than the First Amendment regarding the use of taxpayers’ money to promote religion, others do not.

The most common argument put forth in support of the idea of including religious schools in voucher plans is that, since most private schools are affiliated with churches, excluding religious schools will severely limit the choices available to parents. While this may currently be the case, if private schools are allowed to accept vouchers for the full amount now being spent per pupil by public schools, there will be plenty of secular private schools established in short order. While offering students and parents the widest possible range of choices is an important goal, there are ways to do that without breaching the wall of separation between church and state.

A second problem with many voucher plans is that they do not cover the full cost of tuition. While these plans make it more affordable for middle class families to exercise choice, low-income parents are left with no alternative but to leave their children in the public schools that everyone else is fleeing. For voucher plans to be equitable and effective, the vouchers should cover the full cost of tuition at any school that chooses to accept them. The value of a voucher should be equal to the average amount of money spent per pupil in public schools within a state.
Students with special needs (learning disabled students and students who are still learning to speak English, for example) should be awarded vouchers that cover the extra costs involved in meeting those needs. If vouchers for low-income students were for a slightly higher than the average amount, it would provide an incentive for schools to enroll them, since they might also require extra attention.

Even these measures will not insure a full range of choices. Some of the best private schools charge more than $10,000 per year for tuition. It is highly unlikely that any voucher plan is going to cover tuition at these schools. If a family can afford to pay that amount of money to avoid contact with public school students, they don’t need subsidies from the taxpayers. These schools should be encouraged to provide scholarships to low-income students, but should be allowed to accept vouchers only if there is no additional charge to the family utilizing the voucher.

The most serious problem with most of the plans involving vouchers, as well as with plans that include charter schools, is that they operate only within, rather than across, school district boundaries. Although it is seldom stated openly, the reason for this limitation is that most affluent school districts have no interest in any plan that would allow low-income and minority students to attend their schools. Suburban school districts have been very active and very successful in fighting off any choice plan that would allow significant numbers of urban students to attend their schools. Advocates of choice plans that include private schools often talk about forcing public schools to “compete” for students and funding. Suburban schools want no part of this “competition.” Choice advocates have no interest in leveling the playing field by distributing under-performing students more equitably among urban and suburban districts.

The present system is deeply entrenched. It is also a violation of the spirit, if not the letter, of the Fourteenth Amendment. When public funds are involved, equal access and opportunity is the right of every citizen. With the Supreme Court’s ruling in Brown v. Board of Education, our schools were pushed to the forefront of the struggle to integrate our society. Now our schools are lagging behind. Members of minority groups, including those with limited incomes, can visit any public park, shop at suburban malls, eat at any restaurant, yet they remain largely trapped and isolated in segregated schools.

The solution is to simply eliminate school districts and attendance areas. We should deregulate education by making every public school a “charter” school with “site-based” management. Within guidelines representing reasonable, but minimal oversight from a state’s department of education, each school should be free to offer a variety of educational activities derived from the full gamut of educational practices and philosophies. No publicly-funded school, including charter schools or private schools receiving vouchers, should be allowed to refuse admission to students based on their race, or the income level of their parents. Students should be free to enroll in any publicly-funded school within a state and in any program within a school. Our public schools, if they were truly integrated, could perform a vital public service by increasing contact and understanding between people of different races and classes within our society.

Finding the proper balance between regulation and over-regulation of schools within a system offering a broader range of choices will not be easy. Tax revenues should not be distributed without proper oversight. Any school receiving public funding is to some extent a “public” school. Taxpayers have a right to expect that private schools accepting vouchers meet the same standards expected of public schools. This does not mean that schools should be prohibited from experimenting with new ideas. Keeping regulations to a minimum will encourage experimentation. Public school choice is a simple and cost-effective means of offering students and parents of all income levels a meaningful choice of schools. The details might vary from state to state, but our primary concern should be that, to the greatest extent possible, programs representing the entire spectrum of educational philosophies and practices should be available to every student. The inclusion of innovative and truly alternative approaches is essential if parents and students are to be given a full range of alternatives. Allowing parents to select the school their children will attend is the most basic and most important choice of all.

Excerpt from:
Edutopia: A Manifesto for the Reform of Public Education

Reform Proposal: Increase Pay for Teachers

2008-01-19T17:57:00.000-08:00

In a market economy the laws of supply and demand operate inexorably. There is a direct relationship between what people are willing to pay for a product or service, and the number of people willing to supply that product or service. The normal salary range for various occupations is one of the primary considerations of most people when they select a career. Salaries for teachers are relatively low compared to other professions. The best and brightest students attending our colleges and universities (based on entrance exam scores and grade point averages) typically elect to major in fields other than education. Our institutions of higher learning produce many highly skilled doctors, lawyers, and engineers. We do not have enough highly qualified teachers. If we expect a greater percentage of our most talented students to choose teaching as a profession, we must increase salaries for teachers.

Even at their present level, teachers’ salaries constitute a major part of school district budgets. Increasing salaries will require a significant increase in the amount of money devoted to education. There are those who argue that “throwing money at the problem” will not improve the quality of public education. These are often the same people who talk about forcing public schools to compete. Large corporations compete with each other for top executives by offering salary and benefit packages that quite commonly total millions of dollars per year. Movie studios, television networks, and professional sports teams pay astronomical salaries as they compete with each other to attract the most talented entertainers and athletes. Our colleges and universities compete with each other with regard to the salaries they offer. They know that the ability to attract talented professors is the key to offering superior educational opportunities to their students.

There are, of course, some dedicated individuals with above average abilities who enter the teaching profession in spite of the relatively low pay. There are not enough of these dedicated individuals, however, to fill more than a small percentage of our classrooms. We will never succeed in enticing a larger number of gifted individuals to enter the teaching profession, without offering higher salaries. The fact that it will be extremely difficult to develop public and political support for substantial increases in funding for education does not alter the fact that it will be nearly impossible to achieve significant improvement in the quality of instruction offered through the public educational system without paying teachers more. It is reasonable to view the issue of increased salaries for teachers as a litmus test to determine how serious we are about i mproving our schools. An additional problem related to teachers and salaries is the fact that most teachers are paid based on the number of years they have taught and the number of hours of post-graduate work they have completed. With this approach to determining salaries there is no financial incentive for teachers to work harder or more effectively. In the ongoing debate about whether or not teachers are fairly compensated, the correct answer is that our most talented and dedicated teachers are underpaid; average teachers are being paid about the right amount; and lazy, mediocre, and downright incompetent teachers are overpaid.

