How do we effectively fix the American high school? We all talk about how our high schools are built on an antiquated notion of school. We’re delivering 21st century education in a little red school house setting. Multi-media learning in rows of one-piece desks. Innovating in a 19th century construct.
We all know of the enormous investment the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has made in trying to fix that high school model. Small schools. Early college high schools. Career-based, relevant curriculum. More rigorous classes. Multiple pathways to postsecondary education. A plethora of new instructional approaches to renovate a nagging problem.
And some of these approaches have had real effect. We’ve seen the value of early college high schools. Career academies have helped boost graduation rates in many urban districts. We still have a while to go, though, until we see the long-term impact of these renovations. Are any of them scalable solutions to fix our high schools, particularly those in our urban centers? Have we found a true fix?
Believe it or not, it is a question that Eduflack has been thinking on for quite some time now. Sure, I usually leave my musings to talking about effective communication or effective policy. But if I’m going to preach innovation to educators, sometimes I need to practice a little myself. And with Bill Gates taking over the management of his Foundation, I have to believe that investment in U.S. education is soon going to come with an even greater emphasis on results and return on investment. That means scalability.
In yesterday’s USA Today, columnist Patrick Walsh details the positive impact the construction of a new building had on the motivation, behaviors, and learning at T.C. Williams High School. (http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2008/02/bricks-mortar-a.html#more) Walsh’s observations only further encouraged my thinking.
Instead of renovating our existing high schools, what if Gates were to build an entirely new model? Over the past five years, Gates has learned a great deal about how, and how not, to run an effective high school. They understand the curriculum and the need for multiple academic pathways. They understand school structure. They are starting to get into the HR game, focusing on the teachers that are needed to lead such classrooms. They are quickly assembling all of the pieces. Now we move to that bold and audacious act.
What if the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation were to take its money and build new high schools in our top 25 urban districts? State-of-the-art buildings. Technology. Rigorous and relevant curriculum. Public-private partnerships. Relevant professional development for the teachers. Common educational standards measured across all Gates schools. Open enrollment for all those seeking a better high school experience. And the power of the Gates Foundation behind it.
And let’s get even bolder. A system of public high schools managed by the Gates Foundation. All in major cities across the nation. All with high standards for its teachers. All working from a common school design, a common curriculum, and common assessment that, over time, could be replicated in district after district across the nation.
Yes, many high schools — those recently dubbed drop-out factories — would see this as direct competition. Others would see the possible establishment of these schools under charter school provisions as a threat to public education. And others would wring their hands over such schools poaching the “good” teachers from our existing public schools, potentially weakening our current infrastructure. But with up to 50 percent of students at these urban schools dropping out before earning a high school diploma, isn’t the payoff worth the risk?
Competition can be a good thing. Gates high schools could identify a clear model for both building new schools and renovating existing ones. It could force current schools to truly improve their practice. And it could lead all of us to expect more from our schools, while helping us actually get there.
How do we do it? For one, we can take a look at what Microsoft has done with the creation of its high school in Philadelphia. Sure, Microsoft and Gates are different organizations. But they share a common DNA and a common synergy. Can’t we take that construction approach, coupled with the lessons learned from Gates’ high school redesign investments, to build that better mousetrap?
Maybe I’m just a dreamer, but this may be just what we need. Instead of trying to renovate a problematic system, making adjustments that will never make us fully happy or get us all the way to our goals, why not just build new? Avoid the restrictions and the drawbacks of the past, and build institutions on our current needs, current understanding, and hopes for the future.
It is no easy task. And the Gates Foundation may be the only organization out there with the resources, vision, and knowledgebase to even undertake it. A huge risk, no doubt. But imagine the payoff if it works.
early college
The Relevance of College
For some time now, a hot topic in education reform has been the relevance of high school. We talk about aligning courses with student interests. We discuss how good jobs require high school diplomas. We hypothesize on the hard and soft skills today’s high schools provide tomorrow’s workers. The result? Dual enrollment, STEM education, new graduation requirements, and higher-stakes exit testing.
But what about the relevance of postsecondary education? We’re quick to throw out the statistic that 90 percent of new jobs in the next decade will require postsecondary education. But what type of education? It all leaves us with a big question — are our colleges and universities preparing today’s undergraduates for careers? More importantly, are our institutions of higher education producing graduates who can meet the needs and demands of our 21st century economy? Should they be?
These are very big questions. We like to believe that college is a place to learn new things, experience new experiences, and meet new people. College is a place to broaden our minds, home to lessons on topics such as art history, philosophy, Mesopotamian history, and ancient tools of ancient cultures. Many will tell you, if you want to prepare for a job, go to a trade school. College is for developing and conditioning the mind as a whole.
