As I read the article about larger class sizes for non-core classes in Florida, I was a bit amazed. I wasn't necessarily amazed that class sizes are increasing. That's happening all over the country. I was amazed that people either can't think of more creative solutions or simply complain.
We've known for a while that the status quo doesn't work for a lot of students. We also know that smaller class sizes are no guarantee of an excellent education. Still the push, especially by unions who have a vested interest in keeping jobs, is to simply tell legislatures to provide more money. It's as if none of these people have realized how bad the economy is.
As a finance guy, I tend to harp on this subject a bit, but there are only so many ways to get money to spend. The main way is to earn it. Governments can't earn it and they can't take money from people who don't have any. Warren Buffet is willing to give a bunch of his money away and does, but then gets criticized for the kinds of schools that he gives it to. Buffet also thinks that others in his income range (of which there are few) can afford to (and therefore, I suppose, are obligated to) be taxed more. The problem is that even a proposed tax on the rich wouldn't be enough to fix the problem. It brings to mind the poor boy with his finger in the dike trying to hold out the ocean.
Of course, who needs money, we'll just borrow more. Oops, we can't do that any longer either say the rating agencies.
I guess there is really only one answer left. Let's figure out ways to provide education for less money. We don't need traditional classrooms for many subjects. Carpe Diem in Yuma, Arizona has a model that saves money and uses fewer teachers per pupil. Many online programs have proven effective. It's sort of like the Six Million Dollar Man (I know. I'm dating myself.) We have the technology, we can rebuild the education system.
There are two reasons to do it. One is that it's the right thing to do. Two is that it's the most feasible thing to do in this economy. The economy is simply a great excuse to do what we ought to be doing anyway. Yes, I believe that dollars do make a difference--saving them, that is.
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
When public education can't be funded the way it has been
In business, when profits aren't what they used to be (as in the economic downturn that began in late 2008), there are cut backs, changes in marketing techniques and messages, new products are either cancelled or rushed to market, prices fall. In education, many of those same strategies are criticized. In fact in one recent New York Times opinion piece entitled "When Schools Depend on Handouts" the authors argue that the government's not providing all of the funding that is needed by a school is essentially criminal. Of course, they don't mention the economy, the downgrade in U.S. debt, or the fears of another recession. They also do not discuss ways that schools can save money by reforming their current model to be more cost effective.
For example, schools have found ways to reduce the number of teachers and administrators needed through online programs and hybrid programs. The programs reduce the number of teachers needed per student and reduce the number of square feet required per student. Many of these schools have achieved excellent results, and the really high performing ones often require both AP as well as dual credit with colleges.
It doesn't take a lot of thought or effort to make this change, but it does mean even more layoffs than have already occurred. In other words, I believe that there is even more money to be saved while at the same time providing an excellent education.
One of education's problems is that it is stuck in a mode that makes little sense for our society, especially for certain students. Why talk about student data management, if it's only going to be used once in a while? There are means of tracking student learning every day if desired. Teachers can modify instruction real time while actually serving more kids.
It's also clear to me that featherbedding is a continuing practice of government entities. School Districts and Departments of Education are not innocent of this practice. It's easy to say that a person or function is necessary, but is it, especially with the kind of economic downturn that we've seen over the past three years?
The suggestion that schools should be funded at traditional levels, no matter what, assumes that the present method of education is the only and best method of education and that current education dollars are being spent efficiently and effectively. It also ignores that economic realities that surround us.
Instead, let's let educational leaders who are not afraid of the budget cuts take control. Perhaps we should fire all educational leaders who have not performed well in the past and reopen their jobs and only hire those who have a positive attitude about what can be done with the lower funding as well as real plans for how to accomplish those goals. We don't need to blindly throw money into a pit, when we can strategically allocate money to an efficient and effective education model.
For example, schools have found ways to reduce the number of teachers and administrators needed through online programs and hybrid programs. The programs reduce the number of teachers needed per student and reduce the number of square feet required per student. Many of these schools have achieved excellent results, and the really high performing ones often require both AP as well as dual credit with colleges.
