Rebel 6 Ramblings

Let's Ditch the Limiting Language of Education

2012-01-28T15:19:00.001-05:00

We love the familiarity of structure, especially when that familiarity conjures up memories – real or contrived – of good times and warm fuzzy feelings. But the language of structure can be limiting just for that very reason, because its words connected to indelible images that form our memories and activate our emotional response systems. And there's no other structure that activates more of our emotions – good or bad – then memories of school.

And it's these memories that limit our thinking and imagination about what could be when it comes to bringing our educational structures into the 21^st century, because all too often we're stuck on "what should be" as measured by our personal experiences and historical understanding of school. In other words, we are limited by our very own vocabulary from making real structural changes. So instead, we dabble around the edges with so-called reform careful not to damage the traditional structures beyond recognition. This is why it is often said that a teacher who retired in the 1960's could very easily walk into our schools and classrooms today, and after perhaps a few minor adjustments, would feel very much at home.

So let's consider changing the vocabulary behind our educational structure and once-and-for-all take down the real barriers that are preventing real reform. Here are some of my suggestions for changing the vocabulary found in formal institutions of learning:

School – let's start right away by eliminating this term right now. Close your eyes and blank your thoughts. Now think of the word "school." What visual do you get? I'll bet its either a school you attended – no matter how many years ago – or one you're working in right now. You can't shake that image and instead visualize a structure that's considerably different from either. Even if you try, chances are the "new" building you are imagining looks very similar or has similar structures to it. This infects the thinking of every member of the community, which is why making substantial change is often next to impossible.

Classroom – this has got to go! It implies that the only place learning occurs is in some little box-shaped room with all the traditional trappings of a handsome 19^th or 20^th century classroom. There's order that usually includes the teacher standing in front and students lined up like ducks in a row. Your brain avoids chaos and can't imagine something called a "classroom" looking like anything else, even if "anything else" is a much better learning environment. And what's worse is when a teacher says "my classroom" which implies control and rationing out of course content only in ways I see fit. In other words, this is my kingdom and if you're good little children, I'll let you come in and I'll teach you. If you're not, please leave my classroom, now.

Class period – little is more limiting than the use of the word "period." The formal definition makes me shudder that we still use this as part of our learning lexicon. It implies that learning is structured into specified divisions or portions of time, marked by the recurrence of some phenomenon or occupied by some recurring process or action (Dictionary.com). Nothing could be further from the truth for if this were true, there would be no learning in the seemingly endless chaos of childhood play. In addition, using class period to divide up a day, week, term or year means that we only have to think about chemistry or English or history or any other subject in that one fraction of time.

Grade – there are two limiting uses of this word, the first of which is the way we divide up a child's life between the ages of 5 and 18 into numbered grade levels, thereby also dividing up the curriculum accordingly, as if all children grow, mature, and learn at the same rate as a function of years. But we find that we can't talk about any of our other learning-related structures without bringing up the late-19^th century concept of grades. Go ahead and try it. Meet with your peers and discuss the curriculum or any other school-related business and see who's the first to mention grade or grade-level. Make a game of it or better yet, a fundraiser. Anytime a member of the staff says "grade" or "grade-level" it's a quarter in the jar.

The second use of the word – to indicate how well a child has learned something (if in fact that's how you grade instead of giving points for getting work done, behaving, attendance or even donating a box of tissues to the room) – assumes that all a student has to do is endure whatever activity is required, get graded for the work, and move on whether or not he or she mastered the concept or not. Heck, it doesn't even matter if the child is ready for whatever is next, as long as a passing grade was acquired. After all, that's what parents want to know – did my child pass? What grade did he/she get? As if learning is always something in the past that comes to an end with the granting of the almighty grade.

Teacher – the online dictionary can't even define this word without using it, because we truly have come to believe that education is all about a single person imparting knowledge or skills and without that, we would have no learning at all. What if we devised an educational structure that was void of teachers and instead was constructed completely around the needs of individual and collaborative groups of learners, staffed only by adult mentors and learning assistants or guides to help along the way.

No way! That's not school!

See what I mean?

Keeping poor kids in the back of the public school bus

2012-01-25T17:03:00.002-05:00

There's no denying the correlation between inequity in K-12 funding and low achievement scores. But they do, anyway.

While I'm amazed at the number of policymakers, education reporters, educational leaders, and so-called reformers who simply ignore an undisputed fact, I'm not surprised. After all, admitting that the problem with educational outcomes has more to do with inputs than process denies them of their favorite pastime: destroying public education.

Despite frequent claims to the contrary, the correlation between poorly funded schools and students who perform poorly is well established, and this phenomenon contributes to educational inequity. The difference in per capita spending between the most and the least affluent schools ranges from 1.5:1 to 2:1 (2005 estimates). With the average difference between poorer and richer schools being $1000 per student, schools in high-poverty, high-diversity areas may experience one half to a full million dollars less in funding than neighboring schools (Slavin, 1997). Schools that arguably need more get less than their wealthier counterparts (NASBE, 2001). Responding to these inequities, some have argued that the economic variables are the real determinants of variation in student performance." ~ Scott, Dr. Stacy L. Making Equity Work. 2005

Yet, we collectively do nothing. Public school leaders in general are complicit in this in that the majority from wealthier suburban districts bury their heads in the sand. They're more than happy to band together to ask for more dollars across the board, but that never solves the problem for schools serving communities mired in poverty and English language deficiencies. If you step out of line (as I have), you're branded as a rebel. But what you fail to recognize is that's exactly what I am, especially if it has anything to do with the futures of my kids.

The problem with No Child Left Behind is the very fact that kids are left behind every day by social problems, by economic problems, by a society that thinks its perfectly okay to provide $15,000 per pupil to rich school districts that have the power in our legislatures while expecting kids battling poverty, homelessness, out-of-work parents, English skill deficiencies, and other problems to achieve the same standards with one-third less, with limited resources, and with aging out-of-date facilities and technology. And your best answer is to simply blame hard-working, well-qualified teachers, shame schools, and cut their funding even more?

So now Michigan and other states claim the solution is more charters schools, including cyber schools, and greater choice. That's it? More competition for diminishing resources will help solve the problems of kids who come to school every day with "junk in the trunk?" That's the best you've got?

Guess that works for you and your wealthy voters.

A Tale of Two Counties and the Inequity of K-12 Funding in Michigan

2012-01-21T20:36:00.001-05:00

On the front page of the January 18, 2012 edition of Education Week, Sean Cavanagh writes about States Dogged by Lawsuits on K-12 Funding. The article discusses a variety of legal battles that “highlight the political and ideological divides over school funding in many states.”

“Some of the districts also contend that the funding system is inequitable and provides impoverished school districts and needy populations such as English-language learners with insufficient resources. State legislators have continually changed funding mechanisms in ways that undermined districts’ funding, the lawsuit says.

A growing number of school districts feel we have no real choice but to fight the battle in court given the deep cuts in K-12 funding, expanding number of for-profit charters competing for less dollars, and the inequity in state funding schemes that fail to recognize the added burdens in districts with high concentrations of poor, English language learners, and students with special needs. NCLB has forced states to set high bars for annual testing, graduation, as well as college and career readiness, but it has not adequately addressed inequity in funding, facilities, and resources necessary to meet and indeed exceed the goals. State governments haven’t done any better.

Michigan is near the bottom when it comes to equitable funding that ensures all students have quality schools, supports, and resources necessary to achieve the high standards set by NCLB and confirmed by Governor Rick Snyder’s reform agenda. In fact, Michigan ranks 42^nd in the nation in wealth-neutrality when it comes to school funding, which no doubt contributes significantly to a low 32^nd rank in effectively addressing the poverty gap on the reading and math NAEP assessments. This was confirmed in Education Week’s Quality Counts 2012 and was the topic of my recent post, Setting High Standards for All But Ignoring the K-12 Opportunity Gap.

Yet, Governor Snyder and our legislative leaders continue to suggest the “stick” is a far better school reform measure than providing the “carrots” that will help achieve equity of opportunity for all children and sub-groups of students.

“Public school districts won't find their funding cut again in 2012 – but they might not get additional cash unless they can show they're improving or carrying out best practices, Gov. Rick Snyder said Thursday.” Gov. Snyder: School districts might have to show improvement, collaboration to get more state money

This presents a number of problems for districts trying to plan future school improvement efforts that will positively impact student achievement while having no idea what type of so-called rewards will be received or when. Districts don’t have the capability of opening lines of credit with local banks to finance ventures such as the Governor suggests, which resemble more of a private business practice than a sound school budgeting practice. And then people wonder why the number of school districts in Michigan that are in a deficit budget has grown significantly in the past year?

Can anyone tell me how Governor Snyder’s plan even begins to address inequity of opportunity and the growing funding and academic achievement gaps in Michigan?

A Tale of Two Counties

I previously provided a simple illustration of Michigan’s inequity of opportunity by comparing my district – Godfrey-Lee Public Schools – with the other eighteen school districts in our county, along with a quick comparison to one of the most affluent districts in Michigan, Bloomfield Hills Public Schools on the east side of the state. It is located in Oakland County north of Wayne County and the City of Detroit and is sometimes referred to as Michigan’s equivalent to “home of the stars.” These illustrations can be found in my post, K-12 Funding Perpetuates the Inequity of Opportunity.

I’ve since taken a more comprehensive look at the data that separates and compares the 19 school districts in Kent County with the 28 districts in Oakland County. In doing so, I use three common economic indicators: poverty rate for 5-17 year olds, SEV or state equalized valuation of property, and combined state and local revenues. The latter two are compared on a per-pupil basis to provide a more equitable comparison between varying-size districts. The fourth indicator is achievement as measured by the states NCLB-mandated Top-to-Bottom ranking of all public schools in Michigan. The data is laid out in a series of five tables to illustrate the disparity in equitable opportunities for students attending the 47 schools. In addition, each table includes an inequity index that combines the four indicators and ranks the schools on a scale of 0.01 (schools with the lowest poverty, highest SEV, highest revenue, and highest achievement scores) to 0.99 (schools with the highest poverty, lowest SEV, lowest revenue, and lowest achievement scores).

The tables are summarized below or you can go to the Google Doc link to see the complete data set:

Table 1: This table lists the 28 Oakland County schools sorted by the countywide inequity index. As you can see, Bloomfield Hills tops the list as the most affluent in the county and having the highest achievement score ranking. At the bottom of the list are schools closer to or bordering Wayne County and the City of Detroit. With but a few exceptions, most of the schools at the bottom have higher poverty rates, lower SEV values, receive far less revenue than the more affluent districts, and are ranked lower on the achievement scale. The correlations between the numbers and the rankings are telling. Here’s a listing of the districts and their respective inequity index:

Oakland County District	Countywide Inequity Index
Bloomfield Hills	0.06
Birmingham	0.09
Novi	0.15
Troy	0.22
Rochester	0.26
Farmington	0.31
Royal Oak	0.34
Lake Orion	0.42
Walled Lake	0.43
Clarkston	0.45
Southfield	0.47
Clawson	0.47
South Lyon	0.51
Avondale	0.52
West Bloomfield	0.54
Berkley	0.56
Huron Valley	0.57
Lamphere	0.58
Oxford	0.61
Pontiac	0.62
Holly	0.68
Waterford	0.73
Clarenceville	0.75
Brandon	0.76
Oak Park	0.78
Madison	0.82
Ferndale	0.87
Hazel Park	0.93
Top 10	0.27
Bottom 10	0.75
Top 5	0.16
Bottom 5	0.83

Table 2: This table lists the 19 Kent County districts including my own Godfrey-Lee Public Schools. You’ll notice that my district is ranked dead last in most of the indicators including the inequity index. Here’s a listing of the school districts and their respective inequity index:

Kent County District	Countywide Inequity Index
Forest Hills	0.07
Caledonia	0.16
E. Grand Rapids	0.26
Byron Center	0.32
Rockford	0.39
Northview	0.41
Kenowa Hills	0.45
Grandville	0.46
Lowell	0.50
Kentwood	0.50
Grand Rapids	0.62
Godwin	0.64
Cedar Springs	0.66
Wyoming	0.70
Sparta	0.72
Comstock Park	0.72
Kelloggsville	0.74
Kent City	0.78
Godfrey-Lee	0.89
Top 10	0.35
Bottom 10	0.70
Top 5	0.24
Bottom 5	0.77

I’ll let the reader draw your own conclusions, but here’s a reminder about some of the factors in our district that contribute to this low ranking, which by the way, represents a significant improvement from the 2010 Top-to-Bottom list:

Highest federal poverty rate in the county
High free-and-reduced lunch rate in excess of 90%
Highest limited English language proficiency rate in Michigan
High percentage of Hispanic students with English as a second language
High rate of transiency and influx of new students at all grade levels
Extremely low property valuation to support capitol improvements and technology (only six districts in Michigan have a lower SEV per pupil)
Crowded, aging school buildings constructed in 1923, 1952, 1988 and 1998 (the high school is the oldest school building in Kent County still used for the same purpose)
Severely limited property holdings for expansion of facilities including those used for recreation and athletics
Lack of modern facilities found in more affluent districts such as swimming pools, stand-alone soccer stadiums, performing arts centers, multi-use athletic field houses, student commons areas, television production studios, expandable-flexible learning spaces.