Where does the truth lie? Yesterday, USA Today’s Mary Beth Marklein wrote of a new Association of American Colleges and Universities study of 301 business leaders. http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2008-01-22-graduate-assessment_N.htm The findings seem fairly straight-forward. The majority of employers believe half of college graduates lack the skills and knowledge for today’s jobs. Internships are far more important than college transcripts. And we want to know which schools do the best job of preparing our students for work.
What does this all mean? For one, it validates Eduflack’s personal experiences. I am a proud graduate of the University of Virginia, one of the top public institutions in the nation. I took classes such as the Female Gothic (far more Jane Austin than any man should ever have to read), and I considered taking courses such as History of the Circus. All of it in the name of broadening my mind.
I also recognized the importance of internships and skill development. (Self motivated, mind you, there were no advisors or professors telling me how to secure internships or about the skills for my career path.) A polisci course in U.S. Congress helped me secure an internship with U.S. Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV, which led to other Hill internships which then led to full-time jobs. I spent a year as managing editor of The Cavalier Daily, U.Va.’s paper of record, which gave me the experience of putting out a 16-page newspaper each day, while managing a volunteer staff of more than 100. I left U.Va. with a full clip packet (showing I could write) and practical experience from my internships and newspaper leadership. The result — lots of good jobs. In my early days, I showed a lot of my past op-eds or news clips and I talked of my Hill experiences. I was never asked about my GPA, never probed on the courses I took, and was never asked about the symbolism of Mary Shelley’s monster.
Why does all this matter? Today’s students spend a lot of money for those college diplomas. The tab for an in-state, public college degree is now likely to run at least $50K. THose going to private institutions could end up spending more than $200K when all is said and done. And that’s assuming one completes a program in the expected four years, not the more likely five or six. We take out those loans because we expect return on the investment. And that return is not to be the smartest person at a cocktail party, it’s to gain a rewarding, well-paying career.
Ultimately, there needs to be a balance. Yes, we can study Gothic novels, but we also should be taking the courses that help develop critical skills for the workplace. College students should be able to demonstrate that they attained knowledge in college and they know how to effectively apply it in real-world or real-career situations. College not only gave them the tools to success, but it showed them how to use it. A college degree means one is career and life ready.
The business leaders in AACU’s study seem to recognize that. And it is a message we all should take to heart.
College is indeed a worthwhile investment. It provides an opportunity for exploration and thought. It stimulates both the mind and soul. But it also needs an end game. The goal of college should not be to gain access to a graduate school, where we gain the training needed to secure a good job. That undergraduate degree should be a gateway to gainful employment.
The AACU data also raises an interesting question. Employers hope college graduates will be ready for available jobs. How far are we from employers expecting guarantees from colleges and universities? If a graduate lacks the skills to handle an entry-level white collar job, they should go back to college (at the college’s expense) to gain the needed skills and experiences. Then, a college diploma will mean something, college will be relevant, and all involved will see the true ROI of postsecondary education.
Teaching to the Student
Tonight on PBS, Frontline offers a program titled “Growing Up Online” (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/kidsonline/) an attempt to provide greater understanding of today’s youth. A sociological exploration, if you will, into a generation that never knew corded telephones, typewriters, a library card catalog, or UHF television. A demographic that can’t recall a pre-Internet world. A group we hope is being built on the notion of working smarter, not harder; to innovate and not follow.
From some of the early reports on this special, we are seeing that some teachers are fretting the current generation of students because of their short attention spans and desire for instant gratification. Undoubtedly, we’ll eventually hear pinings for the good ole days, when students plucked quills from porcupines and hand-wrote everything on paper with chunks of wood still embedded in it.
Face it, we are living, working, and learning in a new frontier. It’s adapt or perish. We see that in industry, as businesses are forced to do more with less, to adopt green practices, and constantly innovate and build a better mousetrap. We see it in the media, where morning newspapers and traditional network news has been replaced with specialty cable stations and a plethora of web sites, blogs, and other “news outlets” that provide the information we want, as soon as we want it.
So shouldn’t we expect it in education as well? K-12 education is one of the last bastions of old-world thinking. Consider this, most of today’s high schools are just like the high schools we went to, or our parents, or our grandparents. The fact is, little has changed in secondary education over the past century. We still have rows of one-piece desks. We still have teachers lecturing 25 some-odd students for the full class time. We still have worksheets and multiple-choice tests on relatively arcane topics. And we still have anywhere from a third to a half of students dropping out before earning their diploma.