It doesn't take a lot of thought or effort to make this change, but it does mean even more layoffs than have already occurred. In other words, I believe that there is even more money to be saved while at the same time providing an excellent education.
One of education's problems is that it is stuck in a mode that makes little sense for our society, especially for certain students. Why talk about student data management, if it's only going to be used once in a while? There are means of tracking student learning every day if desired. Teachers can modify instruction real time while actually serving more kids.
It's also clear to me that featherbedding is a continuing practice of government entities. School Districts and Departments of Education are not innocent of this practice. It's easy to say that a person or function is necessary, but is it, especially with the kind of economic downturn that we've seen over the past three years?
The suggestion that schools should be funded at traditional levels, no matter what, assumes that the present method of education is the only and best method of education and that current education dollars are being spent efficiently and effectively. It also ignores that economic realities that surround us.
Instead, let's let educational leaders who are not afraid of the budget cuts take control. Perhaps we should fire all educational leaders who have not performed well in the past and reopen their jobs and only hire those who have a positive attitude about what can be done with the lower funding as well as real plans for how to accomplish those goals. We don't need to blindly throw money into a pit, when we can strategically allocate money to an efficient and effective education model.
Monday, August 29, 2011
Argument for practical math
OK. I'm a math geek. I always have been. Loved it. Excelled in it. Once hit an 800 on a major standardized test. But, because of the importance of math in every day life, I always wondered all through school why so much home work was just problems. I remember in college when I took an applied calculus class, it made calculus come alive. I wasn't just studying how a function gives me a certain curve and what that meant in terms of acceleration and velocity, but I had some understanding about how it represented the marginal costs or revenue for my company.
Not all students will take calculus, but most of what people need is algebra and geometry. If more geometry problems deal with construction or home decoration, those concepts of shapes sizes and the calculations associated with them would be much more useful. Students would put algebra in a new perspective also. A student how might be studying basic business could develop a budget and a profit model. A student who wanted to be a carpenter or contractor could put mathematical concepts to work on projects. Art students could work out proper proportions.
These ideas appeared in an opinion piece in The New York Times by Sol Garfunkel and David Mumford. However, this can't be the first time that someone has thought of such a basic modification to our educational system. Of course, the change would be detrimental to text book publishers everywhere and to math teachers who may never have applied their math to any real situation. It might also require modifications to state standards as well as state assessments. In other words, what should be a simple change could end up being a very expensive and time consuming change. Nothing in educational change it easy.
Not all students will take calculus, but most of what people need is algebra and geometry. If more geometry problems deal with construction or home decoration, those concepts of shapes sizes and the calculations associated with them would be much more useful. Students would put algebra in a new perspective also. A student how might be studying basic business could develop a budget and a profit model. A student who wanted to be a carpenter or contractor could put mathematical concepts to work on projects. Art students could work out proper proportions.
These ideas appeared in an opinion piece in The New York Times by Sol Garfunkel and David Mumford. However, this can't be the first time that someone has thought of such a basic modification to our educational system. Of course, the change would be detrimental to text book publishers everywhere and to math teachers who may never have applied their math to any real situation. It might also require modifications to state standards as well as state assessments. In other words, what should be a simple change could end up being a very expensive and time consuming change. Nothing in educational change it easy.
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
Charter schools and extended learning time
In a recent Education Week article Eric Schwartz and Fred Frelow describe the benefits of extended learning time. Extended Learning Time is the idea that additional time on task will assist many students to master material that they might otherwise not learn.
In yesterday's blog, I wrote about the concept of proficiency based promotion. While ELT does not completely violate proficiency based promotion, many schools that practice ELT are not flexible enough to practice proficiency based promotion in the way that I would like to see it. In other words, in many ELT environments, all students have extended days. It is, of course, possible to have extended days in which proficient or advanced students have additional enrichment opportunities, but that's not always the way it works. Largely because of seat time restrictions, a school cannot simply dismiss students once they have mastered the day's or even the semester's material.