While none of these are meant to be excuses or impossible obstacles, to sufficiently meet the state and NCLB achievement goals of all students achieving college-and-career readiness will require extra time, extra support, smaller class sizes, longer school days, longer school years, modern facilities, and 21^st century technologies. But, owing greatly to a decade of decreasing state funding leading to draconian general fund budget cuts, our class sizes are the highest they've been in more than thirty years, while the percentage of at-risk students has steadily increased to represent a supermajority of the student body.

Despite the obstacles our students face, we have been cited for recent accomplishments primarily due to the hard work of our professional teaching staff, perseverence of our students, and caring parents:

The Early Childhood Center was one of only 20 schools in the state to be cited by the State Board of Education for Beating the Odds in 2011
Lee High School was awarded a significant, limited federal school improvement grant that was instrumental in helping move the school up the Top-to-Bottom list and off the 5% persistently low achieving list

In addition, our Early Childhood program is a leader in the county, our enrollment has grown steadily over the past ten years with many families choosing our district over larger neighboring districts, and our district is considered a trend-setter when it comes to innovative practices in the use of technology.

Table 3: This table combines the 47 school districts with the Kent County districts highlighted in yellow. As you can see, Godfrey-Lee and Oakland County’s Hazel Park are at the bottom of the combined inequity index.

Here’s a listing of the combined schools and their respective inequity index when compared to all districts in both counties (Kent County schools are italicized in this list):

Oakland and Kent County Districts	Combined Countywide Inequity Index
Bloomfield Hills	0.04
Birmingham	0.07
Novi	0.11
Rochester	0.15
Troy	0.16
Forest Hills	0.21
Farmington	0.24
Royal Oak	0.26
Caledonia	0.29
Lake Orion	0.31
Walled Lake	0.31
Clarkston	0.36
E. Grand Rapids	0.38
Clawson	0.38
Byron Center	0.39
Avondale	0.39
West Bloomfield	0.39
Southfield	0.44
South Lyon	0.46
Rockford	0.46
Berkley	0.47
Huron Valley	0.49
Lamphere	0.51
Oxford	0.52
Northview	0.54
Kenowa Hills	0.54
Grandville	0.56
Pontiac	0.56
Holly	0.58
Lowell	0.61
Kentwood	0.61
Clarenceville	0.63
Brandon	0.67
Waterford	0.67
Oak Park	0.71
Grand Rapids	0.71
Cedar Springs	0.73
Godwin	0.74
Madison	0.76
Wyoming	0.76
Sparta	0.77
Kelloggsville	0.78
Comstock Park	0.79
Kent City	0.81
Ferndale	0.81
Godfrey-Lee	0.89
Hazel Park	0.90
Top 10	0.19
Bottom 10	0.80
Top 5	0.11
Bottom 5	0.84

Table 4: This table provides a comparison of the inequity index for the top and bottom groups of school districts when sorting for each of the indicators.

Inequity Index by Indicator	Average Inequity Index for…	2010 U.S. Census Fed. Pov. % Ages 5-17	Ave. Total SEV Per Pupil	2009-10 Local & State Revenue Per Pupil	2011 State Top-to-Bottom Ave. Rank	Overall Inequity Index
Oakland County	Top 10	0.28	0.30	0.38	0.32	0.27
	Bottom 10	0.72	0.72	0.70	0.72	0.75
	Top 5	0.16	0.32	0.28	0.16	0.16
	Bottom 5	0.78	0.82	0.69	0.72	0.83
Kent County	Top 10	0.37	0.37	0.45	0.39	0.35
	Bottom 10	0.70	0.67	0.59	0.67	0.70
	Top 5	0.24	0.30	0.31	0.24	0.24
	Bottom 5	0.72	0.75	0.62	0.72	0.77
Combined Counties	Top 10	0.23	0.24	0.32	0.23	0.19
	Bottom 10	0.75	0.79	0.69	0.70	0.80
	Top 5	0.11	0.28	0.24	0.22	0.11
	Bottom 5	0.77	0.82	0.66	0.67	0.84

Table 5: This table illustrates a summary of the indices and rankings for the top and bottom groups, along with the mean and median for each county as well as the combined list. In addition, Godfrey-Lee’s rankings are included to provide a comparison with the top and bottom averages. Due to the size of the table, you'll have to go to the link to view it. As you will clearly see, our district's rankings and the inequity index are either lower or very near the bottom average for each.

Here are three observations from the tables:

The highest inequity lies in poverty percentage for school-age children in both counties
The inequity gaps in Oakland County are generally greater than in Kent County, meaning the span between the most affluent districts and poor districts is greater.
The inequity gaps in the combined counties are generally greater than in either county, implying that as you increase the number of affluent and poor districts, the equity gap grows

Where Do We Go?

All I can do is tell the story to whoever will listen and believe me, I plan to keep telling it even if it requires legal action to remedy the problem. Sadly, most of our local media education writers and broadcasters spend little to no time addressing the inequities between Michigan’s most affluent districts and those serving the needs of low-income, immigrant neighborhoods. They have been brainwashed by the likes of boy-billionaires and the Michelle Rhee’s who are expanding their spheres of influence and making a buck at the same time. They have come to believe that reform measures such as firing teachers, cutting salaries and benefits, closing low-performing schools, taking over or consolidating districts, and expanding the number of profit-making charter schools are the only answers to improving student achievement.

Unfortunately, none of these have been shown to improve student achievement. What will ultimately improve student achievement, aka, improve low-performing schools, is equity of opportunity for all students. When we finally get the courage to address this moral issue once and for all, by closing the inequity indices in the tables I’ve laid out, we’ll finally be a nation where equity of opportunity drives our quest to once again have the best educational system in the world.

If only Governor Snyder believed the future of all Michigan's children is as important -- no, more important than his precious bridge to Canada or tax cuts for business. Perhaps then he'd become the first governor in state history to finally address the inequity in school funding.

Related Posts:
Growing Equity Gap in Public Education -- A Primer
K-12 Funding Perpetuates the Inequity of Opportunity

If you would like a complete compilation of my recent blog posts on inequity of opportunity & growing K-12 funding gap in a PDF booklet, it's available free on Scribd at http://t.co/FwJX0tM9

Growing Equity Gap in Public Education -- A Primer

2012-01-16T06:09:00.001-05:00

I've been posting the past couple of weeks on the inequity of opportunity between wealthy and poor schools, and the impact it has on our children. On this "MLK Day," I provide a list of resources that can serve as a primer for anyone interested in exploring the growing K-12 funding gap further. This is a must-read for political and educational leaders willing to pull their heads out of the sand and confront this disease that threatens our kids' futures.

http://rebel6.blogspot.com/2012/01/mlk-pauperize-education.html Decades ago, Dr. Martin Luther King spoke out against the shameful inequity in American schools. It persists today despite nearly fifty years of federal intervention.

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2012/01/paul-krugman-how-fares-the-dream.html Rising inequality "threatens to make America a different and worse place. He dreamed of a nation in which his children ‘will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.’ But what we actually became is a nation that judges people not by the color of their skin — or at least not as much as in the past — but by the size of their paychecks.” Inequity in public school funding contributes to the increasing gap.

http://rebel6.blogspot.com/2012/01/k-12-funding-perpetuates-inequity-of.html Past and current K-12 funding schemes simply perpetuate the inequity of opportunity between schools serving poor neighborhoods and those in affluent communities.

http://rebel6.blogspot.com/2012/01/successful-school-reform-must-include.html School reform will never be fully successful without addressing the inequity of opportunity that pervades our public school system.

http://rebel6.blogspot.com/2012/01/setting-high-standards-for-all-while.html We continue to raise the achievement bar and blame failure on our teachers and schools, but do nothing to address the growing equity gap between rich and poor students.

http://www.thenation.com/article/165575/why-congress-redlining-our-schools Reauthorization of Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) or “No Child Left Behind” makes the practice of “redlining” official, hitting poor schools hardest with damaging punishments, further weakening schools in the most vulnerable communities and entrenching the problems—concentrated poverty, segregation and lack of human and fiscal resources—that underlie their failure. It does nothing to reduce the inequity of opportunity.

http://connectedsuperintendent.wordpress.com/2012/01/14/the-opportunity-to-learn-for-all-children/ The opportunity to learn – for ALL children, regardless of their zip code.

http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2011/11/9/GSE-inequality-research/ “New research on inequality in education indicates that over the past 30 years, increased disparity in family income levels has resulted in unequal educational attainment for students….’ Most Americans are not aware of this “striking and disturbing pattern.’” Also see http://www.saveourschools.com.au/equity-in-education/economic-inequality-is-the-root-cause-of-education

http://www.freep.com/article/20120114/NEWS15/201140383 Michigan leaders hit the panic button making one of the largest cuts to K-12 education in its history, failing once again to address the persistent inequity in funding between wealthy and poor districts, and then marveling at the budget surplus with talk about raising standards even higher.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/report-does-money-matter-in-education/2012/01/05/gIQAM8AweP_blog.html?tid=sm_btn_tw Does money matter in education? A new report says YES.

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/12/what-americans-keep-ignoring-about-finlands-school-success/250564/ Finland is an education superpower because it values equality more than excellence while America continues choosing to ignore the growing economic gaps. There's no shortage of bravado when it comes to shaming schools, but the cowardice persists in dealing with the root causes of lower achievement.

http://gettingsmart.com/blog/2011/12/how-edtech-will-benefit-low-income-students/ Digital technology won’t close the achievement gap between rich and poor students, but it can help raise the floor and make more students academically successful.

https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.irp.wisc.edu%2Fpublications%2Ffocus%2Fpdfs%2Ffoc233b.pdf “It is now clear that the century-long improvement in educational attainment in the United States slowed or declined over the same period during which economic inequality increased.”

MLK: "We pauperize education"

2012-01-15T09:53:00.001-05:00

"...The richest nation on Earth has never allocated enough resources to build sufficient schools, to compensate adequately its teachers, and to surround them with the prestige our work justifies. We squander funds on highways, on the frenetic pursuit of recreation, on the overabundance of overkill armament, but we pauperize education." ~ March 14, 1964

"We are likely to find that the problems of housing and education, instead of preceding the elimination of poverty, will themselves be affected if poverty is first abolished.” ~ Where Do We Go From Here: Chaos or Community? (New York: Harper & Row, 1967)

Setting High Standards for All But Ignoring the K-12 Opportunity Gap

2012-01-14T08:21:00.001-05:00

It’s widely understood that before you can deal with any addiction, you first have to admit you have one. The same can be said about methods of funding K-12 education in Michigan and in other states. Our legislature has become addicted to doling out whatever funds they might have (after raiding the school aid fund for other than K-12 purposes first, of course) by holding up a fistful of dollars and getting all school districts – regardless of capability – to jump equally as high to get a few of them. It’s a scene quite common and even comical when one wants to entertain oneself with a pack of puppies. It must have been “fun” for them this past year since some, including Governor Rick Snyder, are already talking about playing that very game again this year. House Speaker Jase Bolger hinted to that prospect as did Rep. Mike Shirkey from the Jackson area.

But Lansing’s addiction to these inequitable methods of school funding continues to widen the gap between the wealthiest (a.k.a., Bloomfield Hills and others) and those at the bottom. My district is one of those at the bottom with the sixth lowest property values, highest poverty rate in the Kent and Ottawa County region, and highest percentage of limited English speaking students in Michigan. Yet Lansing’s unwillingness to admit to its addiction of handing out more money to districts that already have more money continues. Our elected leaders are unwilling to admit to their “sickness” and address the funding needs for kids who need the additional supports most.

This past Friday, economists, elected officials, and policy wonks gathered in Lansing, Michigan to update revenue projections of the past and forecast revenue for the future. Before the ink was even dry on their predictions, legislators and educators started positioning themselves on what to do with large unexpected projected surpluses. My inbox was exploding with news and recommendations from associations (MASA, MASB, and the like) and the mainstream media began reporting out interviews of anyone and everyone running to the bright lights.

None discussed the need to address the growing funding gap between rich and poor school districts, and the resulting lack of equitable opportunities for disadvantaged kids to achieve the same goals as every other child in Michigan. Of course not, since that would not be self-serving panning to their respective constituencies.