At the same time, we preach the need for education. We tell students that high-skill, high-wage jobs require both a high school diploma and some form of postsecondary education. We talk about the relevance of school and the need to achieve. And then, in far too many communities, we go back to rows of desks and a lecture on the French Revolution.
It shouldn’t be this way. Last summer, Eduflack wrote about the danger of “deskilling” today’s students. http://blog.eduflack.com/2007/07/26/deskilling-our-students.aspx Perhaps Frontline can teach us a little about what we need to do to engage students, make school relevant, and upgrade the learning environment to meet the skills and expectations of todays skills … and not their great-grandparents.
What does all that mean? It means change. Change in how we teach. Change in what we teach. Change in how we measure it.
It means putting technology in the center of the learning process. If students resonate to information gleaned from MySpace, Facebook, You Tube, and the Internet in general, use it to the teachers’ advantage. We can expect far more from students using the Internet than the Dewey decimal system.
It means making school relevant. We are already seeing the successes of programs like Early College High Schools and other Gates grantees. If I want a high-skill, high-wage job, show me how my high school (or middle school) experience gets me there. Yes, some of our nation’s great educational thinkers believe K-12 is a time to cultivate a love for learning, and college or grad school is the time to focus on career. But if you talk to today’s eighth or ninth graders, it is all about the path to a good job. The courses they take, the extra-curriculars they participate in, the schools they choose. If our students are focused on relevance, shouldn’t we?
Ultimately, it means recognizing that the student is the primary customer in our K-12 system. And as we all know, the customer is always right. That means we teach in the environment where our students can get maximum benefit. Think about it for a second. Would we rather build up a teacher’s skills so they are teaching in a 21st century learning environment, or would we rather strip a student down so they are learning in a 19th or 20th century classroom? The choice should be simple. Our schools should be home to an ongoing evolution of effective learning and teaching. They shouldn’t be museums where we honor the good teaching of 1937 educators.
Some get this, and we see their impact in efforts such as one-to-one computing, online high schools, dual enrollment programs, high school internship programs, and the like. But these seem to be the exception, instead of the rule. If a public K-12 education is going to mean something in 10 or 20 years, such innovations need to be the norm. Deep down, we all know that, even if we don’t want to talk about it. The educational model of the past century is not going to cut it as we move further into this one.
Sure, this is all a little harsh. Yes, if we try to build of K-12 systems solely around the whims and wishes of the average teenager, we’ll run in circles and lose what hair we have left. But if we are to learn anything from programs such as “Growing Up Online,” it is that we need to effectively reach our audiences with language, tactics, and strategies they understand, appreciate, and embrace. We need to build that better educational mousetrap, if you will. And we need it now.
Opting Out, TIMSS Style
We need to better prepare our students to compete on the world economy. Such is the driving mantra behind current pushes to improve our high schools and strengthen the links between secondary and postsecondary education. Our students need the skills to succeed, they need the math, science, and problem-solving skills to hold their own against other students around the world. They need the skills to gain good jobs in the United States. And they need strong math and science skills to ensure such jobs remain here in the United States. Math and science skills are necessary to keeping our economy strong and our future generations employed. All strong rhetoric, all believed by Main Street USA, and all pretty damned true.
That’s why Eduflack was a little disappointed to read a piece by Sarah D. Sparks in Education Daily a little more than a week ago, which reported that the United States will not participate in the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study, or TIMSS, for physics and calculus.
Eduflack waited to comment on this development to see how those who truly understand the policy implications reacted. And the response was as surprising as the announcement — deafening silence.
Why is the U.S. Department opting out of TIMSS? Two simple reasons. The first is cost. The second is lack of students. What is the United States lacking? Apparently, we don’t have a few million dollars to conduct the study and we don’t have the 16,000 students needed to comprise an effective sample size.
Yes, such reasoning seems quite questionable, particularly with everything we know about NCLB funding, the demand for greater assessments, and the rapid increase in science and math instruction thanks to programs like STEM, early colleges, and similar high school reforms.
At a time when the international team is looking to go head-to-head with the United States, we choose to sit on the bench. At a time when we tell our kids that they need to gain math and science skills to succeed in both college and career, we send then to the showers before they even have a chance to pitch the first inning. And at a time when we should be doing all we can to post impressive stats and demonstrate we are the world leaders, instead we choose to hide behind the stats on the back of our bubblegum cards, those numbers that defined us in years past.
