Brian Crosby2013-05-25T18:03:06-04:00Brian Crosbyhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/author/index.php?author=brian-crosbyCopyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc.HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Brian CrosbyGood old fashioned elbow grease.If Media Reported on National Security (For Example) Like They Do Educationtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.9268412011-08-15T14:49:38-04:002011-10-15T05:12:02-04:00Brian Crosbyhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/brian-crosby/
We would put together a panel to discuss national security "in depth." The panel would consist of college professors and online university presidents that have studied national security and toured military and other "security" bases, and business people (1 or 2 of them would be billionaires) and a lawyer or two that have very strong opinions about national security and may have visited military bases, a few members of at least fairly extremist U.S. militia groups and a politician or 2 also with strong opinions not considered seriously by the military people actually running national security. In addition only one of the panelists can have as much as 3 years experience in the military or other actual national security service and the experience must have happened more than 5 to 10 years ago. Almost all the panelists should have similar opinions and attitudes that mostly run counter to what the actual experts believe. The host should likewise have little to no experience in national security and ask almost no follow-up questions, mainly because they don't know or understand the background or issues involved. (I'd add the U.S. Secretary of Defense as part of this group, but it is too unrealistic to place them here, wish that was true of the US Secretary of Education... but I digress)
In the audience you can have generals and other high ranking military folks and national security experts with 10 to 30 or more years current experience, but they only get to make a few short comments or ask a few short questions from the audience with no chance for follow-up no matter how poorly their question is answered or taken out of context or they are belittled (knowingly or unknowingly) by the panelist answering or commenting on their question. Now advertise this panel as a broad ranging, in-depth, expert discussion on national security issues that face our nation.
Next, decide as a public service, to put together a week or more of these panels to discuss this vital topic ("National Security Nation", perhaps), and set the panels up pretty much just like the description above except a few times include one panelist that represents a national security think tank that is only considered a barely adequate expert in the field by the people they represent, and that hasn't worked directly in the field for 10 or more years outside of the think tank. In addition do one-on-one interviews with some of the most controversial panelists where they say what they want and even belittle the actual experts and their ideas like it is common knowledge with no follow-up questions from the host (who is really the celebrity reporter or anchor, not a national security or even military reporter that might know enough to ask follow-up questions).
Now be shocked, shocked! that the actual national security experts are mad as hell that they are continually ignored and that only these controversial opinions are given voice and weight. In addition they are angry at uncritically being labelled as against what is best for our country's national security and only care about keeping their jobs and pay when most have given their whole professional lives to national security. Add news anchors and reporters that aid in spreading this perception (knowingly or unknowingly - not sure which is worse) by constantly repeating it or allowing others to repeat it unquestioningly like it was common knowledge. And perhaps most vexing, when pushed condescendingly mention how they are sure "Most" national security experts are great at their jobs and are probably the most cherished and valuable members of society (just not worthy of of having a voice in their area of expertise apparently).
Can you imagine any news organization having even one panel exactly as I described above being promoted as an "in-depth" and "broad-based" discussion about national security? Well apparently that is OK when education is discussed "in-depth." To be fair there have been a few (very few) well done discussions lately, but we shouldn't even have ONE like I described above. I'm hoping that we are turning the corner in this one-sided "debate" about education, it will be interesting to see what transpires.
How could we make the discussion about education valuable? Who should "be at the table" when education topics are discussed?]]>Models of Education Innovation: What Else Should We Try?tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.9128162011-07-29T11:05:16-04:002011-09-28T05:12:01-04:00Brian Crosbyhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/brian-crosby/
We have KIPP, other charter schools and regular public schools trying that model, and it is the model that Race to the Top seems too laser-focused on, let's try other things too. Here are just some ideas, this is by no means an exhaustive list, add your own in the comments. Some of these ideas would be expensive and others less so. My goal was a great education, not less cost, although if any of these models are found to be successful, cost savings might be realized over time or perhaps thought worth the investment. NOTE: I'm an elementary teacher, so my ideas are influenced greatly by that.