While I applaud Mr. Schwartz and his achievements at Citizen Schools, I have to differ with him on two points. The first is simply what I've begun to describe above. There are students who do not benefit from an extended day. In fact, depending on the environment, an extended day may even be counterproductive. The second is the idea of closing the achievement gap. It's not that I do not think that all kids should have a good education--far from it. I believe very much that all kids should have opportunities to master a subject before being promoted to the next grade level. I also believe that closing the gap, especially between racial lines is a high priority. There is no scientific reason for the disparity in education between the races. My fear is that too often when I've heard people talk about closing this gap, it means something close to ignoring the needs of superior students and making education better for them. I believe that everyone should have the best education. In other words, in a really good education system, everyone would achieve their best or the best that they could given their genetic make up and their desire to succeed.
So, if ELT helps students, then I say, "Yes." If it does not, then I say, "No." Of course, this is the value of charter schools, they can innovate with ELT or not. Parents can choose what works best for their students. Some traditional public schools and school districts offer similar benefits. I only hope that ELT, as many other good things, does not become legislated as the answer for every student.
In yesterday's blog, I wrote about the concept of proficiency based promotion. While ELT does not completely violate proficiency based promotion, many schools that practice ELT are not flexible enough to practice proficiency based promotion in the way that I would like to see it. In other words, in many ELT environments, all students have extended days. It is, of course, possible to have extended days in which proficient or advanced students have additional enrichment opportunities, but that's not always the way it works. Largely because of seat time restrictions, a school cannot simply dismiss students once they have mastered the day's or even the semester's material.
While I applaud Mr. Schwartz and his achievements at Citizen Schools, I have to differ with him on two points. The first is simply what I've begun to describe above. There are students who do not benefit from an extended day. In fact, depending on the environment, an extended day may even be counterproductive. The second is the idea of closing the achievement gap. It's not that I do not think that all kids should have a good education--far from it. I believe very much that all kids should have opportunities to master a subject before being promoted to the next grade level. I also believe that closing the gap, especially between racial lines is a high priority. There is no scientific reason for the disparity in education between the races. My fear is that too often when I've heard people talk about closing this gap, it means something close to ignoring the needs of superior students and making education better for them. I believe that everyone should have the best education. In other words, in a really good education system, everyone would achieve their best or the best that they could given their genetic make up and their desire to succeed.
So, if ELT helps students, then I say, "Yes." If it does not, then I say, "No." Of course, this is the value of charter schools, they can innovate with ELT or not. Parents can choose what works best for their students. Some traditional public schools and school districts offer similar benefits. I only hope that ELT, as many other good things, does not become legislated as the answer for every student.
Monday, August 15, 2011
Why don't charter schools fight against seat time requirements?
In an excellent article at The Journal, David Nagel discusses the value of getting rid of a seat time requirement and stressing proficiency as a means of promotion. While many online schools are doing just this, the need to promote this practice in brick and mortar schools is now. I don't understand why more charter schools have not fought for this means of education. So many charter schools simply go along with the flow when I know that several leaders here in Colorado favor at least some modifications to seat time requirements.
This would be especially valuable in dual enrollment situations so that a student might get into college level courses even earlier. It could even benefit vocational students. What if a student who enjoys working on cars can show mastery of auto work within weeks? Why should he or she spend an entire semester in auto shop?
It's the same with literature. Some students read voraciously over the summer. Why not give elective credit or give the student an assigned reading list? Summer school could be incredibly easy for these students.
We used to be the oddball parents who would allow our gifted child to do math over the summer when she was 7 years old. She completed an entire year of 3rd grade math over the summer. What happened when she returned to school for 3rd grade? You guessed it. She got to repeat 3rd grade math.
This would not only help gifted children, but would also help those who needed more time. Students would not simply be passed on, but would attain a certain level of proficiency before being moved on. It's also possible that a student that is good in reading could spend additional time in math so as not to extend the school year or day.