But what, exactly, does this announcement say about us? Instead of dwelling on what we cannot do or where we see the failings, Eduflack offers up some talking points for Secretary Spellings on this important topic.
* Ensuring that our high school students are truly prepared to compete in the global economy must become a fiscal priority for us. We are, rightfully so, pouring billions and billions into elementary- and middle-school improvements and testing (including TIMSS for fourth and eighth graders), but the current federal commitment to high schools is but a fraction. We need to educate and train our students, particularly those in high school, in math and science, and we need to effectively assess those skills.
* We need to applaud those school districts that are taking the responsibility to prepare all students for the future. Early colleges and dual-enrollment offerings. AP and IB programs. STEM education. All of these are important steps our schools, districts, and states are taking to ready our kids for the challenges and opportunities of the future.
* The United States stands as the true home for innovation. And we’re willing to make the investment to keep it that way. Our future is too important not to equip our students with the math, science, and problem-solving skills needed to achieve, both in school and in life.
Yes, TIMSS is merely one measure of our effectiveness. It is a tool, like other assessments, to ensure we are on the right track. And it is one of the few we have to effectively measure our abilities versus our trading partners and our economic competitors around the globe. Not participating in the study reads like we are worried about our ability to compete and our ability to excel. If we aren’t ready for the big leagues, then we need to get back into training and prepare ourselves for true competition. You can’t win the big game of life if you’re unwilling to step onto the field.
Does Creativity Matter?
In recent discussions of 21st century jobs, the focus is usually on science and math skills, problem solving, multi-tasking, and the ability to work in a team. From there, the talk moves to postsecondary education and the much-cited stat that 90% of new jobs will require some college education?
Some critics of the STEM focus, like Checker Finn, have drawn attention to the need of a classically liberal arts education, one that includes civics and history along with science and math. The goal being a nation of thinkers, not just a nation of workers.
So where in all of this discussion does the need for creativity come into play? Honestly, Eduflack doesn’t know if he has heard the word used as part of the needs of a 21st century workplace until this morning, when he saw the following AP article posted on edweek.org on a conference held by Washington-based Creativity Matters. http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2007/11/16/13apseattle_web.h27.html
It is an interesting concept, tying workplace success to creativity and the ability use one’s imaginations. And it raises larger questions. How do you teach creativity? How do you measure it? What do you do with a linear thinker who follows the rules, and can’t “think outside the box?” And are we really talking creativity, or do we mean those who solve problems and try different approaches?
In Eduflack’s mind, creativity is a term associated with artists and musicians and writers and others who express emotions and thoughts. I don’t think I’d use it to describe someone working at a Boeing plant or writing code for Microsoft. But maybe the word is taking on new meaning and new context.
Regardless, the focus on including creativity in K-12 instruction is an important one for one central reason. It demonstrates that the recent push to link high school education to meaningful careers has taken hold. We no longer have to convince the American people that a high school diploma and postsecondary education are essential components to a successful career. We now know they are non-negotiables.
Instead, we now get to focus the discussion on what constitutes a high-quality secondary education. Whether it be STEM education, rigorous and relevant instruction, classic liberal arts, or creativity 101, the talk is on what skills can be taught now to take advantage of opportunities tomorrow. We’re not convincing people of why, but rather leading them down the path of how.
It demonstrates that progress has been made in marketing the need and effectiveness of high school reform over the past few years. People get it. Even without creative thinking, we now see that a strong education leads to a good job.
Some critics of the STEM focus, like Checker Finn, have drawn attention to the need of a classically liberal arts education, one that includes civics and history along with science and math. The goal being a nation of thinkers, not just a nation of workers.
So where in all of this discussion does the need for creativity come into play? Honestly, Eduflack doesn’t know if he has heard the word used as part of the needs of a 21st century workplace until this morning, when he saw the following AP article posted on edweek.org on a conference held by Washington-based Creativity Matters. http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2007/11/16/13apseattle_web.h27.html
It is an interesting concept, tying workplace success to creativity and the ability use one’s imaginations. And it raises larger questions. How do you teach creativity? How do you measure it? What do you do with a linear thinker who follows the rules, and can’t “think outside the box?” And are we really talking creativity, or do we mean those who solve problems and try different approaches?
In Eduflack’s mind, creativity is a term associated with artists and musicians and writers and others who express emotions and thoughts. I don’t think I’d use it to describe someone working at a Boeing plant or writing code for Microsoft. But maybe the word is taking on new meaning and new context.