Some teachers work very hard at doing a good job. They use their planning time effectively, put in extra time outside the classroom preparing lessons and grading papers, and read broadly to keep abreast of current developments related to the subjects they teach, as well as to increase their general knowledge. Other teachers put in the minimum amount of time and effort required of them. They spend little or no time outside the classroom in activities related to teaching. Even the planning periods they are given during the school day are devoted to hanging around the teacher's lounge complaining about students and/or administrators, exchanging gossip, talking on the phone, or engaging in other activities not related to teaching. In many cases these teachers are actually paid more than the teachers who are working harder, since the sort of burn-out exemplified by these negative attitudes and behaviors is more common among teachers who have been teaching long enough to reach the top of the pay scale. Most of the teachers who are doing their best are doing so out of a sense of pride in their work, and a sense of commitment to their students and to the teaching profession. Since they are working hard within the present salary structure, they are obviously not letting the inequity of the situation affect their performance. On the other hand, if pay were more effectively tied to performance, teachers who are not putting forth their best effort would have a clear incentive to work harder.

One solution that has been proposed to get more highly skilled teachers into the classroom is to make it easier for schools to get rid of incompetent teachers. The problem with this idea is that after we get rid of incompetent teachers, we must replace them with teachers who are more competent. At the present time, we have a severe shortage of highly skilled individuals willing to enter, or remain in, the teaching profession. While personnel directors may occasionally make mistakes with regard to identifying and hiring the most competent individual from among the applicants for a teaching position, there is no line of talented individuals waiting for positions to open up in the classroom.

A second approach to improving the caliber of teaching, implemented in some states and proposed in others, is raising standards for prospective teachers and/or making the certification process more demanding. Making it harder, more expensive, and more time consuming to enter a profession that is already facing a shortage of talented workers, runs counter to the laws of supply and demand. Unless this strategy is linked to significant increases in compensation for teachers, the likely result will be to decrease, rather than increase, the number of accomplished individuals who are interested in a career in teaching. On the other hand, significant increases in pay will attract a greater number of talented individuals to the teaching profession. If we then simply hire the most qualified applicants from among that pool of applicants, de facto standards for teachers will be raised in the process.

Excerpt from:
Edutopia: A Manifesto for the Reform of Public Education

Reform Proposal: Make More Effective Use of Technology and Existing Staff

2008-01-19T17:52:00.000-08:00

We need to recognize the fact that many teachers may be capable of filling some of the roles presently expected of them, but not skilled enough to fill all of them. Some of the functions and activities related to teaching require more ability than others. The roles and duties that are the most demanding should be assigned to the teachers who are best qualified to perform them. More mundane and less demanding aspects of the job should be performed by less-gifted individuals. By offering higher salaries for the more demanding positions, we could increase pay for our best teachers without enormous increases in funding and make more effective use of the personnel we have. We should restructure the system for delivering instruction, as well as for meeting other needs of students, to take full advantage of the strengths of each individual teacher, while minimizing or avoiding their weaknesses. Increasing the degree of specialization within the teaching profession, particularly at the secondary level, would result in significant improvements in the quality of instruction.

There are three basic modes of teaching: Didactic instruction, discussions (involving Socratic dialogue or other forms of questioning), and coaching (tutoring). The skills, knowledge, and attributes needed for each of these approaches are similar, but not identical. Some teachers are more effective in one of these modes, than they are in the others. The number of students who can be effectively engaged with a single teacher also varies considerably depending on which of these methods is being employed.

The goal of didactic instruction is the acquisition of knowledge. The teacher’s role is to convey information. Common methods of didactic instruction include lectures, demonstrations, presentations, reading materials, and videos. The primary advantage of this mode of teaching is that it enables a single instructor to teach a large group of students. A single presenter can speak to an auditorium full of students at the same time. A recorded lecture, demonstration, presentation, or video, can be utilized at various times with an infinite number of students.

Discussions are essential for moving students beyond recognition and recall of factual material to help them develop higher order thinking skills. Participating in a discussion can help students broaden and deepen their understanding of concepts or ideas that have been presented by didactic means. A meaningful discussion requires enough participants to include a variety of viewpoints and an interesting range of thoughts related to the topic being discussed, but the group should also be small enough so that all of the students involved can participate actively. The optimal size of a discussion group is, therefore, between four and eight students.

Coaching (tutoring) facilitates the development of skills and provides additional help in mastering concepts. Working individually with students, or with small groups of students, a teacher can offer students immediate feedback and assistance. While tutoring may be particularly important for students who are having difficulty with a skill or concept, all students benefit from one-on-one instruction from time to time. It is difficult to pay close attention and offer constructive feedback and criticism, with more than one or two students at a time.

A typical class in most schools consists of twenty to thirty students. This is not the optimal arrangement for any of these modes of instruction. We could significantly improve the quality of the instruction we offer students by more effectively matching the number of students involved in an activity with the mode of instruction. This would require more effort in scheduling classes and other activities, but the benefits involved would make it well worth the effort. It would also involve making more effective use of technology and making more effective use of existing staff. We should utilize videos more extensively to provide didactic instruction. Computers should provide students with extensive opportunities for drill and practice. Our most talented teachers should be delivering didactic instruction, leading discussions, and providing small group or individual coaching.

Didactic instruction is the weakest link in the instructional chain under the present system. Some teachers are fairly effective lecturers, but many others have not really mastered the art of public speaking. Hearing a dynamic speaker discuss a topic can be quite stimulating. Listening to a poor speaker drone on and on is a very effective means of curing insomnia. Some teachers are good at explaining concepts and operations, others are not. Having each teacher repeat each lecture or lesson over and over for groups of twenty to thirty students is very inefficient. To be effective, a lecture must be delivered with some degree of enthusiasm. At the end of the day it can be difficult to bring a sufficient level of enthusiasm to the fifth or sixth delivery of the same lecture, presentation, or demonstration.