If too many bad teachers are the real reason why children do poorly in school, here is an approach to ferret that out. Since the promoters of this thinking claim that if we just put a great teacher in a classroom they can overcome poverty, health, language issues and more, let's spend some of the Race to the Top money to find out for sure (and maybe Gates or Broad or someone else could support this too). Let's assemble a staff of great teachers (award winners? Teachers whose students have great test scores?) and have them take over a high poverty elementary school with horrid scores, for example, and give them 3 to 5 years to turn the school around. To make this model legit, no other funds or special programs, extra staff or health care beyond what is already funded by the school district or grants already in place (because remember, it's just about the teacher) can be utilized.
Let's try schools that follow the "bottom to the top" model where teachers and other educators on-site have most of the responsibility and autonomy to design the curriculum, pedagogy, assessment and professional development (training). The administration is there mostly in a support role to gather resources, advise and provide other support. Since the teachers/educators at each site make the decisions on what pedagogy and materials they will use, this will look different at different sites. This is a benefit since what each site finds works and doesn't work can and should be shared.
Models that include the example above and provide a broad, rich curriculum for all students starting in pre-school, including science, social studies, physical education, field-trips, during and/or after-school sports programs, arts programs, literacy, health and counseling programs for students and families (as opposed to a narrower curriculum offered in too many schools under NCLB). In addition, since research shows easy access to lots of books makes a huge difference in student reading ability, students in the school (and their families, including pre-school age children) will receive libraries of books for their homes (which would be collected and recycled to others over the years), each classroom and the school library will be very well stocked and updated with books. Technology should be ubiquitous and students should be taught to use it as a tool for learning, exploring, connecting, collaborating and becoming learners. Ethics, safety and responsible use would be taught and discussed daily. Some schools in this model could also try extending the school year and include outdoor education and sports leagues (maybe run by the parks and recreation department). Some of the health monitoring and care may be covered already when the new health care program is fully implemented. This model might be the closest to what they do in Finland, which is the highest scoring country in the world according to PISA scores. I model this approach somewhat during a TEDx talk I gave in Denver in 2010.
Re-draw boundary-lines in school districts to make schools as diverse as possible, socio-economically and otherwise. There is research that shows that diversity helps everyone. There are plenty of school districts, especially large districts, where it would be fairly easy to try this intervention on a smaller scale at first. For example, in my school district there are schools where higher socio-economic schools and a lower socio-economic schools already border on each other so long distance busing would not be required, and many students could still walk.
All the models above should be tried with ongoing professional development decided by what teachers require to support their teaching.
Hybrid approaches using combinations of the above ideas should be tried as well.
Any of the models above could (really should) include paying teachers to spend more contract days collaborating, planning and preparing lessons and receiving professional development before and during the school year.
Assessment of each model could be done through observation, NAEP, PISA, or other assessment.
OK, please add your ideas (the flipped model or anything else) in the comments.]]>Innovation Starts With Having Autonomytag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.8975082011-07-14T12:33:04-04:002011-09-13T05:12:02-04:00Brian Crosbyhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/brian-crosby/
Media is often behind on issues like this and rush to celebrities for opinions because it is easier and cheaper than actually digging and asking the hard questions. That seems to have changed recently with the testing and data collecting scandals, and the failure of vouchers and corporate model charter schools to "fix" education. And note I am not at all against charter schools, in fact I am a full-time public school district teacher and I sit on the board of a local charter school. The charter school concept has been hijacked by some with money to push a very narrow model that has unfortunately poisoned the charter school concept in many peoples' minds.
Perhaps, though, the biggest stretch of the facts that "reformers," including the Department of Education for over ten years, have successfully foisted on society has been that their methods are models of "innovation." I'm generalizing here some, but typically the models for education they promote look like school has for well over a hundred years. Sit kids in rows, sit up straight, be quiet, memorize facts, stick to a readin', 'riting, 'rithmetic type of narrow curriculum and so on. And there might be a small percentage of students that that would help, much the same as "boot camp" style schools for troubled youth end up helping some, but that doesn't make them the right fit for every child, and it certainly doesn't make them "innovative."
One thing the current "reformers" have right is that we should be innovating. We should be learning from innovative teachers, schools, programs and countries already showing success, as well as promoting real innovation through our policies and investments. Currently "Race to the Top" makes it very difficult to really innovate because it demands conditions that support too narrow an approach. It actually stifles true innovation.