It’s ironic that the legislature and governor would tout the term “best practices” while at the same time they employ some of the worst practices in public school funding. Purposely ignoring the needs of disadvantaged students, who by the way are expected to achieve the same goals as students from more affluent areas, is not what I or any person of intelligence would consider to be a best practice.

“The hierarchy of bureaucracy and the power of the status quo are such that, in our country, poor children and communities are treated differently compared to those children and communities from upper class backgrounds.” (Orfield, 2005, as cited in Rios, Bath, Foster et. al., Inequities in Public Education, Institute for Educational Inquiry, Aug 2009)

Released just this past week, Education Week’s Quality Counts 2012 highlights the growing gaps in providing adequate school funding and resources to the neediest kids.

“In the area of school finance, an analysis of school funding disparities among districts once again finds large differences in many states… This analysis also shows that (only) six states fund property-poor school districts at equal or higher levels than wealthier systems (emphasis added)” (Education Week Editors, Equipping U.S. Schools for the Global Fast Lane, Quality Counts 2012)

Here are some of the highlights (lowlights?) about Michigan from the Quality Counts 2012 study:

Average to below average in most of the thirteen indicators that contribute to a child’s chance for success with an overall rank of 31^st out 51 states and DC. Family income, parent education, parental employment, and adult outcomes in education, income and employment contributed to this low ranking.
Virtually in the cellar in 4^th and 8^th grade reading and math achievement gains as measured by the NAEP from 2003-11.
Ranked 32^nd in the poverty gap on the reading and math NAEP, a measure that compares those who are eligible for the National School Lunch Program to those who are not. The state average gap was 26.2 for reading and 25.2 for math. It can be assumed that in districts with significantly larger lunch program eligibility, that this gap is comparably bigger.
Ranks relatively high on standards, assessments, and accountability proving that it’s politically easier to wield the stick than it is to provide the carrots necessary for all students to achieve regardless of disadvantages. However, the study reports that Michigan and most other states provide no incentives to put the best teachers in schools working with kids having the biggest disadvantages.
In the area of equity and spending, Michigan ranks a dismal 42^nd in wealth-neutrality thereby demonstrating that funding decisions in this state do not consider the greater needs of disadvantaged students, i.e., those attending schools in poor neighborhoods, with limited English language skills, and other special needs. The state also ranks 31^st in the nation for per-pupil spending with only 25% of the students attending schools funded at or above the national average. While Michigan ranks high (5^th) in percent of taxable resources devoted to K-12 schooling, it’s clear from all the other indicators that much of this spending goes to districts in more affluent areas that already receive inequitably higher funding. There’s no real effort by the state to distribute K-12 funding on a basis that provides equity of opportunity.

Equity of opportunity is the missing key ingredient to improving public education in Michigan and across the U.S. “…the key driver of education-development policy in Finland has been providing equal and positive learning opportunities for all children (emphasis added) and securing their well-being, including their nutrition, health, safety, and overall happiness.” (Pasi Sahlberg, Finland’s Success is No Miracle, Education Week Quality Counts 2012)

We are constantly being compared to other countries and the way the data is communicated, it makes public education out to be a failing enterprise. But it’s not public education that’s at fault, but rather it’s a lack of understanding and willingness to eliminate once and for all the inequities that hold us back:

“…about 31% of American students of all races and ethnicities (about 15 million out of some 50 million public school students), attend schools that outperform students in 54 other nations in mathematics. These are schools, however, that have few poor students… In American schools where more than 25% of the schools’ students are poor, however, achievement is not nearly as good.” (Berliner, David C. Poverty and Potential: Out-of-School Factors and School Success, March 2009. Retrieved 1/10/12 from http://epicpolicy.org/publication/poverty-and-potential)

For a recap of how my district (Godfrey-Lee Public Schools in West Michigan) fares in Michigan’s inequitable school funding scheme, see my post from last week titled: K-12 Funding Perpetuates the Inequity of Opportunity. In it, you will see a comparison of our district with the other 18 in Kent County, along with a quick contrast with one of Michigan’s wealthiest and highest achieving districts, Bloomfield Hills (in Republican-dominated Oakland County, just a Sunday drive north of many of the poorest school districts in the state).

“To be blunt, money does matter. Schools and districts with more money clearly have greater ability to provide higher-quality, broader, and deeper educational opportunities to the children they serve…. Clearly, money can be spent poorly…or, money can be spent well and have substantive positive influence. But money that’s not there can’t do either (emphasis included). Sufficient financial resources are a necessary underlying condition for providing quality education.” (Bruce Baker, Does Money Matter in Education? Albert Shanker Institute, 2012)

My purpose is not to make excuses for our teaching staff or our students. Like other educators, we’re working hard with the declining revenues provided by the state to address the needs of every one of our kids, but it’s insanity to believe that every school and every district can sustain an effort that provides an equal chance for every student to achieve the same NCLB-driven requirements let alone college and career goals, when the inputs to the system are inequitably distributed. It’s not only insane it’s immoral and borders on criminal.

“(NCLB) was purposely designed to pay little attention to school inputs in order to ensure that teachers and school administrators had ‘no excuses’ when it came to better educating impoverished youth…. The occasional school that overcomes the effects of academically detrimental inputs – high rates of food insecurity, single heads of households, family and neighborhood violence, homelessness and transiency, illnesses and dental needs that are not medically insured, special education needs, language minority populations, and so forth – has allowed some advocates to declare that schools, virtually alone, can ensure the high achievement of impoverished youth…. Our nation…has turned to a callous policy that allows us to officially ignore the inputs…that unquestionably affect achievement.” (Berliner, 2009)

Michigan has an opportunity in 2012 to change this and utilize its growing resources (Michigan revenue projection: We've got $633 million extra, Detroit Free Press) to improve equity of opportunity for kids, regardless of their zip code.

The question is, do our elected leaders have the will?

Since its inception, a number of NCLB's critics have claimed that the law was flawed because it was not designed to address the conditions under which children learn....this crucial aspect of educational reform must be addressed if sustainable gains in learning are to be made. Put most simply, if we want to bring about significant improvements in learning outcomes for students, we have to do more to address the context in which learning takes place (emphasis added).

Accountability is essential, but only if we have done what it takes to provide educators, students, and parents with the support they need to succeed. Such an approach makes far more sense than holding students and schools accountable by simply issuing reports about their progress (or lack thereof) as we do now in states across the country. Labeling a school as failing or denying students a high school diploma when we know that we have not done the work necessary to help them improve is neither fair nor effective. It takes more than pressure or humiliation to improve failing schools....many underresourced schools simply lack the capacity to meet the needs of the students they serve (emphasis added). ~ Boykin, A. Wade and Noguera, Pedro. Creating the opportunity to learn: moving from research in practice to close the achievement gap. ASCD 2011.

Related reading: Business tax cut means inflation-adjusted revenues for School Aid Fund will hit lowest level since Proposal A How Michigan’s Governor Rick Snyder and the state legislature put the screws to our kids in 2011

Successful School Reform Must Include Equity of Opportunity in Funding

2012-01-09T10:21:00.001-05:00

Today, substantial funding differences exist among school of the same district, among districts of the same state, and among states - and the differences are linked to 1) racial, ethnic and economic status, and 2) inequities in educational resources and in student achievement. "Separate but equal" schooling was declared unconstitutional in 1954; in the 1990s our funding formulas create schools that are not only separate but decidedly unequal.

Equitable school financing must recognize that differing needs and circumstances require different interventions and incur different costs. Funding should consider what dollars actually buy in different settings, the extent to which programs and services are provided to all groups, and the degree to which all students benefit from public education services.

Local, state and federal governments share responsibility for equity in school finance. Current systems deny equal educational opportunity to children in property-poor districts where poor, racial minority and limited English proficient children are overrepresented. State and federal "categorical" funding meant to supplement presumably equal "regular" programs fails miserably to make up for inter- and intra-district funding inequities.

Federal and state governments must accomplish significant school finance reform and empower needy schools to give their students an opportunity to learn.

It's been seventeen years since this publication and we're no closer at achieving equity for all K-12 students! In Michigan, this falls solely on our state elected officials since the state assumed responsibility for funding K-12 public schools when Proposal A passed in the mid-1990's. Not only has the state failed to bring per-pupil support in line between all 551 school districts, it has not even begun to address the more considerable problem of providing equity of opportunity for children in low socio-economic communities, with limited English language, and other barriers to learning. Thus, two school districts can be side-by-side or within a few miles of each other. In one, children enjoy modern classrooms, state-of-the art music, PE, and athletic facilities, up-to-date technology, smaller class sizes, and more high-level course offerings. In the other, they attend a 1920's crowded building with overflowing classes and limited course offerings. There, funds are insufficient to effectively bridge the language barriers let alone make up for lack of basic skills due to transiency, previous attendance at horrible schools, and limited support at home. Yet, they are expected to achieve at the same level as their more affluent neighbors and ridiculed when they don't, often sprinkled with inaccurate assumptions and even blatant racism. As a result, their teachers and administrators are blamed for it because that's the easy way out for political leaders who don't want to deal with the real problems.

The American education system will never effectively compete with high-achieving nations until this issue is finally confronted and resolved.

Educate America: A Call for Equity in School Reform

K-12 Funding Perpetuates the Inequity of Opportunity

2012-01-07T14:40:00.001-05:00

If Popeye the Sailor was a school superintendent in an impoverished district, his mantra would likely be, “I’ve had all I can stand, and I can’t stands no more!” Unfortunately, there’s no magical can of spinach that will help me or any of my peers in districts facing similar challenges. But, it’s long overdue that more of us speak out on the inequity of opportunity that confronts our kids, and that’s just what I’m fixin’ to do. You can choose to read the rest of this post and gain a better understanding of the problem, or, like many of my contemporaries and our political leaders, you can bury your head in the sand and act like there’s no problem.

Fair warning, I’m coming after those who simply choose to ignore the inequities, continue to make excuses for why they exist and why they can’t be fixed, or just simply blow me off as another educator wanting more money. This isn’t about more money for K-12 education, it’s about equity of opportunity for my kids who are expected to achieve at the same levels as other kids, rich, middle class or poor, disability or no disability, proficient in the English language or not.

Let me be clear about my position: There is very little equity of opportunity in our K-12 system when it comes to education and making a better life for one’s self.

First, what is meant by equity of opportunity? We’re not talking about equality; equity does not imply that every child receives equal dollars. A common understanding of equity involves looking at it from a horizontal and vertical point of view (Roza and Miles, 2002):

Horizontal: do students with similar characteristics receive equal resources?
Vertical: do students with dissimilar characteristics receive appropriately dissimilar resources?

Inequity, therefore, exists when kids in districts receive less funding or having less resources available – such as modern buildings, technology, well-educated teachers, supplemental supports, etc. – than their peers in districts with higher levels.

"Furthermore, low-income children and English language learners need extra resources to overcome disadvantages due to socioeconomic status or lack of English language proficiency. In many cases, not only are these children not receiving equal resources but they are also not receiving the extra supports they need in order to succeed." (Epstein, 2011)

What set me off was a recent article in our local media regarding a nearby district (I will not name the district or provide a link to the article) planning to require students to bring a laptop or similar digital device to school. This is one of our county’s more affluent districts (we have nineteen districts within our county) but not the richest by any means. However, it’s apparent that there is enough wealth and support in the community to back this type of mandate. My first reaction was “bravo” since I’m a staunch advocate for tech in the classroom, but the more I thought of it, the more my blood began to boil. How does one district get the opportunity to implement a 1:1 technology program at such minimal cost while districts in lower-income areas have to depend on providing the tools at a considerable cost? And why, if that particular district can afford to have parents foot the bill, do they continue getting nearly $300 more per pupil in combined state and local funding than our district? They have more, so they get more? Is that it?

Again, this is not about any one district or even a group of school districts (other than my own), but it’s more about the inequity that is perpetuated by ignorance about funding differences, acceptance without debate regarding traditional methods for K-12 funding, self-centered desires to keep taxes low, and archaic beliefs about the causes of poverty fueled by one’s own bias. (Biddler & Berliner, ASCD 2002) The people who determine the course of school funding are our elected representatives and they bear the brunt of the blame for perpetuating a cycle of impoverished school districts and inequity of opportunity for students. Unfortunately, many of our legislators that block any efforts to reform K-12 funding to make it more equitable come from areas that include affluent communities and districts that are financially well off in comparison. Right now, they control the agenda and they are the targets of my ire.

On top of it, Michigan’s governor and republican-led house and senate conspired to cut K-12 education at a level never before seen in this state. Since Proposal A was adopted in the mid-1990’s and the state took over most of the responsibility for school funding, thereby limiting a district’s ability to ask the local voters for more funds, combined state and local revenues for Godfrey-Lee Public Schools (my district) has actually dropped the equivalent of $33 per students since 1997, when adjusted for inflation. So not only have our legislators avoided addressing inequity, they haven’t even kept up with rising consumer costs.