We could realize some improvement in the quality of didactic instruction by scheduling lectures in our high schools so that the most effective speakers on each staff deliver a single lecture, covering topics related to their area of expertise to all of the students studying that subject. We could achieve even greater levels of efficiency by recording lectures and demonstrations by our best teachers. In this way we could offer students at schools throughout the country the opportunity to learn from the best teachers in each subject area.

Appropriate visual elements should be added to recorded lectures whenever possible. For some topics, well-produced videos are already available and are being used in classrooms. For other topics we would need to produce video recordings that are aligned to our educational objectives. Videos can take students places and show them things in a considerably more dramatic manner than is possible through a lecture. Traveling to the far corners of the earth is beyond the means of most people, and while watching a video is not the same as being there in person, they are often the next best thing. Video technology can provide a cost-effective passport for any student who is interested in learning about other peoples and places. Television and movie cameras have recorded more and more historical events in recent years, making it relatively easy for students to revisit important moments in history. Audio and video recordings of historical figures, speeches, and events bring history to life in a way that can greatly increase the interest of students. Audio and video recordings enable students to listen in as leading authorities discuss and debate important issues and ideas. Field trips to Broadway shows are beyond the means of most schools. Videotaped performances could provide exposure to top quality stage productions.

The educational potential of television has been obvious from its inception, but we have failed to realize more than a fraction of that potential. We are still wandering through the “vast wasteland” identified by Newton Minnow decades ago. Video technology is presenting us with fresh opportunities to realize the educational potential of television. It is essential that we begin to utilize the technology at our disposal more extensively and effectively.

One potential drawback to providing didactic instruction to large groups of students is that students who are not motivated to learn what is being taught, find it relatively easy to tune out. In some cases, inattention turns to various forms of disruption, making it difficult for students who are paying attention to concentrate. This could be a serious problem with a large group of students. If we continue our attempts to force-feed knowledge to reluctant scholars through compulsory attendance laws and required classes, it would be important to have monitors present who would be responsible for controlling disruptive students and, when necessary, seeing that they are expelled from the presentation quickly and quietly.

In a situation where students are genuinely motivated to learn what is being taught, discipline should not be a serious problem. One or two monitors could easily supervise a large group of students in an auditorium or screening room. The skills needed to monitor students effectively in such a situation would be minimal. Monitors would not need to be teachers. Our most talented teachers should not have their time wasted in this role.

It is worth noting that Webster defines "didactic" as "intended to convey instruction and information as well as pleasure and entertainment." Although it may not always be possible to convey necessary information in an entertaining manner, we should do so whenever possible. Whether we like it or not, our schools are competing with the entertainment industry for the attention of students. Although we may deplore the influence of the media (shortened attention span, slavish devotion to the pleasure principle, reduced willingness to set, or work toward, long-term goals), we can ill afford to ignore opportunities to present material of an educational nature in an entertaining manner. Talented speakers, writers, and narrators often find a way to add a little entertainment value to a presentation, many classroom teachers are unable to do that effectively.

Using computers to provide students with opportunities for drill and practice or to test recall and recognition of factual material, offers several important advantages over pencil and paper assignments. Feedback is most effective when it is provided as soon as possible. When using a computer for drill and practice, feedback can be instantaneous. Worksheets or assignments from the text that are handed in, graded by the teacher, and returned even one day later, are a much less efficient means of providing feedback. Another important advantage to using computers for drill and practice is that an individual student can move at his or her own pace. Those students who learn quickly and easily do not need to wait for the rest of the class to catch up. Those students who learn more slowly do not become frustrated by being forced to move on before they have truly mastered an operation or concept. Perhaps the greatest advantage of computer programs is that they can make drill and practice more enjoyable for students. Students who are willing to work for hours on a computer are often not willing to invest the same amount of time in other forms of drill and practice.

The technology is already in place to link video presentations with computer programs designed to test recall of important information or to provide opportunities for drill and practice. After viewing a video, students work at computers with software designed to ask questions related to the video or present problems for a student to solve. If a student solves a sufficient number of problems or answers questions correctly, they move on to the next presentation. If the need for remedial work is indicated, the computer refers them back to the appropriate portion(s) of the video. In some cases it might be advisable to refer the student to a different segment of the video where the operation is explained in a different manner using different examples. We should be making more extensive use of this means of providing basic instruction.

Closed-circuit television and computers connected to the Internet are also opening up other alternatives to traditional classroom instruction. On-line courses and other forms of distance learning offer educational opportunities to students in rural areas, as well as added convenience for older students who can avoid the need to arrange child care. The Internet offers a convenient means of researching many topics.

If we are going to make effective use of recordings and computer software, we must improve the alignment between these materials and our educational objectives. Examining and evaluating the materials that are currently available will be a monumental task. Very few classroom teachers have the time or energy to sort through more than a fraction of the materials that have already been produced. Resource teachers can perform this vital function. (They already do in some schools and districts.) These teachers could be employed at either the federal or state level, or they could be classroom teachers with a reduced teaching load to allow them the time necessary to review and evaluate materials, and disseminate their evaluations. Teachers selected to fill these positions would need to be extremely knowledgeable about both subject matter and the learning process. They would need to be patient enough to sort through mountains of inferior products to find the occasional gem. The effective use of resource teachers would significantly improve the quality and effectiveness of supplemental materials utilized in the instructional process.

We are almost certainly going to find that there are no effective supplemental resources available to address some objectives. Most of the educational videos that are currently available are not well- produced, do not hold the interest of students, and do not align well with state or national standards. If educators are to make more effective use of the technology that is now available, both the production values and the educational content of the materials we use need to be improved. Developing effective resources to fill these gaps is well beyond the means or the ability of classroom teachers or individual schools. It will require the efforts of a relatively small number of highly talented individuals with adequate budgets.

Students have grown accustomed to programs with high production values. Considering the amount of money and talent needed to produce top-quality videos, it is not surprising that the Public Broadcasting System and the news divisions of the major television networks have produced some of the best educational programs currently available. The quality of writing, acting, and directing in programs produced by, and for, the major television networks, is noticeably superior to the vast majority of educational videos.