We consider it a punishment that some kids have to go to summer school to complete subjects, but isn't that better than leaving non-proficient student to forget even more over the summer? Part of the problem is the stigma of summer school. When I was younger, there were summer options to get ahead. Now, summer school is for dummies.
While I'm not one that believes that all are created equally when it comes to intellectual capacity, it has become clear to me that many students that have been left to drop out or labeled unteachable are actually capable of learning. The idea that all students should be in school the same number of hours for the same number of days studying each subject for the same amount of time is outdated (if it was really ever believed).
Charter schools as the self-appointed vanguards of innovation need to begin to produce real plans for every child to learn. This should include some modification of the seat time illusion. Charter schools will have to fight in the legislatures to get serious modifications, but the time has come for real innovation. Our children's education depends on it.
This would be especially valuable in dual enrollment situations so that a student might get into college level courses even earlier. It could even benefit vocational students. What if a student who enjoys working on cars can show mastery of auto work within weeks? Why should he or she spend an entire semester in auto shop?
It's the same with literature. Some students read voraciously over the summer. Why not give elective credit or give the student an assigned reading list? Summer school could be incredibly easy for these students.
We used to be the oddball parents who would allow our gifted child to do math over the summer when she was 7 years old. She completed an entire year of 3rd grade math over the summer. What happened when she returned to school for 3rd grade? You guessed it. She got to repeat 3rd grade math.
This would not only help gifted children, but would also help those who needed more time. Students would not simply be passed on, but would attain a certain level of proficiency before being moved on. It's also possible that a student that is good in reading could spend additional time in math so as not to extend the school year or day.
We consider it a punishment that some kids have to go to summer school to complete subjects, but isn't that better than leaving non-proficient student to forget even more over the summer? Part of the problem is the stigma of summer school. When I was younger, there were summer options to get ahead. Now, summer school is for dummies.
While I'm not one that believes that all are created equally when it comes to intellectual capacity, it has become clear to me that many students that have been left to drop out or labeled unteachable are actually capable of learning. The idea that all students should be in school the same number of hours for the same number of days studying each subject for the same amount of time is outdated (if it was really ever believed).
Charter schools as the self-appointed vanguards of innovation need to begin to produce real plans for every child to learn. This should include some modification of the seat time illusion. Charter schools will have to fight in the legislatures to get serious modifications, but the time has come for real innovation. Our children's education depends on it.
Sunday, August 14, 2011
Blast off with Rocketship?
An interesting article over at Edutopia about Rocketship Learning highlights the achievement of Rocketship's online program. It's definitely worth a read.
Saturday, August 13, 2011
To get better at math exercises, try exercise
As an exercise enthusiast, I loved reading this piece of news. I also loved it because one of my boys was often kept in from recess for not doing his best on his seat work. Not a big fan of seat work, I always thought it was a bit silly to keep an elementary school boy indoors while others were running around, thinking that somehow he would do a better job.
The article demonstrates that physical exercise stimulates thinking and can lead to better learning. For those of us who love exercise, that's not a big surprise, but still it's nice to have something besides anecdotal evidence on our side.
The article demonstrates that physical exercise stimulates thinking and can lead to better learning. For those of us who love exercise, that's not a big surprise, but still it's nice to have something besides anecdotal evidence on our side.
Charter school expansion
Nothing in this post but a link to a good story about charter school expansion. Mary Ann Zehr wrote an excellent piece for Education Week outlining the challenges that some of the better CMO's are facing as they try to expand their excellent educational practices. See it here.
Friday, August 12, 2011
Providence teachers give back to retain their colleagues
In case you missed it, Providence, Rhode Island public school teachers voted to give back a number of benefits in order to guarantee their jobs and those of teachers who would have been laid off. This is an interesting action of collectivism that can be seen two ways. In a sense it is a great act of cooperation with the district and support for those who would have lost jobs. In another sense, it may merely keep people on the job who are not needed. As with many situations, this may be a combination of both of these. Still, it's one of the first major admissions by a union that the economic downturn is real and that teachers have to sacrifice as well as everyone else. I applaud the teachers' union for this effort, even though I'm sure that some of those teacher should have lost their jobs for other reasons. I'm sure that the district and the union would not have allowed lay offs based on performance, so as we continue to wonder what will happen to the future of our economy, it's good to know that someone is dealing with reality.