I’d like to give you an analysis of what I see going on in Michigan. Here’s a quick snapshot of our district’s situation. Godfrey-Lee Public Schools, which is a one-square-mile school district in Wyoming, Michigan with 1,800 students, and shares a border with the much larger Grand Rapids Public School district, has the:

Highest federal poverty rate for children ages 5-17 in the county (36.7%) based on the 2010 U.S. Census.
Lowest total SEV (property value) per pupil in the county, and ranks 544 out of 551 traditional K-12 districts statewide ($72,173 per pupil). The next lowest district in Kent County has double the SEV per pupil.
Ninth lowest combined local and state revenue in the county ($8,374 per pupil).
Highest percentage of limited English proficient students in comparison to all Michigan school districts (40%, and 50.3% if you include former LEP students).

I include SEV, or the state-equalized-value of property, because school buildings, technology, athletic facilities, and other capitol projects are typically financed by voter-approved bonds repaid through higher property taxes. A district with a high SEV has more bonding capacity to support modern facilities and technology.

“Low-income children tend to be concentrated in low-income school districts, and these children often attend schools that receive far fewer resources per pupil despite their greater need.” (Epstein, 2011)

“Lack of funding for school buildings is a major flaw in most state funding systems because, as one of the largest costs, facilities are locally supported without state assistance. This compromises equity and makes the quality of a child’s school a happenstance of geography.” (Verstegen, 2011)

To illustrate a comparison from within our county, I use the most recent Michigan Top-to-Bottom list released this past August. Based on financial reports from the 2009-10 school year (Michigan Bulletin 1014), the five school districts (out of 19) in the county ranked the highest on the list have:

An average federal poverty rate of only 7.8%, one-fifth that of the Godfrey-Lee district.
A per-pupil total SEV (property value) of $241,300, three times that of Godfrey-Lee.
An average combined local and state revenue of $8,635 per pupil, which is $261 more than our district. In fact, the highest ranked district receives $9,202 per pupil, $828 more than Godfrey-Lee.

Kent County, Michigan Public School District	2010 U.S. Census Fed. Pov. % Ages 5-17	Total SEV Per Pupil	2009-10 Tot. Rev. Per Pupil	2009-10 Local & State Rev. Per Pupil	2011 State Top-to-Bottom Ave. School Rank
District A	6.7	283,058	9,908	9202	96.18
District B	8.7	277,014	9,485	8768	92.14
District C	9.2	270,964	9,240	8357	90.66
District D	7.6	187,118	8,884	8191	89.58
District E	6.7	188,345	9,240	8655	88.60
District F	11.1	189,415	8,810	7965	76.00
District G	10.4	235,799	8,822	8069	74.44
District H	14.2	171,822	9,602	8755	74.17
District I	15.2	142,352	8,740	7769	63.25
District K	16.4	153,687	9,058	8133	61.33
District L	16.9	132,879	8,871	7820	55.00
District M	22.1	240,656	9,893	8641	54.29
District N	20.5	153,654	9,104	8149	49.00
District O	14.8	296,603	9,374	8532	48.00
District P	29.4	152,752	10,375	9080	47.20
District Q	34.8	198,530	11,221	8642	46.81
District R	30.6	154,063	9,579	8541	45.00
District S	24.2	168,096	9,978	8577	34.44
Godfrey-Lee District	36.7	72,173	9,525	8374	33.00
Top 5	7.8	241,300	9,351	8,635	91.43
Bottom 5	31.1	149,123	10,136	8,643	41.29

It’s not just our district that is experiencing inequity of opportunity by a K-12 funding system that is obvious blind to the varying needs of kids. Here are several key differences between our county’s top 5 ranked districts (average ranking of 91.4) and bottom 5 districts (average ranking of 41.3) on the state’s 2011 Top-to-Bottom list:

School-age poverty rate of 7.8 compared to 31.1 for the lowest ranked.
Per-pupil total SEV of $241,300 compared to $149,123.
Per-pupil combined local and state revenue of $8,635 compared to $8,643, a whopping $8 per student more to address the academic differences inherent in a low-income, high LEP school district (and even that’s somewhat inflated by one of the five lowest districts that has a per-pupil revenue that is $500 more than the other four).

“Inequity among districts means that children in lower-funded districts do not have access to the same resources—modern buildings, technology, highly effective teachers, supplemental supports, etc.—than do their peers in districts with higher levels of funding. Furthermore, low-income children and English language learners need extra resources to overcome disadvantages due to socioeconomic status or lack of English language proficiency. In many cases, not only are these children not receiving equal resources but they are also not receiving the extra supports they need in order to succeed.” (Epstein, 2011)

By the way, in the event you are considering trying to convince me that consolidating our district with the other three City of Wyoming-based school districts will answer all our troubles, let me point out that of the five highest poverty school districts in Kent County, four of them are in Wyoming. Grand Rapids is the fifth. The Wyoming districts collectively have the largest concentration of Hispanic students with limited English proficiency. And the new super-district would have a combined total SEV per-pupil that would still place it at or near the bottom of the county. Oh, and they also just happen to occupy the bottom of the rankings in the state’s Top-to-Bottom list, so please spare yourself the embarrassment and shelve your worn-out arguments about district consolidation.

But the comparisons within our own county pale when you take a good look at a number of school districts on the east side of the state, many of which have per-pupil revenues exceeding $10,000 and are also ranked high on the state’s Top-to-Bottom list. One such district is Bloomfield Hills in Oakland County, which has an average school ranking of 93 on the top-to-bottom list, and:

Combined local and state revenue of $13,869 per pupil
Total revenue (including federal) of $14,692 per pupil
Total per-pupil SEV of $681,103

This district is not alone as there are many similar in Oakland, Macomb and other Michigan counties. I don’t want to dedicate the time or space in this post to a complete comparison.

So, what does this all mean? It means that Michigan’s school funding system perpetuates inequity of opportunity and promotes a continuing cycle of poverty. It means that even though all students are expected to master the same standards, demonstrate proficiency on the same state tests, successfully complete the same graduation requirements, and achieve the same level of college and career readiness, some are expected to do it despite the inequities created factors beyond their control and without sufficient resources.

“It costs more to educate children who come from low-income families, are English language learners, or who qualify for special education services to the same level as those children who do not have these extra needs.” (Epstein, 2011)

However, as late as 2007, Michigan ranked only 37^th in wealth neutrality when it came to funding schools and 44^th in the funding gap between wealthier and poorer school districts. In other words, schools in Michigan that have the most (money and resources) continue to get the most (money and resources) despite not having near the same obstacles that require greater resources and support.

Kids in higher-funded districts with greater resources have access to new and modern classrooms, the best-equipped science labs, classes with lower teacher-student ratios, greater foreign language offerings, more advanced courses, the latest technology (regardless who pays for it), as well as expansive physical education and athletic complexes. Kids in districts that receive less funding or lack resources to overcome socioeconomic, language, or special needs barriers to learning have little to none of this but are expected to achieve the same results.

“The achievements of disadvantaged students are more likely to suffer in response to inequities in school funding for two reasons: Those students are more likely to attend poorly funded schools, and they are more likely to be hurt by lack of academic resources when schools are underfunded.” (Biddler & Berliner, ASCD 2002)

Michigan’s leaders have got to set aside their personal bias and party preferences to finally address what I see is a growing inequity in funding and opportunity for our kids, who by the way are the future of this Great Lakes state. The recent financial disaster, expanding immigrant population, continuing flight from low-income urban areas, and increasing expectations in academic achievement for all students are exacerbating the inequities. The next time an elected official votes in favor of school funding that does not address the inequity, he/she is sending a message to our students, “Sorry kids, you’re not worth the effort or expense and will just have to do without.”

Our leaders have a moral imperative to address this and I intend to be part of what I hope will be a growing, loud vocal effort to push them in that direction.

To do anything less is at the very least immoral and at most, criminal.

Verstegen, Deborah A. (2011) Public Education Finance Systems in the United States and Funding Policies for Populations with Special Needs. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 19 (21). Retrieved 1/4/12 from http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/769

Roza, Marguerite and Miles, Karen Hawley (2002) Moving toward Equity in School Funding within Districts. A Presentation for School Communities that Work. Annenberg Institute for School Reform at Brown University. Retrieved 1/5/12 from http://www.schoolcommunities.org/resources.html

Epstein, Diane (2011) Measuring Inequity in School Funding. Center for American Progress. Retrieved 1/5/12 from http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/08/funding_equity.html

Biddle, Bruce J. and Berliner, David C. (2002). Universal School Funding in the United States. Educational Leadership, 58 (08). Retrieved 1/6/12 from http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/may02/vol58/num08/Unequal-School-Funding-in-the-United-States.aspx

Stop the testing madness and focus on what the Finns have already proven works! #edreform

2011-12-30T06:48:00.001-05:00

Let's face it, profit drives America. It's what a society based on the merits of capitalism is all about. As such, here's a truism we continue (and likely will continue) to ignore:

There's no profit in fixing poverty and inequality, but there's a fantastic amount of profit in high-stakes testing and charter school management. The education reformers will continue to ignore what drives Finland's success. (my words)

Anu Partanen, a Finnish journalist based in New York City, writes a compelling year-ending post for the Atlantic Journal titled: What Americans Keep Ignoring About Finland's School Success. The most compelling thought is the sub-heading of the online article: The Scandinavian country is an education superpower because it values equality more than excellence.

Here are several key points from her article but I strongly encourage you to go to the link and read the entire post:

Finland owes their fame to one single study, the PISA survey.
Finnish schools assign less homework and value creative play.
There are no private schools in Finland. Only a small number of independent schools exist and they are publicly funded. There are no private universities, either.
Finland has no standardized tests except for an exit exam following the equivalent of high school.
Teachers are trained to assess students in the classroom using teacher-created tests (what a novel idea).
The Finnish system focuses on responsibility, not accountability.
Teachers are given prestige, decent pay, and a lot of responsibility.
A master's degree is required to enter the profession (in America, the reformers argue a master's degree is not necessary in teaching).
Education policy is driven not by competition but by cooperation.
The PISA results were a surprise to most Finns. They thought it was a mistake. They were not focused on test results, instead they were focused on eliminating inequality of opportunity.

As Partanen points out, Pasi Sahlberg's new book Finnish Lessons: What Can the World Learn from Educational Change in Finland? makes a similar argument and Sahlberg himself admits no one in America wants to tackle the real problem. We don't even want to talk about it:

Americans are consistently obsessed with certain questions: How can you keep track of students' performance if you don't test them constantly? How can you improve teaching if you have no accountability for bad teachers or merit pay for good teachers? How do you foster competition and engage the private sector? How do you provide school choice?

In other words, the solution in America involves (1) give more tests, (2) fire more teachers, (3) destroy the unions, and (4) open the market up for ginormous profiteering through charter school management.

All of these focus on the bottom financial line. None of these focus on student learning.

Give community-based public schools the same freedoms #edreform

2011-12-29T08:04:00.001-05:00

Now that this holiday season is being relegated to the ghost of Christmas past, the mainstream media appears to be gearing up (or pushing) for the next battle in Lansing: GOP lawmakers want more cyber schools in Michigan.

I'm certainly pro online-learning and my record as superintendent of an urban community-based school district proves it, but before lawmakers simply add new types of schools, they must work to ensure a level playing field. Take off the 19th century seat-time shackles in traditional K-12 public schools, as well as relieve us of the growing, burdensome regulations that do not contribute to higher levels of learning for all students.

Lansing and Washington continue to tie the hands of traditional schools while providing unparalleled flexibility and freedom to charters and cyber charters, which primarily serve to enrich the corporations that run them. Private business does not exist to serve the public good. They exist to serve their bottom line. That's not criticism of private-sector business, just a reminder that their interests do not change just because they venture into the public sector. As an example, a construction company and its subcontractors do not exist to provide needed classroom space for kids; rather, they exist to make a profit off of construction contracts for new and remodeled schools. They may be building a school but other than the jobs they create based on the healthiness of their bottom lines, they do not contribute to the public good.