The primary shortcoming of many of the programs that are produced for the networks is a lack of alignment with the standards that have been adopted by state legislatures and school districts. This is not surprising considering the fact that networks are primarily concerned with ratings. Even programming with considerable educational value is produced with the goal of attracting as many viewers as possible. Better communication between educators and television production companies could improve the alignment of programming with educational objectives. Grants and subsidies could give producers an incentive to consider educational effectiveness, in addition to ratings. The Public Broadcasting Service should be a leader in this effort. By making more effective and more extensive use of videos and computers, we can free more of our most talented teachers to work with students one-on-one and in small groups.

Conducting effective discussions is a difficult art to master. A skilled discussion leader asks thought-provoking questions to guide students through the process of thinking critically about important issues, has the patience to wait silently while a student formulates a thoughtful response, and is capable of involving students who might normally remain silent during the discussion, without making them feel uncomfortable. While basic questions can be formulated prior to a discussion, asking the right follow-up questions requires listening and critical thinking skills that are not all that common. Conducting a discussion without injecting your own thoughts and opinions can be very challenging for teachers who are used to conveying information in a more didactic manner.

Coaching and tutoring also demand a great deal of skill on the part of teachers. It is difficult to teach someone a skill you do not possess. It is impossible to explain a concept you don't understand. In order to function effectively as a mentor, tutor, or academic coach, the teacher involved is often required to diagnose the reason a student is having difficulty and find a way to demonstrate a process or explain a concept in a way that the student will comprehend. Academic coaching is very helpful to students, regardless of their age or ability level as they learn to research a topic and write clearly and effectively about what they have learned through the research process. Guiding students through the research and/or writing process and offering detailed, thoughtful, constructive criticism requires a careful reading of what each student has written. It is a time-consuming and challenging process. Providing meaningful feedback to advanced students in the upper grade levels requires an academic coach who is highly skilled as a researcher and writer.

By increasing the degree of specialization in the teaching profession we could achieve significant improvements in the quality of the instruction we offer through our public schools. By relieving teachers who are skilled at lecturing, leading discussions, or tutoring students, of the burden of supervising students who are involved in reading, viewing videos, or working on computers, we could provide considerably more frequent and extensive opportunities for students to interact with our most talented teachers in one-on-one or small group situations. It will require some effort to match the skills of each teacher with the skills needed to function effectively as a resource teacher, resource developer, lecturer, discussion moderator, academic coach, or monitor. It might be disruptive to divide the staff at each school into these various roles. Teachers with limited skills who are assigned positions as monitors might be offended. However, there are some teachers who basically serve as little more than monitors within the present system.

When teachers do nothing more than assign chapters from a textbook and hand-out worksheets and tests provided by the publisher of the textbook, the real teacher is the author of the book. The "teacher" in that situation, could more accurately be referred to as a "teacher's aide." Some teachers are quite content with this approach to instruction. Teaching, done properly, is a very challenging job. It is a lot less demanding for teachers who are content to let the textbook and supplemental materials provided by textbook publishers do the work for them. We need to give them better materials to work with and let them fill positions as monitors. While textbook authors and publishers already provide teachers with worksheets, review questions, tests, and supplemental materials that are essentially a "paint-by-number" kit, the resulting picture is typically far from a work of art. During a transitional period, positions as monitors could provide continued employment for less-talented teachers. Eventually, we could reallocate more money to hiring teachers for the more demanding positions by using non-certified staff as monitors.

Excerpt from:
Edutopia: A Manifesto for the Reform of Public Education

Reform Proposal: Improve Working Conditions for Teachers

2008-01-19T17:48:00.000-08:00

Attracting a greater number of talented individuals to the teaching profession will be a hollow victory if we cannot retain them. Recent studies have shown that a significant percentage of beginning teachers leave the profession within a few years. Low salaries may be a part of the problem, but presumably, people entering teaching are well aware of the salary range associated with the job. Working conditions for teachers are the root cause of problems related to retention.

We are fond of telling our children that a certain amount of responsibility comes with freedom. Teachers are given a great deal of responsibility, but very little freedom. They typically have almost no say in how a school is run, and must frequently alter what they do in the classroom to meet the expectations of others. If they are willing to give up some of their free time to serve on committees, they may be given a voice in selecting textbooks or writing a curriculum for the subjects they teach, but it is usually a small voice. They are expected to maintain discipline within the classroom (and the halls), but often do not receive the support of administrators, or even parents, when they attempt to deal with students who are being disruptive. They are expected to help students meet expectations with regard to standardized achievement tests, and are held accountable if students do poorly on the tests, yet often face intense pressure from parents and administrators if they assign failing grades to under-performing students. Few people outside of the classroom seem to appreciate just how difficult it is to modify the work habits and behavior of students.

Many beginning teachers are surprised at the amount of time they need to put in outside of the normal school day to do their job well - planning lessons, examining and evaluating resources, and/or grading papers. This can be particularly frustrating when significant blocks of time within the school day are consumed by faculty meetings and “professional development” activities that offer little meaningful or useful information. Many administrators could be considerably more respectful of teachers’ time. Meetings should be called only when necessary and should be kept as brief as possible. Professional development activities are particularly important to many beginning teachers, but teachers should have a strong voice in, and choice of, which particular sessions, workshops, and seminars they attend. Our best and brightest teachers are fully capable of managing their own professional development.

One area of particular concern to many teachers is discipline. Teachers should be able to focus on teaching, rather than getting bogged down in red tape, phone calls to parents, or other aspects of dealing with disruptive students. When students are disrupting a class, teachers should be able to send them from the classroom immediately, without a lot of paperwork, or the necessity of being involved in any follow-up to the incident. A simple form briefly stating the nature of the disruptive behavior should be all that is required of a teacher with regard to a disciplinary incident. There will undoubtedly be some teachers who abuse this privilege. They should be dealt with individually.