A charter school to watch
Global Village Academy began relatively quietly in Aurora with a Spanish and Mandarin immersion program for K-5. The school expanded grades and now is growing a new campus. This charter school is opening a campus in Northglen and adding Russian to its language options.
John Kaufman, a long time charter leader in Colorado, will be the new principal.
I have to admit that I'm also biased. John and Christina Burton, the director of GVA, are some of my favorite charter people in the state. They have such a passion for student achievement that centers on the whole student, which is why this immersion component is so special. It's not just about learning a language, but about learning about other cultures and why they are important.
GVA has sent students to China and has hosted Chinese teachers. They practice what they preach. I wouldn't be surprised if GVA becomes the new model for immersion programs across the country.
My hat is off to you, John, as you take on this new role.
John Kaufman, a long time charter leader in Colorado, will be the new principal.
I have to admit that I'm also biased. John and Christina Burton, the director of GVA, are some of my favorite charter people in the state. They have such a passion for student achievement that centers on the whole student, which is why this immersion component is so special. It's not just about learning a language, but about learning about other cultures and why they are important.
GVA has sent students to China and has hosted Chinese teachers. They practice what they preach. I wouldn't be surprised if GVA becomes the new model for immersion programs across the country.
My hat is off to you, John, as you take on this new role.
Thursday, August 11, 2011
North Carolina Teacher Salary Presentation
If you didn't come to my session in North Carolina, you can still read this entry. I'm providing this for those who attended the session because I wasn't able to do in an hour what I had hoped, and you all asked such great questions, that I didn't get to answer questions at the end.
So, here are a couple of paragraphs answering questions that I received by email.
1.) You talked a lot about your system. How does that apply to the rest of us?
That's a great question. In the session I tried to emphasize a couple of things. One was to be strategic in your system. Make sure that the system reflects strategic values of the school. The second way this can apply to anyone is to make sure that you are measuring the things about teachers that you must keep. In other words, there may be teachers that you would like to keep or might be good to have around, but they aren't key to achieving your mission and vision. In those cases, you may have to let them go. The third main point is to make sure the system is logical and fair. This will make both communicating salaries and calculating salaries straightforward.
As far as specific application, your school will have to do that work. I recommend that you use an experienced facilitator on the front end to develop the goals of the system as well as the rubrics for measuring teachers. Typical brainstorming session could take hours unless their is already a pretty fair amount of agreement on how the system should work and what it should reward.
2.) What are some of the pitfalls that you ran into in implementing the system?
Another great question that I didn't really address in the session. The biggest pitfall from a financial perspective is that we found that a few teachers were well underpaid. So, once you make the new scales public and give teachers their placement on the scale, they can pretty accurately determine where they should be. So, even if you only publish a range, if a teacher is well below that range, then he or she knows that a big raise is coming. Those few cases can be expensive. That can be a budget issue.
A pitfall that we did not have to deal with is the issue of what do you do with teachers who are on a traditional scale based on years and education, but those are no longer the key factors in pay? This is difficult. You either have to up the entire pay scale or let some people know that they are overpaid. We did have some teachers who turned out to be paid well above our new pay scale. In those cases, we had to let them know that they would not be receiving a raise for many years. This is obviously not emotionally palatable. Some teachers chose to leave, BUT they could not say that our decisions were not rational. In other words, the discussion was easier (NOT EASY) because the system was rational and based on factors that teachers helped choose.
I hope that helps. If there are further questions, you can always ask me for more information.
Thanks to all who attended.
So, here are a couple of paragraphs answering questions that I received by email.
1.) You talked a lot about your system. How does that apply to the rest of us?