If you truly believe the rapid expansion of brick-and-mortar as well as cyber charters will improve student achievement, give the same freedom to traditional public schools. Here's some suggestions to get you started (I recognize that these are not from Michelle Rhee or Bill Gates so you probably already stopped reading this post, but here it goes anyway):

Eliminate the graded-school system that was never designed to improve student learning but only to control the growing masses of students in cities.
Eliminate grade-level based state assessment since this is a major obstacle to eliminated the graded-school system. By saying students have to take high-stakes tests every year to measure an additional year of learning assumes that all students learn at the same pace - THEY DON'T! Allow students to take assessments when they are ready.
Immediately eliminate the Carnegie unit in high school graduation requirements. Students are graduating unprepared for the real world after barely earning the minimum credits in core academic areas instead of focusing on mastery of specific benchmark standards. PS. That might take some students to age 20 to do so - SO WHAT! Are we saying learning should only occur between ages 5 and 18?
Get rid of all seat time requirements. If a student is engaged in learning in any way that is connected with his or her school, and credit for learning is granted by that school, the student is present and the school should be credited accordingly.
Eliminate all of the special education regulations and statutes that actually compel most schools to warehouse special needs students in lower achieving environments, instead of being supported in regular, rigorous core academic classrooms so they can learn at the same level as their peers.
In Michigan (and many other states), abolish the asinine (and some might say bipolar) restriction against starting the regular school year prior to Labor Day. This clearly was not a decision that was based on what's best for kids. Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know the family might be able to squeeze in another few days of vacation but schools should be focused on kids' futures, not convenience in the present. There are at least 185 days available during the year for being tourists.
Stop the overwhelming urge to use public schools as social laboratories for every little whim or interest that comes up. There are only 1,098 hours in a Michigan school year and it's already been proven that to cover the entire K-12 curriculum requires that a student attend school until age 22, so stop piling on the stuff that's mostly coming from the need of politicians to say, "See what I did?"

Taking action on these seven simple issues would move traditional K-12 schools into a more flexible environment that will allow us to experiment more with non-traditional modes of instructional delivery and learning, just like those being touted by building-based and cyber charters. This is real ed reform versus the latest rage of funneling public school monies to the private sector testing industries and charter school management companies. This is the public interest.

Strengthening district and school leadership with social media tools #edleader

2011-12-28T18:45:00.001-05:00

There are two excellent books our right now that every district leader should read. The first to hit the shelves was Communicating and Connecting with Social Media by William M. Ferriter, Jason T. Ramsden, and Eric Sheninger. They suggest that social media should be a key weapon in a district and school's arsenal for enhancing communications.

After reading the book, Sr Geralyn Schmidt posted to her blog about the importance of Social Media for School Leaders. She points out:

The enormous popularity of social networking today leaves little doubt that while the form is sure to evolve, the desire for social connectivity is here to stay. I believe that the human heart is intrinsically made to connect to others, and Social Media allows us to be connected to others in a way never before experienced or imagined.

Too many educational leaders, both administrators and teachers, are hesitant to use this type of communication. Communication that is clear and concise is the most important aspect of leadership in any venue, especially in education.

The second significant tome to hit the stands is Chris Lehmann's and Scott McLeod's What School Leaders Need to Know About Digital Technologies and Social Media. Experts in educational technology, they explain how to best integrate technology into K-12 schools, from blogs, wikis and podcasts to online learning, open-source courseware, and educational gaming to social networking, online mind-mapping, and using mobile phones (Amazon.com description). Sheninger, Principal of New Milford High School wrote an endorsement for this work that points to its value in helping overcome resistance and provide school leaders with both a foundation and direction:

Digital technologies and social media continue to evolve and are transforming the way in which we communicate, teach, and learn. This book, written by knowledgeable practitioners, provides a solid foundation for school leaders who are either resistant or unsure of where to begin.

In reviewing this book, Sue King called it straightforward and wrote:

If any school leader wants a quick and straightforward read on the various digital technologies and Social Media schools can (and should) be embracing, this book is an excellent choice. It would be an ideal book for all admin teams to read and discuss together if they have goals for introducing or more effectively using digital technologies in their districts/schools.

Any district superintendent or school leader returning from the holiday break still scratching their heads over the value of social media should read both of these fine books.

If you could send one message to your super...? #edleader #edchat

2011-12-28T06:51:00.001-05:00

The 2011 year was certainly exciting in both school reform and technology integration, but as the saying goes, "We ain't seen nothin' yet!"

With 2012 just a few days away, what is one important message you'd really like your K-12 superintendent to hear and take action on in the new year?

Creating a Digital Culture

2011-12-27T06:56:00.001-05:00

Combining digital technology with quality teaching to provide choice and increased learning engagement.

BYOD will challenge your leadership thinking -- hopefully!

2011-12-26T07:23:00.001-05:00

With 2012 knocking at our door, the debate over technology in schools is only going to heat up. That's exactly what it should do! There's no sense in hiding our heads in the sand and hoping the questions surrounding 1:1 and BYOD go away -- at least until I retire. Sounds familiar?

Earlier this fall, Tom Vander Ark published a short post intended to challenge our resistance to BYOD by acknowledging the concerns that are out there but then offering reasons BYOD should be considered in each of our districts, anyway:

Bans on student use of mobile devices exist for some good reasons—kids use them inappropriately at school and there are safety and security concerns. So why bother considering a change? There are six reasons to consider BYOD.

Tom also provides a handful of links to help the district or school leader considering lifting a ban on student-owned devices and incorporating BYOD as part of your technology strategy.

And if you find you're still not convinced or you start uncontrollably shaking whenever anyone mentions BYOD, I encourage you to read my post: Smoke from my keyboard: Cut the excuses and lead!

You may not even realize it, but you're getting in the way by not adapting, by not personally modeling the use of mobile technology, and by not leading the technology transformation.

You might want to visit our new Connected Superintendent blog for a collection of other articles and links intended to help you in leading.

Smoke from my keyboard: Cut the excuses and lead!

2011-12-17T07:41:00.004-05:00

The #edchat discussion this past Tuesday evening (What are the positives and negatives of limited technology in school) managed to bring my blood to a boil as excuse after excuse scrolled down my Twitterfall screen. I managed to squeeze in a few comments that solicited a mild although limited debate, but by the time I managed to close my eyes that night, there was smoke coming from my keyboard. I took pause for a few days to vet my thoughts with my esteemed colleague, Pam Moran, and a couple of others from my own district, opting to remove some of the rough language that sounded more like my 22-year military career rather than an educational professional, but here it goes.

Enough already! Waiting for exactly the right conditions to provide or even allow widespread use of technology in your district, building, or classroom is lunacy. It's idiocy!

And here's my personal message for fellow superintendents and principals: If you continue to get in the way of technology integration in your schools, get out of the education leadership business. You may not even realize it, but you're getting in the way by not adapting, by not personally modeling the use of mobile technology, and by not leading the technology transformation. In this 21st century learning environment, you've reduced yourself to office decoration; you're not out front leading. As such, you've shown that you're averse to taking risks, you're a politician who lives by polls, and your kids are the ones losing out. Go ahead and field that championship football team so you can suck up to your school board, your parents, your community. But don't screw up the future of your entire student body just because you're afraid kids just might become distracted in the classroom or accidentally venture upon a web site that's (shudder) bad.

“If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader.” John Quincy Adams

If the problem stems from not knowing what to do, shame on you. There's plenty of guidance out there to help you help yourself and become not only technology literate (so you can babble on during one of your all-day staff or school improvement meetings), but to become an avid consumer AND contributor to the vast personal learning networks available on the net. Not interested? Then get out before you do any more damage to your kids. But before you make up your mind, read this recent post: 5 Indications Your Leadership Is Obsolete for 21st Century Schools.

If you've made up your mind to change or you've already started down that road, I suggest you read, study and apply CoSN's Empowering the 21st Century Leader.

And when you're finished perusing that document, purchase a copy of Communicating & Connecting with Social Media by William Ferriter, Jason Ramsden and Eric Sheninger. Read it and share what you've learned with your staff. Begin to use the tools, not just in the quiet, safe comfort of your office but in the hallways, classrooms, board room and even the athletic complex. You haven't lived until you've accidentally walked into a wall or closed door while Twitter or reading a blog (don't do this while driving, though!). The staff (and even the kids) will chuckle but they'll also note that you've shed your dinosaur skin and it may excite them to do the same.

Teachers waiting for that mythical tsunami of all the right toys, conditions, and the perfect PD need to set down your chalk and slate and mosey on out the door - for the benefit of your kids. If you can't model lifelong learning for your students by taking risks, thinking outside the box, adapting to change, and bringing technology - any technology - into your classroom, your kids don't need you. And believe me, they will eventually leave.

“Innovation distinguishes between a leader and a follower.” Steve Jobs

Are you listening? It's about your kids' future, not yours! In fact, it's not even about your present! Teaching has never been about you nor should it be. It's about kids - rich or poor - being raised in a world where technology is woven into their lives 24/7 (except during school in too many places) and has become a key tool in how they learn, how they communicate, how they socialize, how they create and publish, and simply who they are. Stripping this generation from the opportunity to use digital technology in schools is akin to forcing them to check their vocal cords at the door but expecting them to sing. Stop waiting for your leaders to serve technology and PD on a silver platter. Get something in your classroom, whether its your own personal device or the kids' devices. If policy prevents that from happening, storm the board! Insist that your leaders and school board join the 21st century. Don't stop until they do or they leave.

EVERY teacher and administrator should be completely knowledgable about the ISTE standards for technology in education and they should even be part of your evaluation:

ISTE NETS for Administrators

ISTE NETS for Teachers

Communities waiting until only the best roads are put in place before anyone's allowed to drive a car are just plain backwards and need to get out of the way of progress. As I continue to repeat, it's your children's future not yours. It doesn't matter if you have full accessibility to high-speed internet or not. Waiting for that to happen before you make a move at using or even allowing technology in your schools is akin to malpractice. Forcing your schools to simply be museums of what life was like in the 1980's (or in many cases, the 1950's) will not help them become centers of learning excellence and your students will struggle later on competing in a flat world economy.

We keep making excuses, whether valid or not: unfettered access to technology is too distracting, too dangerous, will have negative effects on reading and writing habits, will increase plagiarism, will harm their social skills. Or, they don't all have access to high speed Internet, no computers at home, not enough PD for our teachers, lack of devices for every student, la, la, la.... Just a bunch of excuses intended to keep those who are making them from putting themselves out there and keeping up with change. The world evolves and the power of technologically-driven evolution is beyond anyone's capability of stopping it. We couldn't stop pencil and paper, we couldn't stop mind-numbing television, and we won't stop the infusion of digital technology in our lives, but what we can stop is the incessant whining and excuse-making about why we can't, shouldn't, or won't move forward.

Now that I've got your attention, let's get moving. Here's a few additional resources besides those mention above to help you in your journey:

21 Things for the 21st Century Administrator:http://www.21things4administrators.net/

21 Things for the 21st Century Educator: http://www.21things4teachers.net/

Educator's PLN: The Personal Learning Network for Educators:http://edupln.ning.com/

Take the 30-Day Twitter Challenge for Teachers!

2011-12-04T12:07:00.002-05:00

Twitter is all over these days but I still believe only a small percentage of people really understand the potential value of tying a social networking application with professional learning. I’ve been trying for some time to better understand how to explain it to people who simply look at me as nuts when I say, “I’m tweeting”.

People still struggle with the point of it, the seemingly ridiculous nature of updating what you are doing (or learning) in 140 characters or less. Yes, they might sign-up because they are at a conference or workshop, but there seems to be a number (maybe just what I’ve seen) that never really embrace it, never really make it a part of their learning community/network.

While there are many reasons for this, keeping Twitter as a random, “stop in when I can” website keeps it foreign and somewhat odd for many. This makes it really difficult to experience the power of connecting, contributing, sharing, and always-on learning.

Therefore, I’m issuing a personal challenge to those of you exploring the potential of Twitter, those of you promoting Twitter, or those of you that have dismissed it in the past to do the following things for the next 30 days and then evaluate or re-evaluate the worthwhileness of Twitter:

First, if you do not have a Twitter account, you will need to go to www.twitter.com and set up a free account. It’s quick and easy but please remember the Twitter name and password you select. Then…

1. Select and follow at least 50 people from the following lists of educators: Twitter4Teachers This many people may sound like a lot but you need to immerse yourself in a loud enough crowd. Be sure to be diverse in your selection including a global focus.

2. Download and run TweetDeck on your computer as a means of having Twitter always on.  This is the critical step. It allows you to engage synchronously and asynchronously.

3. Understand and engage with the following Twitter Basics: 

@ – when placed in front of a Twitter name, it allows the person to see a reply to them under Replies

RT: – you use this to re-tweet a tweet that is worthy of sending again to your followers; this is a great way to gain followers, too

# – hash tags to track specific conversations (try #ascd or #edchat in Twitter Search to see what I mean) 

DM – Direct message for private messages when placed in front of a Twitter name

4. Over the next 30 days, post at least 5 Tweets a day: something great (or a struggle) from your teaching/leading/learning that day, a question for the day, something that displays your personality and interests, and two replies to Tweets from others.

5. Participate in at least 1 Twitter chat from a list of chats at Educational Chats on Twitter. This will also test your understanding of the use of # (hashtag) in Twitter searches.