We claim that teaching is a profession, but we do not always treat teachers as professionals. We claim to respect and appreciate teachers, but the actions of many administrators and some parents do not support that claim. We talk about “empowering” teachers, but give them little real power. Teachers are sometimes consulted with regard to school policies and other issues, but far too often their opportunity for “input” is primarily an exercise in creating the illusion of participation in decision-making. Their suggestions are not seriously considered. They are expected to “rubber-stamp” decisions that have already been made by the administration. Teachers (and students) have a more direct knowledge of the problems our schools face than anyone outside of the classroom. They should have a much greater voice in determining how our schools are run. If we hope to retain the best and brightest individuals who enter teaching, working conditions for teachers will have to be improved.

Excerpt from:
Edutopia: A Manifesto for the Reform of Public Education

Reform Proposal: Develop A More Comprehensive Evaluation System For Teachers

2008-01-19T17:43:00.000-08:00

A more effective system of evaluating teachers is needed whether or not we assign teachers to different roles within the system, but will be even more important if we do attempt to reorganize teaching staffs along the lines described above. Teacher evaluations are presently done in a very superficial manner in most schools. Evaluations are typically conducted by administrators who visit the classroom briefly and infrequently to observe the teacher. The key components of a more comprehensive evaluation system are competency testing, student evaluations of teachers, and effective utilization and interpretation of data from the standardized tests administered to students.

A reasonable amount of general knowledge and a thorough knowledge of a particular subject area, are necessary, but not sufficient, qualifications to be a good teacher. Civil service exams are given for many government jobs and some states already require potential teachers to pass a competency test. Teachers should not be hired unless they are able to demonstrate a reasonable level of both general knowledge, and subject matter knowledge. A standardized test can provide an objective basis for prospective teachers to demonstrate competency, but we must remember that recognition nd recall of facts are the lowest order thinking skills. It is much more difficult to evaluate the less tangible talents that are critical to providing effective instruction. Evaluations of a teacher's ability to select appropriate resources, communicate effectively, and lead a discussion are more subjective. The reliability of evaluations of these skills can be made more objective by including as many individuals as possible in the evaluation process.

The simplest and most cost-effective way to increase the number of people involved in the evaluation of teachers would be to include students and teachers in the process. Students spend more time with a teacher than anybody else. Many administrators already solicit input from students regarding the performance of teachers. This source of information should be formally included in the evaluation process by means of a well-designed survey. Teachers could also serve on committees on a rotating basis to conduct peer evaluations. A sufficient amount of release time should be provided to allow for lengthy and frequent observations, as well as opportunities for the teachers involved to discuss what they have observed, both among themselves and with the teacher being evaluated. These visits would present a valuable learning opportunity to all of the teachers involved.

Standardized competency tests, student evaluations, and assessments by other teachers would all induce some degree of anxiety in most teachers. Every effort should be made to reduce the level of concern. Incompetent teachers should be weeded out before being hired, or within the first year or two of teaching. The concept of tenure should be retained to safeguard academic freedom and healthy experimentation. The primary purpose of these various evaluation tools should be to foster the development of teaching skills.

The most effective evaluation system of all would be to allow students to choose their teachers. If teacher-assigned grades were replaced by course-specific standardized testing, there would be no incentive for students to select a teacher because of a reputation for inflating grades, or being “easy.” There would, in fact, be a strong incentive for students to select the teachers who could help them master course-related objectives most effectively. Incompetent teachers would find themselves teaching to empty classrooms. That would provide a clear signal that the teacher involved should seek further training or consider changing careers.

Excerpt from:
Edutopia: A Manifesto for the Reform of Public Education

Reform Proposal: Use Pre- and Post-Test Data Properly to Compare Teachers, Programs, and Schools

2008-01-19T17:36:00.000-08:00

The primary purpose of standardized testing, within the present system, is to provide information to people outside of classrooms that will enable them to evaluate the “quality” of a school or school district, and by implication, the teaching staff within each school or district. We do not succeed in achieving even that limited objective. We operate on the assumption that a school with high test scores has better teachers and administrators than schools with lower test scores, yet this may not be the case. We do not utilize pre- and post-test data on a student-by-student and class-by-class basis to see how much growth has been achieved as the result of participation in a specific class or program. We compare one year’s group of students with the next. We conveniently overlook the fact that a school or class may simply have students who are more talented academically than students at another school.

If we are going to use standardized test scores to compare the quality of schools or to evaluate the effectiveness of individual teachers or programs, we should take care to gather and interpret the data properly. Course-specific standardized tests, administered to students before and after they complete a course of study, is the only way to achieve this objective. Average scores on these tests would indicate how much students learned as a result of receiving instruction from a particular teacher, or group of teachers. The data gathered would provide an objective method of assessing each teacher’s strengths and weaknesses. They could also provide teachers with useful information regarding which objectives they are addressing effectively and which objectives need to be taught by other means. Professional development activities could then be tailored to meet the genuine needs of each teacher.

Narrowly focused professional development activities should be provided for those teachers who need to improve in specific areas of skill or knowledge. Teachers who demonstrate competence should not be required to sit through staff development sessions designed to develop skills they have already developed, or provide knowledge that they already possess. For highly-skilled teachers the most important form of professional development is time to read and examine resources, construct questions, and reflect. Administrators seem to find it difficult to allow teachers time to engage in these types of activities. Presumably, they believe that teachers can do that sort of thing on their own time, that time spent that way is not really necessary or productive, or that teachers will not utilize their time in an effective manner, if given the opportunity. Unfortunately, some teachers reinforce this belief by wasting much of the time they are given for preparation and professional development. Perhaps they share the belief that time spent in such activities is not important.

Compulsory attendance and a “one-size-fits-all” approach to professional development is no more effective for teachers than those same concepts are with students. We need to do a much better job of identifying which teachers need remedial training and providing training to meet specific deficiencies. Teachers who are truly “professionals” will seek out relevant opportunities for professional growth. They do not need to be compelled to do so.

Excerpt from:
Edutopia: A Manifesto for the Reform of Public Education

Reform Proposal: Use Standardized Test Scores as Part of the Process of Determining Grades

2008-01-19T17:19:00.000-08:00

Most of the standardized testing conducted within our schools falls short of desired effectiveness with regard to the two most common means of assessing the quality of a standardized test - reliability and validity. Reliability means that an individual taking the test will have approximately the same score, each time she or he takes the test. Validity means that the items on the test measure what the test is designed to measure.