Innovation in education is not going to happen in the "top-down" model currently being overly encouraged and even enforced on teachers and schools. Teachers and other experienced educators should be driving innovation, but they are being shackled with programs, requirements and "we know better" than you attitudes. By the way this also makes it more difficult to hold teachers accountable, because teachers are learning to embrace "programs" because then any failure (if I've followed the program) is mostly the program's fault. If we give teachers the responsibility, the time and most importantly the autonomy to design, implement, evaluate, tweak and improve their pedagogy and curriculum, that is when we will really see innovation happen.
When Finland saw its schools failing 10+ years ago they did not go to a "no excuses" test everything approach. They didn't fire teachers and blame teachers. They gave teachers the responsibility and the support to change their schools. Teachers took on their professional development, training and peer review, and the school administration was there to help get the resources and time to make it happen. They turned our current top/down model on its head and transformed their schools. Administration is there to support what teachers and students require to learn instead of telling them what to do. Yes, we are not Finland, and yes, we have issues they do not, but that shouldn't change the basic approach. What they found (and really schools here that have autonomy found long ago) was that teachers won't put up for long with colleagues that are not pulling their weight, and that others blossomed when given quality, ongoing training and support in what they do (what a concept).
If we truly want to foster innovation in and from America's schools. If we want schools that foster engagement and creativity, an important step will be to give teachers and schools the autonomy and time to build great schools from the ground up. If some of those are charter schools, great, but non-charter public schools should be at the forefront as well. The technology available to us now that connects us all in new powerful ways will leverage what teachers can do and plan by including successful colleagues globally in making and incorporating genuinely innovative practices. Put actual experienced educators in charge; they are the heart of real reform.]]>Another Health Care and Education Discussiontag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2010:/theblog//3.7825632010-11-12T17:21:21-05:002011-05-25T18:10:25-04:00Brian Crosbyhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/brian-crosby/
This 1,000 pound man is so unhealthy he can't get out of bed, do anything on his own or pass the health test (he scores in the lowest 1 percent of people his age). So the health care provider requires that a health team develop a plan to improve the man's health (don't we wish that was true?). The team consists of the patient, his family, a doctor, a nutritionist and a psychologist.
The team develops a plan, and after a year the man has lost 100 pounds. The family is pleased, but when the health test is administered again, he still scores in the lowest 1 percent for health (after-all he still weighs 900 pounds). The team receives a letter from the insurance company admonishing them at making no progress on the test and reminding them that they must make adequate yearly progress in health achievement.
The team develops a new plan they hope will achieve health for the patient. At the end of the next year, the man has lost an amazing 200 pounds! The family has noted the progress throughout the year and is ecstatic at the improvement. But he still weighs 700 pounds, so when the health test is administered, he still scores at the lowest 1 percent... no progress at all.
A new nutritionist replaces the fired one and the team re-visits the plan again. At the end of the third year another 200 pounds has been lost, and at 500 pounds the man is able, with much assistance and scaffolding, to walk down the hall and back for the first time in six years. The man and several members of his family weep with joy at this accomplishment. But his health test score hasn't changed a bit. At 500 pounds, he is still in the bottom 1 percent for health. He just isn't improving at all.
The insurance company fires the entire health team since they have made no progress with the patient and brings in a new team that includes a physical therapist. At the end of the next year, the man has only lost an additional 10 pounds. It turns out the man's family snuck him unhealthy and extra food and signed reports that he was doing his physical therapy when he was not. With so little progress in weight loss, the man fails his health test for the fourth year in a row (he still weighs 490 pounds).
No team members are fired since the family sabotaged the plan, but they manage to re-tweak the plan yet again. At the end of the fifth year the man has lost an additional 80 pounds. He can get out of bed on his own now to take short walks, use the bathroom himself and even eat some meals with the family. But at 410 pounds he still scores at the lowest 1 percent for health on the health test. After five years and thousands and thousands of dollars, the man has made no progress on the health test. This is the sorry state of a medical profession that leaves us waiting for... Waiting For ... (well you get it).