6. Optional: If you want to take Twitter mobile, here’s a link to the Best Free Mobile Twitter Apps for iPhone and Android. And if you really get your Twitter on, you might be interested in exploring The Most Complete Twitter Acpplication List Available – 2011 Edition by Social Media Today.

You don’t have to take my word for it. Read William Ferriter’s excellent, short article for ASCD’s Educational Leadership: Why Teachers Should Try Twitter. Another great resource to build your understanding of Twitter and its capabilities to take you even further in your professional learning is 100 Tips, Apps, and Resources for Teachers on Twitter. And still, Cybraryman’s awesome collection of all things Twitter will certainly fill your appetite.

In the next 30 days, embrace Twitter as something more than just a random spot to visit on the web. Turn on the network and see what it can do for you by embracing this 30-Day Challenge! You’ll be happy you did.

Talk to you on Twitter,

@colonelb

Thanks to @bwasson and @ryanbretag for suggesting this challenge.

Are We Too in Love With the Past?

2011-12-02T16:35:00.005-05:00

It's been a long week and I'm a bit sleep-deprived so it may not be the best time to blog, but I've been wondering whether we depend too much on the past to evaluate what is good for the present or future?

I recently read a report claiming the BA degree is still the best path to middle-class jobs and earnings (Georgetown University).

Is a BA degree still the best predictor of future earnings because of the value of the BA degree or because of past trends? Does that mean we can't change the system? Based on a comment once by Henry Ford, a typical headline in 1904 might have read, "Horse and buggy still the preferred method of transportation." Does that mean folks back then should have invested in more horses and buggies instead of the new-fangled motor car?

If higher education proclaims, "You need more of us to get where you want to go," is that any reason to jump on that bandwagon? What if horses could communicate? Do you think they would have been saying, "You need more automobiles to get where you want to go?" Probably not. That'd be kind of self-defeating, don't you think? We can only expect that colleges will proclaim, "We are the portal to a better future," whether it's accurate or not. After all, no one has been to the future to see if that's true. It's all measured by a past that's no longer here.

What about schools and our insistence that we hang on to the old traditions of the graded school system and other structures? Is it because it once worked so we should simply have more of the same? And then there's the pseudo-reformers who want to hang on to the vestigages of an era when they went to school, while expecting schools of the past to do a better job of educating students for the future. Didn't Einstein hint that could be a sign of mental illness?

I'm not sure I've made much sense with this, but we seem to be stuck looking in the rear-view mirror, nostalgic for what once was.

Overcoming the Obstacles to STEM Learning in an Urban School

2011-11-23T06:04:00.001-05:00

Christopher Emdin identifies five reasons why kids won't be scientists in his revealing entry for the Huffington Post. Even more convicting is his straightforward indictment of most science (and math) classrooms:

"...much research in urban science education has proven that youth are more disengaged than ever in STEM-focused classes. Students are bored, don't find the topics being discussed as engaging, and opt for majors and interests in other disciplines. For those who are engaged in science classes, and are doing well in them, the nature of the instruction and the assessments often reflect more of an ability to memorize facts and sit attentively than truly actually engage in science. For these students, when they are faced with "true science" further along in their academic careers, they are underprepared for the creativity, analytical skills, and curiosity necessary to truly engage and be successful."

Student engagement, connection with the curriculum goals, contribution to the class, and ownership of the learning are precisely what our classroom observations have focused on this fall and nowhere is that more critical than in the STEM courses from the earliest grades to graduation. Urban students have a right to an education that will lead them through pathways to exciting, challenging careers in the sciences, engineering, technology and math, just as much as our more affluent neighbors.

During a discussion earlier this week, we talked about how just the traditional system of grading sends a message, "You suck at science (or math)!" Too often, students come to each new STEM class with some reluctance but anticipating that perhaps this will be a better experience and the worst is behind me. It starts out "good" but maybe with a little apprehension. Then two weeks into the class, the first graded quiz or test sends the message once again, "You still suck at __________!" From then on, its purely survival and do what I need to do to pass this class and move on. Retaking tests and staying after school everyday just to scrimp enough points to pass the class will not instill a desire to be a scientist.

What we've seen this fall in our secondary science classrooms at Lee Middle & High School is a great start and we want to continue building on the quality teaching and learning experiences that stimulate student interest. In the end, if students elect not to pursue STEM in higher education or their careers, let it be based on their decision not something we've done to them.

Here's a quick list of Emdin's five reasons and I encourage you to read his explanation of each:

1) We have instilled the phrase "I'm not good at math or science" into a new generation.

2) Science is taught in a way that is opposite to what it truly is.

3) Science has lost the "cool factor" and kids have no "science heroes."

4) We don't focus on current issues in the discipline.

5) Good grades in science will not make you a scientist.

When testing only ACTs like it's measuring student achievement

2011-11-06T17:02:00.001-05:00

During last week's AuthorSpeak 2011 sponsored by Solution Tree, one of the lunch panel sessions included Dr. Thomas Guskey, renowned guru on educational assessment. I've attended sessions in the past that featured Dr. Guskey but I guess I never really heard him make a case against using the ACT (and SAT) in NCLB-forced high school assessments. As he claims, the assessments used by states such as Michigan are designed to measure academic achievement against state-adopted curriculum standards, however, the ACT and other tests like it are intended solely to compare and select potential college applicants. These two purposes are at odds with each other according to Dr. Guskey.

In the current issue of ASCD's Educational Leadership, Dr. Guskey summarizes his main objection to using college entrance exams as academic achievement measures:

Assessments used for selection purposes, such as college entrance examinations like the ACT and SAT, are designed to be instructionally insensitive (Popham, 2007). That is, if a particular concept is taught well and, as a result, most students answer an assessment item related to that concept correctly, it no longer discriminates among students and is therefore eliminated from the assessment. These type of assessments maximize differences among students, thus facilitating the selection process.

Guskey, Thomas R. Five Obstacles to Grading Reform, Educational Leadership. ASCD Nov 2011 pp. 17-21

Naturally, I was more than curious to learn what else Dr. Guskey might have to say about college entrance exams as the basis for state testing. In a web search, I came across an interview for the Lexington Herald-Leader presented on March 16, 2008:

...College entrance exams such as the ACT and SAT help colleges and universities decide whom to admit [but they] do not reflect any particular level of knowledge... rather where each student ranks in relation to others. Ranking makes the selection process easier.

Problems arise when a test designed for one purpose is used for another. ... tests like the ACT and SAT are labeled "instructionally insensitive." If instruction helps most students answer a question correctly, then that question is removed from the test, for it no longer serves its purpose. Even if the question asks about a vitally important concept, it no longer differentiates students and is eliminated.

This is why scores on selection tests are more strongly related to social and economic factors than are scores on competence tests. Aspects other than those influenced by instruction often account for the differences among students. It is also why it makes little sense to use a selection test like the ACT or SAT as a measure of the quality of instructional programs. Doing so would be analogous to using a ruler to measure a person's weight.

Having all students take a selection test such as the ACT or SAT may help some realize that they rank high enough to get into a college or university. That would be a good thing, especially for non-traditional students and those who come from disadvantaged backgrounds.

But to use the results of an "instructionally insensitive" selection test to assess the quality of instructional programs is educational sacrilege. No testing expert would agree to it -- and neither should any legislator or policy-maker.

So I guess my question is rather obvious: Given the argument presented by one of America's most noted researchers on educational assessments, why have states such as Michigan simply ignored the fact that using the ACT as a significant factor in ranking schools and students in academic achievement is akin to assessment malpractice?

Or does it even matter what makes sense when political agendas take over the reins of public education?

Do We Need Traditional Local Media Anymore?

2011-11-05T06:37:00.001-04:00

This post is only intended to generate reflection and critical analysis.

Just a half dozen years ago, our local print media (The Grand Rapids Press) contained a wealth of local news with a complete section each week dedicated to regional areas. This weekly pullout was always loaded with school news, most of it positive. The Press made a business decision to eliminate the community news section and also to reduce its daily number of pages to basically advertising, distilled national and international news, and few sprinkling of articles covering local news. As you might suspect, the reduction in local news reporting (most of the beat and contract reporters were let go) led to an era of devoting most space to controversial issues in schools and local government. At that point, I cancelled my 30+ year-old subscription and went to relying on the internet for news.

I'm back as a paid subscriber due to the e-edition of The Grand Rapids Press, but I don't really know why except perhaps for the novelty of it. Had I not purchased an iPad, I probably wouldn't have bought the subscription. I can read through the daily edition in about ten minutes because that's the extent of anything really newsworthy that I haven't already read online from free resources. Sunday's edition takes a little longer because I have to wade through the endless advertisements and pullout sections.

The Grand Rapids Press just announced it will be reducing its print editions to three days per week and beefing up its online presence. My question is why even bother printing at all? Will it mean that the Press will return to the days of reporting more on local news and expanding its reach through positive school and local community reporting? Not likely. That kind of reporting requires, well, reporters and the Press has pretty much laid them off or forced them into retirement. There is no reporting. I see or hear from our school district beat reporter about once every two months, unless a controversial issue rears its ugly head. I even link to him through social media but he's stretched so thin, there's no reasonable way to expect that he can cover it all. There is no reporting.

In this era of free or cheap, readily-available online blogging and social media, do we really need one or two corporations controlling our news coverage anymore? The Press argues its in the business of providing expanded coverage of what might be incomplete reporting by TV and radio outlets or online sources. I doubt that's accurate since many of the national and international articles I read in the Press are vastly reduced from the original source, which I already read online anyway.

Perhaps its time for school districts to band together to provide their own media outlet and online news service since most of our parents, students and communities have access in some manner to online or email-delivered news. Maybe local communities can do the same so that we can once again report on what's really happening in our local areas in a more balance approach instead of only the sensational stuff. There is no valid reason anymore to continue paying money to a single organization for the "privilege" of having select, edited, delayed content sent our way. Once we open up our thinking to multiple media outlets - local, state, national and international - we'll no longer be subject solely to what the editors want us to know. We can think for ourselves in a much more balanced way.

Education, American Style - A Student Voice from 1958

2011-10-29T17:28:00.001-04:00

In researching for an eventual book I plan to publish on the history of the Godfrey-Lee Public Schools and surrounding community, I came across an essay in the October 30, 1958 student newspaper that upon reading it, gave me a feeling of deja vu.

If you're not an intellectual person you might as well skip this editorial. For those of you who wish to continue, I hope this article will strengthen your belief in the American Educational System.

Largely responsible for the intensity of the recent reappraisal of U.S. Schools are the latest scientific acheivements (sic) in science and technology made by the Soviet Union since the successful firing of Sputnik last year.

"The Soviet system provides a standard curriculum through grade 7. On completion of grade 7, Soviet children are subjected to rigorous testing and screening. Those who show academic promise go on to regular secondary schools. Those who have not done so well academically are directed into one of a number of specialized programs: factory schools, special vocational schools, semi-professional schools."

In our democratic society we hold "opportunity for the youth" as one of the chief purposes of education. To obtain a comprehensive education is every young person's inalianable (sic) right. Surprisingly enough, the concept of "life adjustment" around which our present educational policy is centered, did not come about until after the close of the Second World War. The aim, therefore, is to provide in a single school all the educational needs of all youth in a community.

When people say our schools have failed, how then do they explain the high patriotic, military and economic status that exists in the United States at the present time?

by Nancy Graeber

Lee High School Ariel

Shooting Blindfolded in the Classroom

2011-10-21T06:46:00.001-04:00

Suppose I'm a master archer, which I’m not. But just suppose I am, and one day I happen to take a group of people, placed blindfolds on them, and carefully lead them out into a wide, open field. No, this is not a creepy story with a sad ending so stay with me.

Once blindfolded, I hand each a bow and a quiver of arrows. Did I tell you they have never held a bow in their hands let alone shot an arrow? Now you might think handing a group of rookies bows and arrows is potentially dangerous, but these are good students and they mostly listen to my directions. You see, as a master archer I could in fact teach someone how to properly don their quiver and hold a bow, learning the parts of the bow and the arrow by touch, even the all-important understanding of which end of the arrow do they point in the general direction they want it to fly. As a master archer I could, with patience, teach them how to skillfully take an arrow, place it properly in the bow with the nock, draw, use the rest until ready to fire, and loose the arrow when ready. As a master archer I could even lecture on technical terms such as anchor point, brace height, draw weight, and the various types of bows, giving his blindfolded students the basic facts every archer should know.

But even as a master archer, there’s little I can do to ensure my blindfolded students hit the targets at the other end of the field. You see, they have no idea where the targets are sitting, what the distance is to each target, or what effect wind and other disturbances might have on successfully hitting the target. They can’t, without a ton of luck, hit the target in those conditions. But they can certainly learn and even practice all of the activities and tasks that it takes to at least get the arrow moving in the general direction, if I’m there to help them. But if I walk away from the group at any time leaving them on their own, well, you start to see a general picture of what might happen.