Within the present system, problems with reliability are related to the fact that the effort students put into taking a test may vary considerably from one testing session to the next and/or from one school year to another. In situations where standardized test scores do not affect students’ grades or chances for graduation, students have little or no incentive to put forth their best effort. When students have been taking tests for several days in a row, they may begin to put forth less effort. In some cases, students simply mark answers on the answer sheet without even looking at the questions. In other cases, they may take the time to answer the questions they know, but put very little effort into questions or problems that may require more thought or effort. As a result of these factors, the test scores of some students vary significantly from one testing session to another and from year to year.

Problems with validity arise when sections of a standardized test cover materials, skills, or concepts that a student has not been taught. No matter how hard a school district works to align their course of study with the tests being given, there are frequently questions on a test related to classes a student has not yet taken, or which include material a teacher did not cover in a particular class.

The problems related to the reliability and validity of standardized tests can be effectively addressed by using standardized test scores as one of the factors in determining whether or not to award credit for required classes, or other classes where credit is issued, as well as in assigning grades. We should utilize course-specific tests that measure the level of mastery each student has achieved with regard to that subject. Pre-tests should be used to determine the knowledge of each student in a particular subject. If a student already understands some of the concepts, has already developed some of the skills, or has already acquired some of the knowledge, that will be covered within a particular course of study, she or he should be allowed to take an abbreviated version of the class, with the option of skipping sessions that cover what they have already mastered. Students should be allowed to test out of a class if they score high enough to receive a passing grade on the pre-test. Post-test data should be used to determine which objectives or standards have not been mastered by each student. Schools and teachers should utilize the test results on a student-by-student and item-by-item basis, to provide remedial assistance for those students who have not achieved the required level of mastery.

In situations where grades are being assigned, if a student is not satisfied with the grade they earn on the post-test, they should be allowed to repeat part or all of the course and then take the test again. Each test should cover only the objectives and standards that pertain to that particular course. Until a student is able to demonstrate a reasonable level of mastery, she or he should not be awarded credit for that subject. If a significant percentage of the students taking a class with a particular teacher seem to be having difficulty with the same standards, it would indicate the need to offer alternative forms of instruction or utilize different instructional materials.

It is worth mentioning again that not everything that can be tested is worth learning and not everything that is worth learning can be tested. Many standardized test items measure only the lowest level thinking skills: Recognition and recall. It is considerably more difficult to design items for a standardized test to effectively assess a student’s ability to analyze, synthesize, and/or evaluate information. Writing essays, book reports, and research papers, and completing other projects are important components of a well-rounded education. Some degree of subjectivity is unavoidable in assessing writing and research skills. It would be necessary to combine standardized test scores with more subjective assessments in classes that include these types of assignments. Including standardized test scores as part of the assessment process would provide a more objective method of assessment than teacher-assigned grades.

Excerpt from:
Edutopia: A Manifesto for the Reform of Public Education

Reform Proposal: Utilize Reading Tests To Insure Proper Placement of Students

2008-01-19T17:12:00.000-08:00

The ability to read with comprehension is the cornerstone of education. Until a student has learned to read and write with the degree of proficiency needed to make independent learning possible, the academic portion of their education should be focused on helping them acquire those skills. They can and should work toward mastering content standards in the process, but care should be taken that the books and other written materials utilized do not present challenges the students are not capable of meeting.

In any classes involving a considerable amount of reading it is important to match the difficulty level of the readings assigned with the reading abilities of students. Ideally, in situations where readings are going to be assigned to an entire class, students would be assigned to classes with other students of roughly equal reading ability. If students are going to do a great deal of independent reading or read and discuss a variety of selections in small groups, it would not be as important to have an entire class with the same level of reading ability.

There are standardized tests available that can make it relatively easy to match each student, or group of students, with reading materials that are challenging, but comprehensible. The Degrees of Reading Power test (DRP), for example, rates the reading ability of each student on a scale of 1 to 99. The difficulty level of reading materials can also be rated on the same scale, thus making it possible to match each student with reading selections that challenge them, but do not frustrate them. Utilizing a well-designed test to match groups of students with reading selections appropriate for their ability level is an important means of assuring the proper placement of students.

Some subject-matter classes may also benefit from ability grouping. There are situations where prior knowledge is important, or where students need to master certain basic concepts before they can successfully attempt more complex problems or procedures. In these instances, falling behind the class can put students in a hopeless position. Supplemental materials and activities designed to provide remedial help for slower students and enrichment for advanced students can alleviate this problem to some extent, but preparing two or three different sets of materials and activities for a classroom that includes students with average, above-average, and below-average abilities, is more of a challenge than many teachers can meet, especially if they are preparing lessons for several different subjects.

A classroom full of students with a wide range of abilities can make it extremely difficult for a teacher to maintain the proper pace of instruction. No matter how fast or how slow material is covered, at any given point, some students have mastered the material, while others have not. Teachers are often faced with the painful choice of either frustrating slower learners by moving too fast or boring advanced students because the pace of instruction is too slow. There are some situations where ability grouping is important, and other situations where it is not, but the judicious use of ability grouping could make the process of acquiring an education considerably less painful for slower learners without hindering the progress of students who learn at a faster pace.

Excerpt from:
Edutopia: A Manifesto for the Reform of Public Education

Reform Proposal: Govern Schools Individually and Democratically

2008-01-19T17:06:00.000-08:00

The mission of public education in America at its inception was to prepare children for their role as citizens in a democratic nation. The primary argument put forth in support of using tax revenues to provide universal public education was that citizens must be educated and well-informed if democratic government is to be effective. If the will of the people is expressed through the actions of the government, a country will be well-governed only if the opinions of citizens are based on factual evidence, clear thinking, and a willingness to consider points of view with which they disagree. Helping all members of our society develop the skills and acquire the knowledge necessary for active and informed participation in the civic life of our country is a goal that is as important as ever today.

