Student Education Does Not Need To Be Harder, but Smarter

While attending the taping of the Student Town Hall segment of NBC's Education Nation and listening to the intelligent young adults who voiced their opinions on the state of various aspects of their education, I had cause to think about just what we are doing to our students.  We claim that we need to prepare our students to be able to compete in a global marketplace (which is true and admirable), but are we going about it in the best way?  To attach so much of a student's (and by extension, a school's) success to a test score, or even a set of scores, does not necessarily gauge that student's true potential or aptitude.  How many of our country's millionaires DO NOT have a college degree?  How many of our college graduates are either unemployed or working at a job that IS NOT in their degree area?  Just what are we really  preparing our students for?

A group of students in Providence, R.I. staged a demonstration where they dressed as zombies to send the message that the current state of education, with its heavy emphasis on testing, is killing their future.  It was a powerful image.  This is not to say that there is no place for standardized testing, Common Core or otherwise.  This type of test should not be the ONLY way to assess our students.

Common Core addresses the "Make schools SMARTER" aspect by reducing the overall number of standards to be covered and seeking to ensure student mastery of a few key standards.  The new tests will reflect this change in expectation and rigor.  This is not the problem.  The problem is relying solely on these exams as a measure of student success - especially when everyday professionals and experts in their fields can't even pass them (as demonstrated by the students in Providence who challenged professionals in their city to take the state exam - many of whom failed).

In order to truly assess a student's aptitude, a variety of assessments should be utilized, including portfolios and performance-based assessments.  Many students perform very well with their hands and when called to put theory into practice - not just through abstract thinking.  Accompanying these assessments will be rubrics that fully address the standards that need to be measured to ensure the level of objectivity that is required.  When it comes to performance-based assessments, vocational and CTE schools seem to have the right idea.  These schools combine classroom book work with hands-on application to ensure students fully understand a given set of concepts.  In fact, because of this shift in learning and the rigor associated, many CTE students outperform their traditional high school counterparts on state exams.

Another way to make schools smarter is to incorporate more in the way of classroom conversation through debate and Socratic seminar.  These types of activities encourage and foster deeper understanding while engaging more students in the class, not just the handful that seem to carry the discussion.  When I taught middle school in the Bronx and utilized the Socratic seminar and the fishbowl technique, more students had a voice in the conversation, more viewpoints were explored, a greater tolerance and appreciation for other students was developed, and students had a firmer grasp of the material - which translated to increased test scores and report card grades.  This was not the be all, end all, however, as there were students who did not thrive on the state exam because they could not express their knowledge in the confining way of the state exam.

When educational systems realize that the answer to helping failing schools is not to increase the number of tests that are taken, but to determine HOW to assess students in a way that will expose their strengths, we will be able to create a society of students who will be ready for the college and career options of their choice.

Perhaps the quote of the Education Nation Teacher Town Hall is the following: "Those who CAN, teach; those who CAN NOT, create policies about teaching".  Let's begin creating policy and systems that truly focus on the success and needs of the student we have in front of us and not the one that policy makers are imagining.

The Case for Middle Schools

I recently came across a discussion in Linked-in dealing with the issue of whether we should continue to utilize middle schools or more greatly advocate the use of a different model.  While I did respond to that forum, I decided to include my thoughts here.  This is an age-old discussion. There are those that advocate for the K-8 model, some advocate for the 6-12 model, while still others agree with the current configuration of K-5, 6-8, and 9-12. From a curriculum continuum standpoint, the K-8 and/or 6-12 models seem to make sense. By having teachers and students in the same building it is possible for collaboration not only within the grade, but among the entire building. Teachers on a particular grade level will be able to discuss curriculum with teachers a grade level below or above them to better set their plans and expectations. Families will understand not only what their students need to know at the current grade level, but what they will need to know at the next level and how this will prepare them for that. In school districts that are small enough, this can be accomplished even though they employ the K-5, 6-8, 9-12 configuration.