Isn’t this what learning is often like in schools? Beginning with the teachers, aren’t they often blindfolded by the absence of complete understanding about the specific curriculum goals they should be using as the basis for learning in their classrooms? Or how about the work they expect their students to perform? Do they know for a fact that what they are asking their students to accomplish is fully aligned with the desired learning outcomes? Or are they loosing their arrows blindfolded?

And then there are the students who typically haven’t had a chance to understand anything about the overarching learning goals in advance, let alone see the intermediate objectives along the way. They are continuously being expected to shoot blindfolded hoping if they pick up enough clues along the way they can get a good grade from the course, despite the fact even students who get high grades probably never really hit the target. But who would know? Everyone’s still wearing a blindfold.

This is a the situation found in most schools and classrooms and it exists for a number of reasons which I prefer not to labor on but to look forward at solutions. To take off our blindfolds – teacher and students – requires the following:

1.     The teacher has to know the curriculum standard (the target) inside and out and he has to know the initial skill level each of his “archers” are starting out at.
2.     The teacher has to know how the standard is going to be assessed during and at the conclusion of the learning activities, and she has to be certain beyond any reasonable doubt that the assessments actually measure the intended target.
3.     The teacher has to analyze the results from each of these assessments and all student work to determine the accuracy of the instruments and whether his students are firing blindfolded or getting a clearer view of the intended target.
4.     The students, before they are asked to perform any work in the classroom, must understand the overall learning target, the intermediate targets, and how the work they do contributes to hitting the target dead center.
5.     As the students progress, they must have continuous feedback on how they are honing their “archery” skills and are the doing what they need to do to be successful. If not, what do they need to do to improve.

6. Because the teacher will not always be, students must learn how to self-assess their own individual performance and use that information to make corrections and improve their chances for success in this particular course and for the rest of their lives.

These actions remove the blindfolds from the students as well as the teacher. It requires communication and collaboration – teacher to teacher through professional learning teams sitting down together to examine the curriculum and analyze student work, teacher to student in designing conversations and activities that examine the overall learning goals, and student to student in collaborating together to better understand the work in relationship to the target.

Without these critical conversations, we’ll simply continue loosing our arrows blindfolded. “I shot an arrow in the air, and where it landed I do not care…”

Reality or excuse? In the end, does it matter?

2011-09-21T07:00:00.003-04:00

Julie Mack of the Kalamazoo Gazette is an excellent educational writer who looks at issues objectively and then pens some very thoughtful posts: Is it fair to expect teachers in high-poverty schools to be miracle workers?

The school-reform movement — as embodied by No Child Left Behind — adopts a no-excuses approach to education. So while decades of research overwhelmingly indicate that academic outcomes are largely correlated with socio-demographics — and that white, middle-class and affluent children consistently test significantly better than low-income and minority students — No Child expects schools to achieve similar results no matter the student population.

While I certainly agree with her observations about the difficulties all of us who work in poor urban districts face, it should never become an obstacle to our constant desire for improving our profession and providing the best possible learning environment for all of our students, bar none. What it does is forces us to think outside the box (I know that's becoming a tired cliche) to find new ways to overcome as many of these obstacles as we can in the time we have with our kids.

At the end of the day, we may go home a little more tired, a little more bloodied and bruised, but with the deep satisfaction that we did our very best to meet their diverse learning needs.

In an Instant, Everything Changed

2011-09-09T22:07:00.001-04:00

I was an intermediate school principal with 450+ fifth and sixth graders when 19 terrorists and four hijacked planes shocked the world with a devastating attack on America. I still recall that morning, coming out of my office to see news pictures on the school office television showing live footage of one of the towers burning. Minutes later, the second tower erupted in an explosion and somehow we knew the world was going to be different.

Some weeks following the 9/11 attacks, I was invited to watch one of our 6th graders skate in competition at a local ice rink. Curious and wanting to show my support to this young lady and her parents, I went and found a seat in the back of the cold, dark arena. Imagine for a moment a die-hard Detroit Red Wing fan watching competitive figure skating and you might have to stifle a laugh, but I was taken back by the athletic precision demonstrated that night.

For a concluding number, all of the girls performed a synchronized salute in honor of those who lost their lives in the 9/11 attacks. The performance was backed by Enya's "Only Time," a soul-searing number that when combined with the beauty of their skating touched me deeply to the point that there is rarely a day I don't recall that evening. For a time after I thought about that night and often wondered why it affected me as much as it did. It took time but I finally came to grips and realized that at that moment, I knew that for these young girls and their generation, everything had changed. Just 12 years old, Kaitlin and her partner's lives would forever be impacted by the consequences of that horrible day.

Rebel U Take 2

2011-08-31T05:55:00.001-04:00

This week, the entire teaching staff at Godfrey-Lee Public Schools spent a day in a sort of mini-EdCamp to prepare for the oncoming school year. Organized by Tech Integration Specialist Sarah Wood (@woodsar) with help from the entire Tech/Media Team, teachers and administrators volunteered to present on their favorite tech topics and tools in six concurrent sessions throughout the day. This was the second year school kicked off with this type of professional learning event but it was obvious from my point-of-view as an observer and participant that the tech skills of our staff have grown significantly.

The district, grounded in the concept of learning "anytime, anywhere, and with any device," took another giant leap forward with this event while we continue expanding our 1:1 technology plan. Our students and staff have access to our network and Internet learning tools anytime and with any device - theirs or ours. This year we'll ramp up our emphasis on teaching digital citizenship as well, taking it down into the elementary grades where "internet footprint" will become a common phrase, even in throughout the kindergarten.

What an exciting time to be an educator!

Teachers, school leaders, and students make a positive difference at Lee High School

2011-08-27T08:15:00.003-04:00

The district was notified this morning that Lee High School is no longer on the 5% list of schools ranked as persistently low achieving (PLA). This is a great accomplishment after more than a year of hard work, planning, and robust implementation of the federal school improvement grant plans by everyone involved.

Read more about the school's first year success with its transformation plan and what will be coming up in years two and three at GLPS Superintendent's Notes)

Should WE Even Care That Schools Didn't Make AYP?

2011-08-18T07:56:00.001-04:00

Julie Mack, the Kalamazoo Gazette's education reporter, often writes thought-provoking blogs and newspaper articles questioning both sides on issues related to school reform. I enjoy reading them and her analysis often helps to balance the oft one-sided arguments usually found in other local news sources.

In one of her latest blogs, she asks, "Should parents care if their school doesn't make adequate yearly progress?" She points out the evidence close to home where two local Kalamazoo high schools were recently ranked by the Washington Post as top schools in the country. Just two weeks later, they find themselves, along with 717 other schools, on the list of Michigan schools not earning adequate yearly progress. In the minds of simple media folks, and public school haters, this equates to being on a "failing schools" list and wearing a badge of shame.

Another idiosyncrasy of NCLB, incidentally, is that most disabled and non-English-speaking are treated the same as other students. Those students are tested and their scores are included in the AYP analysis.

NCLB is fraught with problems starting with comparing all schools as if the communities they serve are equal, a fact any reasonably sane person knows is not true. And while the premise of setting a goal for all students to achieve at exactly the same level is admirable when presented in speeches and photo ops, in reality, not all students have similar obstacles in front of them nor do they have similar community and family support systems. Burying our heads to these realities and continuing to judge schools solely on the basis of an annual one-day bubble test in reading and math will not reform our educational system, nor will it better prepare our students for the 21st century learning and career skills they need.

Not that we should ever stop trying to help students get past the baggage they bring with them to school each day, but at some point in time reasonable minds need to prevail and realize that to do so requires community, family, government AND school reform to reach this utopian vision. Merely expecting the schools to do more so that parents and society can continue to shirk their own responsibilities is a band-aid approach to an ever-increasing problem. If NCLB has accomplished anything, it has demonstrated that band-aid approaches don't work and neither does the concept of a nationalized education industry bent on producing widgets that are exactly the same size and shape, unable to think and reason in rich, diverse ways that will eventually contribute to solving real world problems, devoting the bulk of their time preparing for bubble tests that only measure a narrow band of knowledge, disregarding application, critical thinking, collaboration, communication, contribution and a whole host of other critical skills.

So should parents care if their school doesn't make AYP?

No question, it's a big deal for educators who have to deal with the public-relations fallout as well as extra scrutiny from the state Department of Education.

But most educators acknowledge that AYP is not a very accurate measure of school quality. It's certainly possible for a high-performing school not to make AYP. It's possible for a school -- especially a small school with a homogeneous population -- to meet AYP standards with mediocre performance.

AYP gets a lot of attention. From the standpoint of parents judging school quality, that attention is probably undeserved.

This is not what real education was intended to be and NCLB's AYP system is not an effective measure of results.

School Achievement and Income

2011-08-15T07:53:00.001-04:00

Several articles were posted this weekend on Mlive and carried across the state in various local editions of Booth newspapers. The articles lay out the premise that income and school achievement are linked. This is not new news by any means but the 2010 census and achievement as measured by NCLB-mandated test scores appear to validate what educators have known for decades.

School achievement closely tracks with family income in Michigan, Census 2010 figures show

Differences in family incomes, education levels reflected in student test scores

Income gap can be bridged, starting with expectations, educators say

The articles miss the boat in that they isolate economic status and fail to look at other critical factors that may in fact be more causal than how much money a family earns. In many cases, family income may in fact be the end result of other social conditions, such as:

level of education for each parent (past research seems to indicate the mother's education level is a greater factor than the father's)
single or two-parent family
English language proficiency (both for the parents and the children)
whether the children who do not speak English as their first langage are proficient grammatically in their first language
transiency of the family and the amount of time a child has spent in the same school or district
whether reading is valued in the home and books, magazines or newspapers are available

I suspect there are more social and personal conditions that contribute to whether a child is ready for school, whether it be the first day of kindergarten or the first day of any school year. And while schools have to confront all of these conditions and do their best to overcome them - the same as a military unit on the battlefield has to overcome a myriad of obstacles between it and the objective - communities that hide their heads in the sand and ignore them only make it more difficult for schools that serve predominantly low income students to succeed.

The state and federal government can begin by cutting back on administrative red tape and requirements that have little to no connection to student learning, thereby freeing up existing school funding to be used to support longer school days, extended school years, and rigorous teacher training. This would certainly be a giant leap forward to helping our kids break the cycle of poverty.

Computational Thinking

2011-08-05T10:42:00.001-04:00

The explosion in technology and rapid expansion of careers in computer science, engineering, medicine and other tech-related fields has illuminated the need to help students think and learn using critical computational skills.

We believe that today’s students need these skills to meet workforce demands of the future and to help solve some of the most pressing, intractable problems of our time. Today’s “digital natives” have grown up in a world where technology is evolving rapidly, creating new fields of study, new types of jobs, and requiring new sets of skills. As educators, we can help today’s students gain computational thinking skills so tomorrow’s professionals in medicine, history, law, education, or other fields, will be valued contributors in solving problems and making new advances. (p. 3)

The International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) and the Computer Science Teachers Association (CSTA) collaborated with leaders from higher education, industry, and K–12 education to develop an operational definition of computational thinking and teacher resources for employing these skills in classroom learning. The vocabulary and progression charts on pages 8 and 9 are extremely helpful guides. Grade-level guides and sample activities begin on page 12.

You'll find a copy of the teacher resource by visiting the ISTE site or downloading it from this link: Computational Thinking: Teacher Resources 1st Edition.

Other resources can be found at the Carnegie Mellon Center for Computational Thinking as well as Google: Exploring Computational Thinking (includes an imbedded TED Talk video by Conrad Wolfram: Teaching kids real math with computers).

Professional Learning in Your Pajamas!

2011-07-26T09:16:00.001-04:00

Welcome to the final week of July. Hope you are staying cool, enjoying the summer, and getting a bit of a rest.

I'd like to invite you to join me and thousands of others for a free worldwide online e-conference dubbed RSCON3 on Education Reform. It takes place from Friday, July 29 to Sunday, July 31. It's my kind of conference because you can attend it in your pajamas

, swimsuit, or whatever suit you choose to wear right in the comfort of your home.

There are more than 65 presentations and 12 keynote speakers throughout the three days, representing some of the best education reform thinkers around the world. You can browse through the flyer at
http://www.scribd.com/doc/56689278/The-Reform-Symposium-Free-Online-Conference-Flyer-for-Schools

Registration and additional information is at http://tinyurl.com/2ftmgsz.

Browse through the schedule and select a session or two you feel might be interesting, or just attend any session to experience your first ever online. e-conference. Remember when reading the session schedule (Google Doc) you have to select the time zone (select New York - UTC-4) since this is a world-wide program, or you will get the wrong times for each session.