Regardless, the focus on including creativity in K-12 instruction is an important one for one central reason. It demonstrates that the recent push to link high school education to meaningful careers has taken hold. We no longer have to convince the American people that a high school diploma and postsecondary education are essential components to a successful career. We now know they are non-negotiables.
Instead, we now get to focus the discussion on what constitutes a high-quality secondary education. Whether it be STEM education, rigorous and relevant instruction, classic liberal arts, or creativity 101, the talk is on what skills can be taught now to take advantage of opportunities tomorrow. We’re not convincing people of why, but rather leading them down the path of how.
It demonstrates that progress has been made in marketing the need and effectiveness of high school reform over the past few years. People get it. Even without creative thinking, we now see that a strong education leads to a good job.
On the Road Again
For the past few weeks, Eduflack has spent the majority of his time well beyond the DC beltway. Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Delaware, Virginia, Arkansas, and Louisiana to name just a few. And the coming weeks add Minnesota, Maine, Michigan, Indiana, and Colorado. One thing’s clear, discussions of education reform are occurring well beyond Capitol Hill and One DuPont.
The discussions in these communities have been remarkable, both for what is discussed and what is not discussed. In virtually all states, educators are focused on improving opportunities for their students. The core message is not that of a high-quality high school diploma. Instead, the focus is a good-paying, secure job. Students are eager to take more and more math and science courses, even if they hate the content. For these students (and I spoke primarily with low-income students) they see STEM as the golden ticket to a good job and a good future.
What didn’t I hear? In visits to state departments of education, to school districts, and to classrooms, I can’t recall a single instance where I heard the acronym NCLB. Maybe it is just a part of life we’ve come to accept. Maybe it is irrelevant. Maybe it is too scary to say by name. Regardless, the decisions of state ed officials, superintendents, and educators seem to be driven my more practical, more day-to-day factors than the federal NCLB banner.
What does this all mean? To Eduflack, it means the intentions of NCLB may actually be working. For some of us, the law was never about high-stakes testing, teacher punishments, and accountability without effective interventions. No, for folks like Eduflack, NCLB was a vision for the future. It was a vision where every student has the opportunity to succeed. Where every classroom has research-based instruction and measurable student achievement. NCLB equates a nation of hope, of opportunity, and of success for all students who worked for it.
And that’s exactly what I’m seeing on my travels. Here in DC, we get lost in trial balloon legislative drafts, amendments to bills that will never see the light of day, and the most inside-iest of inside baseball. Outside of DC, we’re seeing educators doing whatever is necessary to give their kids a chance. The counter plant closings, lost jobs, and economic downturns with dual-enrollment courses, academic partnerships, and strong student-teacher relationships.
Makes us wonder who should be teaching whom, huh? I’ve long advocated we need to move the education reform debate from the ivory towers to Main Street USA. It was always a cute turn of the phrase. But it is also 100 percent true. The true impact of school reform is not felt on Maryland Ave., SW. Long-term impact can only be felt in those cities and towns across the country, where tomorrow’s leaders are busily taking the algebra, physics, and ELA classes they dread … but know they need to succeed.
The discussions in these communities have been remarkable, both for what is discussed and what is not discussed. In virtually all states, educators are focused on improving opportunities for their students. The core message is not that of a high-quality high school diploma. Instead, the focus is a good-paying, secure job. Students are eager to take more and more math and science courses, even if they hate the content. For these students (and I spoke primarily with low-income students) they see STEM as the golden ticket to a good job and a good future.
What didn’t I hear? In visits to state departments of education, to school districts, and to classrooms, I can’t recall a single instance where I heard the acronym NCLB. Maybe it is just a part of life we’ve come to accept. Maybe it is irrelevant. Maybe it is too scary to say by name. Regardless, the decisions of state ed officials, superintendents, and educators seem to be driven my more practical, more day-to-day factors than the federal NCLB banner.
What does this all mean? To Eduflack, it means the intentions of NCLB may actually be working. For some of us, the law was never about high-stakes testing, teacher punishments, and accountability without effective interventions. No, for folks like Eduflack, NCLB was a vision for the future. It was a vision where every student has the opportunity to succeed. Where every classroom has research-based instruction and measurable student achievement. NCLB equates a nation of hope, of opportunity, and of success for all students who worked for it.
And that’s exactly what I’m seeing on my travels. Here in DC, we get lost in trial balloon legislative drafts, amendments to bills that will never see the light of day, and the most inside-iest of inside baseball. Outside of DC, we’re seeing educators doing whatever is necessary to give their kids a chance. The counter plant closings, lost jobs, and economic downturns with dual-enrollment courses, academic partnerships, and strong student-teacher relationships.