However, there are other factors that need to be taken into consideration when dealing with the middle level child. It goes without saying that you need to address every aspect of every child - academic, emotional, social, physical - and this becomes even more apparent with the middle level student. This student is a completely different creature. He is truly a "middle child". The youngest child (K-5) receives the most attention. Parents/guardians are extremely involved in the lives of these students, often walking them to and from school, attending parent-teacher conferences, etc. The oldest child (9-12) has the most freedom. Parents tend to trust these students with more responsibility and give them more privileges. The middle child (6-8) is torn. He wants the attention of his younger sibling, but at the same time he wants the freedom of the older. Add to the mix the hormonal changes and the adolescent need for acceptance among her peers, and you truly have a challenge. For this reason, it becomes necessary to have a specialization for middle school. State licensing may need to reflect this as well. Currently, most states have K-6 and 7-12 licensure. Since 6th grade is not necessarily elementary school and grades 7-8 are not necessarily high school, it may become necessary to create a license that reflects addressing the specific needs of the middle level student.

As for the behavioral problems associated with this age level, this is usually more prevalent in the larger school districts that don't have the same level of oversight that smaller districts do. When you allow for students to attend who are out of district/area, you eliminate the sense of community that is so important. If students and parents have to travel long distances, their level of participation will be reduced as will their stake in the progress and achievement of the school overall. Another concern that needs to be raised with these models is the grouping of the ages. It makes people uncomfortable to know that there are 17-18 year olds in the same building, utilizing the same spaces as a 12-13 year old (6-12 model) or even a 13-14 year old sharing space with a 5-7 year old (K-8 model). It is more comfortable to have students who are all within a 3 or 4 years of each other rather than 6 or 7 years.

The middle level student is a challenge, perhaps the most challenging group of the three, and needs to have specific needs addressed that cannot be addressed in the K-8 or 6-12 models. Additionally, this age group needs more parental involvement/supervision rather than less, which is usually the case. It isn't that middle schools do not work, a different approach to how they are structured and staffed needs to be addressed.

FUN - the new dirty word in Education?

As I was driving and thinking (something I frequently do in my car), something made me think of a panel discussion that I observed a few months ago.  The conversation was about how to get students to take more responsibility for themselves in the classroom.  There were adults from the community in the audience and the panel was made up of high school students.  The students stated that they would do better in their classes if the teachers made them more fun.  Why did they say that?  Each adult who responded jumped on them for wanting school to be fun.  Comments like, "School is not supposed to be fun", "That's the problem, you are focused on the wrong thing", "When I was in school you did the work because you had to, not because it was fun", were the dominant thoughts.

The point that the adults missed, that I pointed out to them, was that it wasn't about the classes being more "fun", but rather they be more engaging.  It is true that many students are bored in class.  Why show up to or do the work for a class in which you have no interest?  While many adults feel that fun should not be a factor in the learning process, it is something that students hold as important.  They will get more out of the content if they are engaged in what they are doing.  When asked why they like a particular class, a typical response is that the class is fun.  We have to understand that this is the language the students use.  To them FUN = ENGAGED.  That was the point that was missed.  Students want to go to class, they just want a reason other than "you have to".

Perhaps the biggest reason the adults in the room had such a problem with the word "fun" is that they equated fun with frivolity and being non-productive.  If we actually think back to our days in school and remember the classes we liked the most, we would also say they were the ones that were the most fun.  Some people may use other euphemisms such as, "The teacher was funny", "The class was challenging", or "I really learned a lot."  There is nothing wrong with classes being fun.  We need to find ways to get our students engaged in their learning so they begin to create their own knowledge, rather than the teacher being the owner of the knowledge and lecturing.  If that means introducing "fun" into the mix, so be it.  We are trying to prepare our students to be college and career ready.  Wouldn't it be easier for them to get and hold onto information if they enjoyed the process by which they obtained that information?  Wouldn't we like our jobs more if we enjoyed going, if we actually had "fun"?