Learning is most effective when it takes place in an environment where students are allowed to engage in authentic activities. Within the system currently in place at most schools the only opportunity students have to participate actively in the governance of their school is to vote for Student Council members, or to serve on the Student Council. Even this limited involvement is rarely authentic. The Student Council has only as much power as a principal is willing to grant. Teachers also have only as much power as administrators are willing to allow them. Neither students nor teachers are allowed to be involved in a meaningful way when important decisions are made about, and within, our schools.

School boards may be democratically elected, but that is where democracy ends within public education. The School Board selects a Superintendent, who in turn appoints or hires administrators at both the district level and within each school. Even if teachers and students are allowed to express their opinions, the ultimate decisions about how each school is to be run are made by principals and district-level administrators. This sort of top-down bureaucratic system might be appropriate for preparation for life under an autocratic regime, but it does not prepare students for the role of citizen in a democracy.

A rigid, authoritarian approach to school governance is not only unwarranted, it is ineffective. Nobody knows better than the individuals who spend their days inside classrooms what reforms are needed to improve student achievement and the climate within our schools. Empowering students and teachers would unleash potent forces for positive and meaningful changes within our schools. It is time to open up the process of governing our schools to give students and teachers a more active role.

We inform young people within our society, quite correctly, that certain responsibilities come with the rights they are granted as adults. Conversely, if we are going to hold students and teachers accountable for their performances in the classroom, we must be willing to grant them the right to participate in structuring schools and classes in the manner they feel is most conducive to maximizing student achievement. Site-based management of our schools should be the rule, not the exception. The basic policies, procedures, and programs offered at each school should be determined by students and teachers. Each school should have a great deal of latitude, within guidelines set by the state board of education, to implement innovative alternatives to the present approach to education.

Each school should write its own constitution, consistent with the laws regarding education in each state. Ideally, the end result would be a system modeled roughly on the Constitution of the United States - a system that has served our country pretty well over the past two centuries. The Student Council would function in a manner similar to the House of Representatives. The teaching staff, or some portion thereof, should have a role similar to that of the Senate. The principal would fulfill the role of president. A school board, elected by, and consisting of, parents and community members, would act much like a Supreme Court, making certain that the policies and procedures that are adopted are consistent with the school’s constitution and with state law.

Obviously there are many powers granted to the government of the United States that would not coincide with the powers involved in running a school. For example, it would probably be a mistake to grant schools the powers to declare war or coin money (although that would ease monetary constraints). The main role of students and teachers would be to determine policies and procedures within each school. The principal and other administrators would be charged with carrying out those policies and procedures. The principal should be given the power to veto policies passed by the students and teachers, but the veto could be over-ridden by a two-thirds vote of both teachers and students. The details should be worked out school by school, a process that would be very educational in and of itself. Modeling the governance system of our schools along the lines of the basic structure of government laid out by the United States Constitution would give students the opportunity to develop civic skills in a highly effective manner, by participating actively and authentically in the governance of their schools.

It is time to demonstrate our faith in democracy by eliminating the bureaucratic regimes that are presently in place within public education. If we are willing to give students, teachers, and parents the opportunity to participate meaningfully in the governance of our schools, we will not only improve public education, we will improve the quality of our government by preparing students more effectively for active and informed participation as citizens.

Excerpt from:
Edutopia: A Manifesto for the Reform of Public Education

Permission is hereby granted to make or post copies of this excerpt from Edutopia for non-commercial use, provided that each posting or printed copy attributes the source and includes the copyright notice.

Conclusion: It's Time for a Change

2008-01-19T16:49:00.000-08:00

Was our nation at risk in 1983? Are we still at risk? Not to the extent stated by the commission. While our schools have improved only slightly, as a nation, we have maintained a pre-eminent position in the world economy, although many workers within our society are beginning to feel the effects of competing with well-educated workers from other countries who are willing to work for less money. With the dissolution of the Soviet Union, we are in an even stronger position militarily than we were in 1983. That doesn’t mean that there is no crisis in education.

Although no “unfriendly foreign power” has “impose(d) on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today . . .” an “act of war” has been committed. This war is being fought in our classrooms. Teachers are trying to get students to learn as much as possible, and students are trying to learn no more than necessary to get by. Unfortunately for many students, they are winning, and when students win this war, they lose. They find themselves, as adults, handicapped by a poor education - unable to read or write well enough to communicate effectively and ignorant of important concepts and ideas that shape the human experience.

The three Rs as traditionally listed are “reading, ‘riting, and ‘rithmetic. Writing actually begins with a “w.” Arithmetic begins with an “a.” Reading, of course, does begin with an “r.” The acronym that is formed with these alterations is WAR. We could end this war by focusing on three genuine Rs: receiving information, reflecting, and responding:

Reading is still the best way to receive most information. With the words fixed on the page, it is easier to pause to consider ideas or concepts being presented, or to re-read passages that are difficult to comprehend. As a result of technology, there are other means of didactic instruction available. We can make effective use of audio-visual resources without losing sight of the importance of learning to read well enough to comprehend important concepts and ideas.

Responding to reading selections in writing should be a regular activity. Writing promotes clear thinking and provides an opportunity for the writer (or others) to consider and reconsider, thoughts, ideas, beliefs, or concepts that are being communicated. Students can also respond to readings or other instructional input by other means - orally, through a work of art, by producing a video, etc.

The basic element of learning that is left out of the traditional version of the three Rs is reflection. Within the typical school day very little time is devoted to having students think about what they have read, or seen, or heard. Quiet reflection is an important part of the learning process and should be emphasized, rather than minimized.

If students develop their abilities to receive information, reflect on the ideas and concepts presented, and respond with carefully considered thoughts of their own, they will be capable of learning anything else they need to learn. By allowing students greater freedom to select the topics they study, we can assist them in this process without damaging or destroying their natural love of learning.

Until we develop a system of public education that is in harmony with the simple truth that we learn most effectively when we are learning something we want to learn, or recognize a need to learn, we will accomplish nothing more than putting fresh coats of paint on a structure with a crumbling foundation. We have imposed a system of compulsory education on our children that is incompatible with life in a country that calls itself “The Land of the Free.” In doing so, we have caused real harm to many of our children by forcing them to engage in educational activities that do not meet the criteria of need or interest, by forcing them to compete for grades, and by labeling them as failures. Children who enter our public schools are at risk! They are in danger of losing their love of learning. We can, and must, do better!