Makes us wonder who should be teaching whom, huh? I’ve long advocated we need to move the education reform debate from the ivory towers to Main Street USA. It was always a cute turn of the phrase. But it is also 100 percent true. The true impact of school reform is not felt on Maryland Ave., SW. Long-term impact can only be felt in those cities and towns across the country, where tomorrow’s leaders are busily taking the algebra, physics, and ELA classes they dread … but know they need to succeed.
College for Everyone?
As we move closer to the early 2008 primaries, the presidential candidates (particularly the Democratic ones) are starting to discuss their ideas on public education. We still have a long way to go before we truly know what the candidates will do to improve public education and boost student achievement (funding preK is a start, railing against NCLB not so much). But education is finally a second-tier issue in discussions, debates, and policy joustings.
And John Edwards is part of the chorus. As of late, Edwards has started floating the idea of “College for Everyone,” his plan to provide every American with one year of free college (tuition, fees, and books), in exchange for having taken a college prep curriculum in high school, holding a part-time job in college, and generally staying out of trouble in life.
It’s a wonderful start, but, to Eduflack, the message falls grossly short. Virtually everyone agrees that postsecondary education today is necessary for success tomorrow. It provides the skills needed for a good job. It provides choices. It provides opportunity. Be it a career certificate, two-year college degree, or four-year degree, postsecondary ed is a necessary component to contribute to the 21st century economy.
Edwards knows that. The self-made millionaire owes his a good chunk of his success to his postsecondary education. And as he tours the country talking about Two Americas, he has to know that education is the great equalizer between the haves and the have nots. We reduce the gap between the two Americas through education and through the notion that success can be attained by all.
Knowing that, why does Edwards limit College for Everyone to just one year? Are the doors of opportunity opened after taking a few 101 courses? Of course not. The path to success is accessed, in large part, through a degree. That diploma is a measurement of achievement. Employers aren’t looking for workers who have taken one year of intro courses. They want workers with college degrees.
When one looks at the number of organizations advocating for postsecondary education for all, one of the key messages is degree attainment. We have built a national dialogue that students must graduate from high school, and that dropping out is not an option. Postsecondary education is no different. Students must use their high school years to get college ready. And once the get to college, they need to earn their degree. The ole sheepskin is still the common measurement of academic success.
In proposing an ambitious plan to get kids to college, Edwards is simply playing the role of tease. The incentive should be a degree, not just a chance to hang out at the cool kids table for two semesters. Ultimately, Edwards’ goal should be to boost the number of first-generation students graduating from high school and earning a college degree. That’s the true road to equality and opportunity. Anything short, an we are dangling success in front of many, only to pull it back when they reach for it.
If we truly want to open the doors of postsecondary education to all students, we should be looking at adopting models that boost access and attainment, efforts like the Georgia Hope Scholarships. Readiness. Attainment. Application. That’s how we move students from high school through postsecondary and into career. The goal should be a college degree for all, not a course or two of college for most.
Without such a commitment, Edwards’ College for Everyone plan may only do one thing. That part-time job requirement may be the “path” that many students follow after they drop out of college after that first-year taste. It’ll be one of a handful of part-time jobs they hold to help pay the rent.
And John Edwards is part of the chorus. As of late, Edwards has started floating the idea of “College for Everyone,” his plan to provide every American with one year of free college (tuition, fees, and books), in exchange for having taken a college prep curriculum in high school, holding a part-time job in college, and generally staying out of trouble in life.
It’s a wonderful start, but, to Eduflack, the message falls grossly short. Virtually everyone agrees that postsecondary education today is necessary for success tomorrow. It provides the skills needed for a good job. It provides choices. It provides opportunity. Be it a career certificate, two-year college degree, or four-year degree, postsecondary ed is a necessary component to contribute to the 21st century economy.
Edwards knows that. The self-made millionaire owes his a good chunk of his success to his postsecondary education. And as he tours the country talking about Two Americas, he has to know that education is the great equalizer between the haves and the have nots. We reduce the gap between the two Americas through education and through the notion that success can be attained by all.
Knowing that, why does Edwards limit College for Everyone to just one year? Are the doors of opportunity opened after taking a few 101 courses? Of course not. The path to success is accessed, in large part, through a degree. That diploma is a measurement of achievement. Employers aren’t looking for workers who have taken one year of intro courses. They want workers with college degrees.
When one looks at the number of organizations advocating for postsecondary education for all, one of the key messages is degree attainment. We have built a national dialogue that students must graduate from high school, and that dropping out is not an option. Postsecondary education is no different. Students must use their high school years to get college ready. And once the get to college, they need to earn their degree. The ole sheepskin is still the common measurement of academic success.