That's a great question. In the session I tried to emphasize a couple of things. One was to be strategic in your system. Make sure that the system reflects strategic values of the school. The second way this can apply to anyone is to make sure that you are measuring the things about teachers that you must keep. In other words, there may be teachers that you would like to keep or might be good to have around, but they aren't key to achieving your mission and vision. In those cases, you may have to let them go. The third main point is to make sure the system is logical and fair. This will make both communicating salaries and calculating salaries straightforward.
As far as specific application, your school will have to do that work. I recommend that you use an experienced facilitator on the front end to develop the goals of the system as well as the rubrics for measuring teachers. Typical brainstorming session could take hours unless their is already a pretty fair amount of agreement on how the system should work and what it should reward.
2.) What are some of the pitfalls that you ran into in implementing the system?
Another great question that I didn't really address in the session. The biggest pitfall from a financial perspective is that we found that a few teachers were well underpaid. So, once you make the new scales public and give teachers their placement on the scale, they can pretty accurately determine where they should be. So, even if you only publish a range, if a teacher is well below that range, then he or she knows that a big raise is coming. Those few cases can be expensive. That can be a budget issue.
A pitfall that we did not have to deal with is the issue of what do you do with teachers who are on a traditional scale based on years and education, but those are no longer the key factors in pay? This is difficult. You either have to up the entire pay scale or let some people know that they are overpaid. We did have some teachers who turned out to be paid well above our new pay scale. In those cases, we had to let them know that they would not be receiving a raise for many years. This is obviously not emotionally palatable. Some teachers chose to leave, BUT they could not say that our decisions were not rational. In other words, the discussion was easier (NOT EASY) because the system was rational and based on factors that teachers helped choose.
I hope that helps. If there are further questions, you can always ask me for more information.
Thanks to all who attended.
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
Peter Groff lights a fire in North Carolina
A few weeks ago I was in Raleigh, North Carolina for the North Carolina Alliance for Public Charter Schools conference. Coincidentally, fellow Coloradoan Peter Groff was there. The President for the National Alliance of Charter Schools addressed the crowd with the message of "no excuses."
Stating that charter school should work with traditional public schools to share best practices, he also compared the charter school movement to the 60s civil rights movement and said that it may be time to go to the courthouse to win our battles.
Stressing quality over quantity in charter schools, Groff said that charter school leaders have to remember that education is "always about our kids and their future."
Looking toward the future of charter schools Groff cited estimates that charter schools could require as many as 85,000 teachers over the next ten years. In light of the potential growth of charter schools, Groff said, "if we are to expand our sector, we all need to work together." Quoting Martin Luther King, Jr., Groff stated that for the charter school movement, "tomorrow is today."
With 420,000 students estimated to be on charter school waiting lists, Groff asked the question of leaders, "Will we be steadfast and will we be diligent? Let us work with the fierce urgency that the situation demands."
After the standing ovation given to Groff, I had to get to my presentation so I wasn't able to speak with Mr. Groff afterwards. Still it was nice to see Peter in a smaller setting than the national conference. Go for it, Peter Groff!
Stating that charter school should work with traditional public schools to share best practices, he also compared the charter school movement to the 60s civil rights movement and said that it may be time to go to the courthouse to win our battles.
Stressing quality over quantity in charter schools, Groff said that charter school leaders have to remember that education is "always about our kids and their future."
Looking toward the future of charter schools Groff cited estimates that charter schools could require as many as 85,000 teachers over the next ten years. In light of the potential growth of charter schools, Groff said, "if we are to expand our sector, we all need to work together." Quoting Martin Luther King, Jr., Groff stated that for the charter school movement, "tomorrow is today."
With 420,000 students estimated to be on charter school waiting lists, Groff asked the question of leaders, "Will we be steadfast and will we be diligent? Let us work with the fierce urgency that the situation demands."
After the standing ovation given to Groff, I had to get to my presentation so I wasn't able to speak with Mr. Groff afterwards. Still it was nice to see Peter in a smaller setting than the national conference. Go for it, Peter Groff!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)