I originally wrote a version of this 10 years ago when all the testing done in my school district (and most others) was mostly the worst kind of "standardized" testing. The testing has improved very slightly, but still is used to jump to poor conclusions like the ones reached above. I post it here not to say that no testing should be done in our schools to note progress and quality of schools and teaching. But to make the point that we too often oversimplify important, complex issues in education and rely on testing in ways it wasn't designed to be used by people that don't really understand that.
Let's get the best, accurate assessments that can be used not only to rate how we are doing, but help us improve learning BEFORE we use them too much to rate how education is doing. I wonder too if the education we will achieve by teaching to the current poorly designed tests is really the education we want or need? Just a thought.]]>'Discussion' About Ed Reform is Just like a Political Ad... Maybe Worsetag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2010:/theblog//3.7774482010-11-04T01:07:12-04:002011-05-25T18:10:25-04:00Brian Crosbyhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/brian-crosby/ The most recent example I've seen came as I write this -- on this very blog:
"There are many experts who would rather make the issue more complicated, tangled and inspire the rest of us to inaction."
Mr. Guggenheim doesn't tell us who these "experts" that want to do nothing to improve education are, just makes a blanket unsubstantiated comment and hopes his celebrity will make you a believer. To him and too many others, having a different point of view on the possible causes and answers to our educational woes automatically means we want to do nothing -- or he wants to twist it to mean that.
If you don't fully support Michelle Rhee, Joel Klein, Bill Gates, and other "reformers" then you support the "Status Quo." -- This is a sound bite that media has happily and uncritically repeated, uh, repeatedly. It's used just like, "If you are not for the war, you are against the troops," was during the Bush administration. If you are for the more than 100 year model of sitting students in rows and having them recite lessons and only teach a narrow readin', 'riting, 'rithmetic curriculum you are for real change and innovation. if you are for real change, trying different models than test, test, test... like maybe the models being used in places like Finland and elsewhere where they actually test much less than we do... you are for the "status quo." Note, by the way that none of the people I've mentioned so far would send their own kids to the kinds of schools they promote.
"Charter/KIPP and KIPP-like schools are the answer, case closed." I hope no one really believes this ... but rhetoric being what it will be leads too many to get this message. I think those of us that know that charter schools could be great proving grounds if they were used the way they were originally envisioned, as a way to try many new models and pedagogies, as opposed to how they have been bastardized to instead do too much of the same model -- hear this, and perhaps that is unfair. But we don't hear much or seem to learn much from the other models that are out there ... because the "neo-reformers" with money and power don't like "those" charters? I hope that's not the reason. But I'm suspicious.
"If we got rid of the bad teachers... problem solved." -- that overcomes all other issues. This is such dishonest and poor logic -- you have to believe that just getting rid of the "bad teachers" would fix or very close to fix education... it is only surpassed by those those that claim teachers and unions don't want teachers to get fired for incompetence or they make it too hard. Mr. Guggenheim even cherry picks a statistic for his movie that seems to show that lawyers and doctors get rid of their incompetent colleagues at a much higher rate than teachers... what he fails to mention is that one-fourth of teachers leave the profession after two years and half before five years... I guess he assumes none of them left because they were "counseled out" by their colleagues and associations... maybe they left because they became rich?
I actually feel like maybe the "neo-reformers" are getting desperate when Joel Klein's highly paid mouthpiece Natalie Ravitz comes out with another gem like: "Let's Stop Pretending Poor Kids Can't Learn" -- This is the siren call of the truly desperate. No one says this, but she puts it out their like only a pseudo-ethical PR person can. This might be the most like a dishonest political ad example we have. This is what they put up as an argument to those of us that make the point that, yes, let's do a better job of ferreting out the poor teachers, but let's also do something about poverty and health care and parenting skills and other issues that hold students back much more so than only focusing on teacher quality (they also say that means we are for the status quo).
"It isn't about the money." -- And certainly it isn't all about the money, even though the "neo-reformers" see to it that the kinds of schools they like get extra money -- sometimes lots of extra money. Odd?
"We should be getting results like Finland." This is almost laughable since what Finland does to get those results we don't seem to want to look into here. We want to do what we ("reformers") think makes a difference (testing, which Finland does much less of than we do) but we want to get the same results. And if we aren't getting those results, then it's the teachers' fault.