In proposing an ambitious plan to get kids to college, Edwards is simply playing the role of tease. The incentive should be a degree, not just a chance to hang out at the cool kids table for two semesters. Ultimately, Edwards’ goal should be to boost the number of first-generation students graduating from high school and earning a college degree. That’s the true road to equality and opportunity. Anything short, an we are dangling success in front of many, only to pull it back when they reach for it.
If we truly want to open the doors of postsecondary education to all students, we should be looking at adopting models that boost access and attainment, efforts like the Georgia Hope Scholarships. Readiness. Attainment. Application. That’s how we move students from high school through postsecondary and into career. The goal should be a college degree for all, not a course or two of college for most.
Without such a commitment, Edwards’ College for Everyone plan may only do one thing. That part-time job requirement may be the “path” that many students follow after they drop out of college after that first-year taste. It’ll be one of a handful of part-time jobs they hold to help pay the rent.
Deskilling Our Students?
Are our high schools effectively preparing our students for life beyond the schoolhouse doors? It is a question that groups like National Governors Association, Jobs for the Future, Alliance for Excellent Education, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and many others have lent their policy heft to. And it is an issue where the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has lent the heft of its coffers to. In a few short years, high school improvement has become THE ed reform issue.
This week, Eduflack was down at the Education Industry Association conference, hearing tales of SES, charters, technology, and entrepreneurship. There was one concept, though, that has stuck deep into the troubled mind of Eduflack. Deskilling.
When we look at high schools, we recognize that most of our secondary schools are still built on an educational model that is now vastly out of date. That’s why we are trying to restore rigor and relevance to the schools, demonstrating that high school is a necessary step to both college and career.
But how do we do it? In districts throughout the nation, we still have high school students sitting in row after row of desks, reading from hard-cover textbooks, taking mimeographed quizzes, and generally using the learning tools and approaches that their parents once used. Simply, we’re teaching 21st century students with 19th century approaches.
These students, of course, are coming to class equipped in a way their parents never envisioned. Strong computer skills. Communication skills derived from websites like MySpace and the like. Organizational skills coming from sites like MeetUp. Multimedia learning abilities from iPods and YouTube. Instant messaging. Blogs. Students are equipped with an unending list of skills and abilities that most of our public schools still don’t have a handle on. They utilize multiple ways of learning, without even knowing they are being taught.
And how do we approach such students, once they pass through the high school entryway? Simply, we deskill them. Instead of building on these abilities and providing instruction and learning opportunities through the mediums and vehicles that students know (and that future employers will benefit from) we are asking many of our students to leave their knowledgebase at the door, and pick up the textbook, sit at their one-piece desk, and be educated the way their forefathers were.
That’s a cryin’ shame. If we look under the hood of high school reform, we’re seeing successes in early colleges, redesigned classrooms, one-to-one computing, and distance education. We’re succeeding where our classrooms are evolving and meeting the learning, socialization, and communication skills of the students we’re serving. If we expect more from our students, we need to work with them, and not against them. We need to enhance their skills, not discourage them. We need to equip them, not deskill them.
If we want a skilled workforce, we can’t send the message that such skills have no place in a traditional classroom. In our multimedia world, we need a multimedia education. Don’t know what that means? Try asking one of the kids in your class. I’m sure they’ll be happy to teach, if we’re ready to learn.
This week, Eduflack was down at the Education Industry Association conference, hearing tales of SES, charters, technology, and entrepreneurship. There was one concept, though, that has stuck deep into the troubled mind of Eduflack. Deskilling.
When we look at high schools, we recognize that most of our secondary schools are still built on an educational model that is now vastly out of date. That’s why we are trying to restore rigor and relevance to the schools, demonstrating that high school is a necessary step to both college and career.
But how do we do it? In districts throughout the nation, we still have high school students sitting in row after row of desks, reading from hard-cover textbooks, taking mimeographed quizzes, and generally using the learning tools and approaches that their parents once used. Simply, we’re teaching 21st century students with 19th century approaches.
These students, of course, are coming to class equipped in a way their parents never envisioned. Strong computer skills. Communication skills derived from websites like MySpace and the like. Organizational skills coming from sites like MeetUp. Multimedia learning abilities from iPods and YouTube. Instant messaging. Blogs. Students are equipped with an unending list of skills and abilities that most of our public schools still don’t have a handle on. They utilize multiple ways of learning, without even knowing they are being taught.