The bottom line is that force-feeding information to students who are motivated solely by external rewards, if in fact they are motivated at all, will not work. Even if a student, in return for points, grades, or some other external reward, manages to memorize a series of bits and bytes of information long enough to successfully regurgitate them on a test, in the vast majority of cases whatever is learned will soon be forgotten because it is not relevant to the daily lives of the learners and is not utilized. The phrase “use it, or lose it” applies with a vengeance where learning is concerned. Retention of what we have learned is much more likely when we utilize the skills developed, and the knowledge acquired, on a continuing basis.

Discussions of the problems facing our educational system have been clouded by rhetoric and a reluctance to acknowledge unpleasant realities. We talk about “leaving no child behind,” but we are less likely to achieve the stated goal of having one hundred percent of our students achieve at the “proficient” level on rigorous standardized tests than we are to eliminate crime or war. We are working with a very simple formula: Talent + effort = achievement. We cannot alter the fact that some students have learning disabilities which prevent them from being capable of achieving “proficiency.” Getting students to work harder is the only way to realize significant improvements in student achievement. Grades, and the rewards associated with them, have not proven effective with many students. Nurturing a genuine love of learning is a much more reliable means of motivating students to consistently work to the limits of their abilities.

That doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t strive to leave fewer children behind. Our present system leaves far too many people behind. Students who drop out of school are left behind. Students who graduate without acquiring the skills and knowledge needed to participate fully and productively as adult members of our society are left behind very quickly after graduation. Sooner or later, adults with no interest in life-long learning are also left behind. We cannot eliminate natural differences in aptitude, but we can provide opportunities for every member of our society to do their best to “catch up” if they want to, regardless of their age or income level.

If we leave the doors of our schoolhouses open to students of all ages and provide courses, seminars, workshops, and other educational activities that address the genuine needs and interests of the public, we can accomplish much more than we do now.

Our schools are falling far short of accomplishing what should be their primary mission - preparing students for effective participation in civic affairs. Uneducated and under-educated individuals are acting as an anchor, holding us back as we strive to fulfill our promise as a nation. We must act now and act decisively to reduce their numbers. Democracy cannot be an effective form of government if only an elite few succeed in becoming well-educated. It can, in fact, be a dangerous form of government if ill-informed public opinion finds its way into law. Our nation will reap tremendous benefits if we succeed in developing citizens who have acquired the knowledge and developed the skills needed for informed citizenship.

We “teach” students about the values and beliefs that must be shared if democracy is to be an effective form of government, but refuse to allow them the opportunity to gain practical experience in exercising the rights and responsibilities of citizens. Instead of mimicking the work week and the workplace, our schools should be democratic communities. Allowing students to participate in genuine decision-making within our schools is the most effective way to help them develop and refine their ability to make informed decisions - an ability that will improve the quality of their lives in many ways.

There has been a broad consensus, for some time now, that our educational system is in dire need of reform. A number of well-intentioned, but piecemeal, and largely ineffective, adjustments have been made in the way we conduct the business of education in the United States. Some of these reforms have resulted in pockets of slight improvement. Up to this point, however, we have not been willing to implement the type of basic, fundamental changes that will be needed to change students’ perceptions of school and learning. That is an absolute necessity if we hope to convince them to devote more time and effort to the process of acquiring an education.

The reforms proposed herein might be considered radical by some, and perhaps they are. They are also logical, reasonable, and necessary. Many people are afraid of change, particularly the sort of fundamental, structural changes that will be necessary to change the attitude of students toward school and learning. However, none of these reforms would be imposed upon anybody. Students and parents who are happy with the status quo would not be forced to abandon the current system. With the assurance that no changes will be forced upon them, they should be willing to support meaningful alternatives for those students and parents who do not feel well-served by the system that is in place. While there is some synergy between the reforms proposed herein, it is possible to implement some of them without implementing all of them. Students and their parents should be given the freedom to select the alternatives that seem most appropriate to them.

For over two hundred years, our nation has been proving that freedom and democracy work. The philosophical foundation of our educational system should be based on, and in harmony with, our fundamental beliefs and values. We must allow students (and their parents) the right to make the fundamental decisions that collectively determine the nature of their school experience. Those of us who believe in freedom and democracy should be allowed to act upon our beliefs. If students, parents, and educators unite in support of meaningful reforms, change will come.

Excerpt from

Edutopia: A Manifesto for the Reform of Public Education

EDUTOPIA

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Prologue: Summerhill

A Nation At Risk?

Excellence, Mediocrity, or Both?

The Mission of Public Education

Motivation and Learning

Our Nation's Children At Risk

Societal Influences

Altering Students' Perception of Learning

Reform Proposal: Reduce the Number of Required Classes and the Number of Standards and Objectives Within Classes

Reform Proposal: Offer Different Types of Diplomas or Certificates to Accurately Represent Different Levels of Achievement

Reform Proposal: Allow Students to Select Their Teachers

Reform Proposal: Allow Students (with the consent of their parents) To Elect Not to be Graded

Reform Proposal: Concentrate Instruction in a Three-Hour Block

Reform Proposal: Allow Students to Attend School Full- or Part-Time, Days, Evenings, or Week-ends

Reform Proposal: Repeal Compulsory Attendance Laws

Reform Proposal: Remove the Upper Age Limits on Attending School Free of Charge

Reform Proposal: Remove the Lower Age Limits on Attending Public Schools Free of Charge

Reform Proposal: Allow Students to Attend Any Publicly Funded School in the State in Which They Live

Reform Proposal: Increase Pay for Teachers

Reform Proposal: Make More Effective Use of Technology and Existing Staff

Reform Proposal: Improve Working Conditions for Teachers

Reform Proposal: Develop A More Comprehensive Evaluation System For Teachers

Reform Proposal: Use Pre- and Post-Test Data Properly to Compare Teachers, Programs, and Schools

Reform Proposal: Use Standardized Test Scores as Part of the Process of Determining Grades

Reform Proposal: Utilize Reading Tests To Insure Proper Placement of Students

Reform Proposal: Govern Schools Individually and Democratically

Conclusion: It's Time for a Change