There's more, but I'll let others add them in the comments. PLEASE, let's have a real local and national discussion about education without the rhetoric and quick-fix nonsense. So much about what is wrong with politics has overtaken and polluted a subject that deserves and requires serious and open discussion.]]>NBC's Education Nation and the 'In-Depth Education Discussion'tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2010:/theblog//3.7485502010-10-04T00:25:53-04:002011-05-25T17:55:20-04:00Brian Crosbyhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/brian-crosby/
NBC News's staff obviously spent some time researching the real issues effecting America's schools and then went about assembling panels of experts on all sides of each issue so that the public could become well informed about the complexities involved. This allowed viewers to benefit from the best minds and thinking about how to deal with these issues to improve education for all children. They made sure to include teachers, some award winning, that actually work with children and have firsthand experience with the subjects being discussed in almost every panel. Administrators, parents and students rounded out most of the panels that also included politicians, billionaires, business leaders, and others that had actual expertise in education.
For example, they astutely identified teacher tenure as an issue that has been bandied around for decades. So NBC brought in experts on the issue to speak about the history of tenure, how and why it was originally included in teacher contracts, is it really the problem it is purported to be, why it still exists, its downsides and upsides. Next the experts debated about ending tenure, or modifying it, or leaving it alone. I thought one of the panelists I usually don't agree with made a great point about ending tenure I had never considered.
Another well rounded panel of experts explained and then discussed, "in depth," the subject of charter schools. We again were regaled with a sometimes raucous, spirited dialogue about the benefits, shortcomings and statistics around charters (I forget who the NBC moderator was, but a couple of times I thought they might have to separate two of the panelists when they became rather heated during the "debate").
If you didn't catch any or much of Education Nation you should note that you missed similar "in depth" discussions about poverty, healthcare, teacher quality, pedagogy, testing and more.
Um... OK... I stretched the truth some here. What I described above is what America deserved to have NBC News deliver, but is absolutely NOT what actually happened. We did not actually get any depth at all. What we mainly got was apparently what the sponsors paid for. We got the "Teacher Townhall" or "Let's-throw-teachers-a-bone-so-they-will-think-we-really-included-them-and-honored-their-expertise-and-knowledge-about-education." As opposed to the "in-depth" treatment we were promised. The Teacher Townhall was just what many feared, a much less than in-depth circus. To be fair, it had some good points too.
Teachers and other actual educators were almost completely absent from nearly every "In-depth" discussion -- as were parents and students. And note the townhall was broadcast at noon on a Sunday during football season and the end of the baseball season when teams are vying for playoff spots! I wonder if NBC News really honors teachers like they said, that maybe a primetime slot could have been worked out on NBC... and a different more in-depth format?
Additionally Brian Williams and staff cherry picked comments that supported their narrative for the week from the Townhall and reported them during the network news (I'm not an expert on education -- but I tried to serve as questioner and host to the best of my ability," Brian stated on his blog later.)
Note too that many concerned educators, parents and students contacted NBC for weeks in advance of the summit, after noting the line up of "experts," and made it clear that no teachers, parents or students were included, and that almost all the "experts" had well established and similar opinions and attitudes about education - not a group that would produce an "In depth" discussion. Most had little to no actual experience teaching or working in schools - but did have money and / or power, or a movie to promote.
Assuming that NBC News was just naïve, many sent suggestions of other guests and topics that might lead to something closer to what I first described above. Those that made suggestions were repeatedly told that they were being listened to, changes were being made, and that teachers, parents and students would truly have an equal or strong voice. That somehow never came to be.
NBC News purported that they were sponsoring a meaningful debate -- they did not succeed in any way. I get the sense from Brian Williams' quote above that NBC bought a, "pig-in-a-poke" from well financed corporations, and politicians and really didn't realize that the education debate is not as simple as the Billionaire Boys Club would have them believe. Mr. Williams' ended his blog post saying, "Let's do it again next year." Please don't if you are not going to learn from the narrow, almost insulting approach you took this year. Education is too important an issue to not do right by. Let's have the quality discussion. Let's help make a real difference in our children's lives.
]]>