And how do we approach such students, once they pass through the high school entryway? Simply, we deskill them. Instead of building on these abilities and providing instruction and learning opportunities through the mediums and vehicles that students know (and that future employers will benefit from) we are asking many of our students to leave their knowledgebase at the door, and pick up the textbook, sit at their one-piece desk, and be educated the way their forefathers were.
That’s a cryin’ shame. If we look under the hood of high school reform, we’re seeing successes in early colleges, redesigned classrooms, one-to-one computing, and distance education. We’re succeeding where our classrooms are evolving and meeting the learning, socialization, and communication skills of the students we’re serving. If we expect more from our students, we need to work with them, and not against them. We need to enhance their skills, not discourage them. We need to equip them, not deskill them.
If we want a skilled workforce, we can’t send the message that such skills have no place in a traditional classroom. In our multimedia world, we need a multimedia education. Don’t know what that means? Try asking one of the kids in your class. I’m sure they’ll be happy to teach, if we’re ready to learn.
Wither DC?
Yesterday, DC Public Schools announced “major” changes to their high school curriculum. At a time when high schools across the country are focusing on improving rigor, offering college credits through early colleges, and holding schools accountable for preparing today’s students for tomorrow’s jobs, DCPS has decided to take a slightly different tact — devalue high school by letting students choose a four or five year track for completion.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/26/AR2007032602044.html?sub=AR
About a week after it was announced DC was receiving $122 million to improve its schools, yesterday DCPS officials send a clear signal their students are not up to the challenge. Every state in the nation has signed on to the National Governors Association’s graduation rate compact — including a formula built on the agreement that high school is a four-year experience. But it seems DCPS isn’t quite up to the national standard.
The rhetorical meaning of this announcement is earth shattering. After decades of sentiment that DCPS is lagging behind its neighbors in Virginia and Maryland, DC schools has now sung from the mountain tops that DC students can’t measure up. High school students can decide if they feel they are up for the four-year plan or the five-year plan (and for giggles, they threw in a three-year plan as well).
While, in the words of DCPS spokesperson Audrey Williams (as appearing in the Examiner) this announcement means DCPS students can learn in a “time frame they feel comfortable in,” the words say far more to those looking to improve our nation’s high schools. While requiring four years of math, English, science, and social studies, DCPS does not believe its students can do it in expected four years.
What else is it saying?
* Many DCPS students are not up to the rigorous curriculum soon coming to them courtesy of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
* DCPS doesn’t believe its teachers are to up to effectively teaching all the students in the system
* Students struggling to demonstrate proficiency will now decide how long they want to stay in high school
* DCPS isn’t up to fulfilling the same graduation rate compact every state in the union has endorsed
* DC residents will now start high school with a leg down on their neighboring school districts
If DC is any indication, it is no wonder that a recent NSBA survey shows that one in four urban teachers don’t believe their students will succeed in college. These teachers have given up on their students before they ever step into the classroom.
Now is the time for DC parents, teachers, and students to stand up and say NO. If the intention is to boost college graduation rates for DC students, the focus should be on a rigorous curriculum that prepares students for the challenges and opportunities of college. What’s next — five years of high school leading to six or seven years of college?
While well meaning, DCPS’ announcement sends the wrong message to all stakeholders looking to improve DC’s schools. DCPS’ public focus should be on rigor, preparedness, relevance, and focus. Fifth-year seniors should be the rare exception, not an easy-to-make choice.
A New World for Online Ed
Education Week is reporting on a new study that nearly two-thirds of public school administrators surveyed said they are offering some form of online education. Fascinating study, and even more interesting implications for how we talk about successful education reform.
High school doesn’t have the capacity to increase the number of AP courses? Access them online. Limited interest in foreign languages like Chinese or Arabic? Learn through the computer. Unable to build a sustainable early college program in your community? Dial in a reputable two-year or four-year college. And let’s not even talk the possibilities for home schoolers or charter schools.
The unanswered question is how did the 63% of those surveyed by the Sloan Foundation get buy in from their local teachers? How do you convince a licensed, veteran teacher to ultimately play the role of facilitator, as the instruction is handled by an image on a computer screen or on a DVD?
If access to online learning is to continue to grow in our public schools, we need to demonstrate to all stakeholders — especially teachers — that there is value to them. If the study is right, and 19% of all students will soon be taking all of their classes online, teachers will need to be under the online ed tent. Growth and success are one thing. Buy-in from the teachers is essential to successfully implementing classroom change.
(Originally posted March 6, 2007)
Eduflack By Patrick R. Riccards 