I'm honored to be part of a panel presentation on Friday, July 29, from 2:30-3:30 pm (times are 24-hour military format in the schedule). I'll be online live from up here at Camp Greenwood, somewhere west of Greenville, Michigan, in between cleaning up from lunch and helping in the kitchen prepare supper for a bunch of hungry Rebel band campers. Here's hoping my internet connection out here in the sticks holds up well on Friday, especially if the expected thundershowers appear.

Anyway, the entire weekend has an awesome lineup and you won't be disappointed by any of the sessions. And if you are, simply "leave the room" when you please and few, if any, will notice. Just another great advantage to an e-conference.

Here's a couple of links from Shelly Terrell to get you thinking about RSCON3:

9 Reasons to Attend The Reform Symposium Free Worldwide Online Conference

10+ Tips for Getting the Most Out of #RSCON3 | Teacher Reboot Camp

As Kids, We Knew How to Beat the Heat

2011-07-21T08:14:00.001-04:00

I don't recall any of my friends having air conditioning back in the 60's and early 70's while growing up in Wyoming, Michigan. But we sure had some hot summers!

This week's 100+ degree (heat index) days have given me pause to remember many of the things we did back then as kids to beat the heat:

Made popsicles out of kool aid or on rare occasions, bought one from the push-cart vendors that roamed our streets.
Ran through sprinklers and played on the occasional slip-n-slide which first came out in 1961.
Swam in small backyard pools that often fell apart flooding the entire backyard because there were too many of us creating a ruckus.
Spent the day down by the creek at the base of Daredevil Hill (the creek is now underground because the muck farm adjacent to it at the time became a crowded housing development).
Rode our bikes to Palmer Park to play on the shaded trails and wade in Buck Creek (signs posted there now warn against contact with the water).
Walked to Rogers Plaza (the first indoor mall in this area and only one at that time) and wandered through it for awhile (we never had any money to spend).
Slept in the basement at night (as opposed to second floor bedrooms that turned into ovens during summers).
Combed the streets looking for enough empty pop bottles to trade in for an ice cold Coke, Pepsi, Dr. Pepper or Mountain Dew in real bottles (we got 3 cents per bottle and needed 5 of them).
Ate cold or grilled (no gas grills back then) food and watermelon (lots of watermelon) because it was too hot for mom to cook.
Spent many days swimming and sunning at Battjes and Lamar Park, neither of which allow swimming anymore.
Found big shade trees to sit under and talk about the things junior high kids talked about, sometimes for hours on end.
Rode our bikes to John Ball Zoo to walk in the shade and look at the animals (they always looked more miserable in the heat than we did).
Built our own go-carts and skate boards out of spare parts (only rich people bought these things back then).
Went to a one-screen movie house and watched an old Elvis Presley or some other movie two or three times for the same 25 cent ticket.
Played baseball barefoot wearing just cutoff shorts until the stone dust, sticking to our sweaty skin, gave us a gray appearance (we'd find a sprinkler on the way home and shower off).
Sometimes we'd explore the old Wyoming storm sewer systems that used to empty into the swamp at Alexander Park (now called Jackson Park).
At night when it would cool down a little, we often walked up to one of the traveling carnivals at Rogers Plaza if we had a spare dollar (ride tickets were ten for buck back then). On other nights, we'd be at Kimble Stadium taking in a baseball game under the lights.
We'd wake up the next morning, gulp down whatever was on the table for breakfast, and run out the door as fast as we could ready to do it all again.

What didn't we do?

We didn't sit inside a house watching TV (except for a half hour in the afternoon when Dark Shadows came on).
We never said we were bored in front of our parents, because they'd find us something to do and it usually involved a rake, lawnmower, broom, paint scraper, or dirty dishes.
We didn't ask for money from our parents (ok, we probably did but to no avail). We figured out how to make money on the fly (and it was always legal).
We didn't wait for someone to drive us somewhere, because we'd still be waiting to this day if we did. We got their on our own two feet, pedaling a bike, or scraping together a dime for the city bus.
We didn't walk around with a cellphone glued to our ear and our parents knew it was useless to give us a dime for the pay phone, because all we needed was a couple of empty bottles for that next ice cold pop.

I loved long, hot summers!

ACT Test Not All It's Cracked Up to Be - Riding a Dead Horse?

2011-07-20T09:29:00.002-04:00

A recent study has concluded that 2 out of 4 tests within the ACT are not accurate predictors of college success. ACT has staked its reputation as an off-the-shelf college readiness assessment and Michigan is one of the states that has bought into this hype.

According to the Washington Post:

The Stanford and University of Chicago scholars who wrote the report, recently published by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), say scores from the other two ACT subject tests, Mathematics and English, “are much more tightly correlated with college success than are Reading and Science scores. In fact, after controlling for Mathematics and English scores, Reading and Science provide essentially no predictive power regarding college outcomes.”

Of course, ACT, Inc. is disputing the conclusions. What would you expect from one of the growing number of companies riding the billion-dollar, high-stakes assessment industry created by NCLB and reinforced by non-educators wearing the mask of "educational reformer?"

Even in Michigan, Governor Snyder has drunk this kool-aid along with at least one educational reporter: Gov. Rick Snyder: Some Michigan test scores 'startling and scary,' vows measurement-driven changes. And now many schools, at the urging of education department leaders and state politicians, are taking on the added expense of administering the ACT Explore and Plan to students in grades 8-10 as indicators of readiness for the actual ACT test given to all 11th graders.

Don't expect the politicians, main-stream media, and boy-billionaires to abandon their high-stakes testing horse, even as it continues to become ever more apparent the horse they're riding is dead.

As an added note, I urge everyone to read Professor Yong Zhao's 5-part blog titled Ditch Testing: Lessons from the Cheating Scandal in Atlanta

Yong Zhao and the Atlanta Test Cheating Scandal

2011-07-17T08:59:00.001-04:00

One of my favorite ed reformers is ex-MSU professor Yong Zhao whose 2009 ASCD book, "Catching Up or Leading the Way" contains one of the best and most revealing look at how the United States public education reformers are trying to emulate China and other nations, while they are trying to be more like us. It's one of those convicting tomes conveniently ignored by the politicos and boy billionaires attempting to take down public education and pump billions into the testing arena.

Professor Zhao has chimed in on the Atlanta Public Schools cheating scandal with a three-part (the fourth is on the way) essay that points out the wrong-headedness of the investigations: let's just blame the teachers (and administrators).

While laying blame on these educators, we must understand the root cause of cheating is not the bad nature of these “cheaters.” But rather it is the unreasonable policy, its unrealistic expectations, and blind faith in test scores as an indicator of education quality. This scandal should serve as a wake-up call to proponents of test-driven reform policies: it’s time to abandon high stakes testing in our schools. Decades of high-stakes testing has not brought improvement but has corrupted our schools. The cost is too high. ~ Introduction to Ditch Testing: Lessons from the Cheating Scandal in Atlanta (Part 1)

Professor Zhao's postings are a must-read for educators and policymakers looking to seriously improve teaching and learning and prepare our students for the 21st century world they live in. Here are the links to the first three parts of this insightful post:

Ditch Testing: Lessons from the Cheating Scandal in Atlanta (Part 1) Zhao analyzes the reaction by Secretary Arne Duncan

Ditch Testing: Lessons from the Atlanta Cheating Scandal (Part 2): Not An Anomaly In this post, Zhao takes a big swing at the systemic ills created by test-based accountability citing a number of reports about cheating that go well beyond Atlanta. He also includes teaching to the test and test prep as a form of cheating in that it robs students "of a real valuable education and cause as much damage, if not more, to our children as the behaviors we label cheating."

Ditch Testing: Lessons from the Atlanta Scandal (Part 3): Human Nature? Zhao begins by taking Chester E. Finn's assertion that cheating is just human nature to task, pointing out that the evidence leads to the conclusion of a concerted, systemic, on-going practice in the Atlanta Public Schools. He goes into some of the key motivators for cheating in the test-based accountability system spawned by NCLB.

I understand that Zhao's fourth installment will look at the reasons technical fixes alone will not stop cheating. Systemic change is necessary.

The Third Michigan and First Bull Run

2011-07-15T19:41:00.003-04:00

The Third Michigan Infantry, organized at Grand Rapids, Michigan, and accepted into state service on May 21, 1861, was mustered into federal service on June 10 and left for the seat of the war.

By Wednesday, July 16, 1861, the Third Michigan had been in Washington, DC for a month camped in the vicinity of the Chain Bridge as part of the capitol's defenses. The men were getting restless to get things underway, get it done, and get home. They were losing respect for the senior officers, as Lieutenant Lowing of Company I reports:

These big officers keep caged in Washington week after week at Government expense. And 50,000 men to watch them. The whole pile of them are a curse to the country. This war is not got up for fighting, but for the purpose of making officers of old favorites. If we do come to war, many a poor fellow will be sacrificed to the folly and ignorance of these mushroom Generals.

Finally, a hesitant Brigadier General Irvin McDowell who had no real field experience, moved his Union Army of the Potomac westward for what would become the first major clash of the Civil War. One of the Third's soldiers, a George Vanderpool of Muskegon serving in Company H, summed up the regiment's initial experience:

...at 3 o’clock p.m., we joined the Briggade (sic) consisting of the Michigan 2nd, 3rd & Mass 1st & the New York 12th Regiments, all under [the] command of Colonel Richardson of Detroit; we crossed the Chain Bridge into Virginia at 4 p.m. and marched in the direction of Mannases (sic) Junction via Vienna, Fair Fax, Bull-Run; we reached Vienna at 8 p.m., where we joined General McDowell’s Army; lay down in the open field

It began as a reconnaissance in force towards Blackburn's Ford along Bull Run:

Our regiment had the lead that day and after letting one company of cavalry and six small field cannons pass ahead of us, the brass band struck up Dixie. And the four regiments of us followed as it was only about one mile to the Run. We soon got to about eighty rods of it; they opened on us and the very first shell struck right behind our brass band. They got out of there in a hurry and we didn’t see anything of them any more for a week.

[We] soon found out that the cavalry had “struck ile.” They dash back faster than they went.

It was delightful to lie there in the hot sun, while the cannon balls were flying & whistling over our heads. The first ball struck about four feet from the men on our right. Soon the enemy’s cannon ceased firing. We laid there in suspence, not knowing what would be the next orders. All the boys were perfectly cool & picked berries, cracked jokes about the war, etc. Soon were were told to advance into the woods and thicket to find the enemy.

Fall in boys, is the order of our gallant Colonel McConnell, as he dashes up on his beautiful charger. Falling in, the order, double quick, is given, and down through the streets of Centerville we go, and cross Bull Run creek at Blackburn’s Ford, where we smell the enemy’s powder for the first time . . . We get behind a battery to support it, and lie down to watch the rebel shells burst in the woods beyond. Nothing is accomplished by this battle, but to find out the position of the enemy . . . Thus ends our first day’s fight, the battle of Blackburn’s ford.

Having had their first taste of what was to come, for the next three days the men of the Third would prepare themselves for battle.

______

Quoted selections are from Britten, David G. Lieutenant Colonel, Retired. Courage without Fear: The Story of the Grand Rapids Guard. Xlibris 2004. A free e-edition is available on Scribd

The Third Michigan and First Bull Run

2011-07-15T19:41:00.001-04:00

The Third Michigan Infantry, organized at Grand Rapids, Michigan, and accepted into state service on May 21, 1861, was mustered into federal service on June 10 and left for the seat of the war.

These big officers keep caged in Washington week after week at Government expense. And 50,000 men to watch them. The whole pile of them are a curse to the country. This war is not got up for fighting, but for the purpose of making officers of old favorites. If we do come to war, many a poor fellow will be sacrificed to the folly and ignorance of these mushroom Generals.

...at 3 o’clock p.m., we joined the Briggade (sic) consisting of the Michigan 2nd, 3rd & Mass 1st & the New York 12th Regiments, all under [the] command of Colonel Richardson of Detroit; we crossed the Chain Bridge into Virginia at 4 p.m. and marched in the direction of Mannases (sic) Junction via Vienna, Fair Fax, Bull-Run; we reached Vienna at 8 p.m., where we joined General McDowell’s Army; lay down in the open field

It began as a reconnaissance in force towards Blackburn's Ford along Bull Run:

Our regiment had the lead that day and after letting one company of cavalry and six small field cannons pass ahead of us, the brass band struck up Dixie. And the four regiments of us followed as it was only about one mile to the Run. We soon got to about eighty rods of it; they opened on us and the very first shell struck right behind our brass band. They got out of there in a hurry and we didn’t see anything of them any more for a week.

[We] soon found out that the cavalry had “struck ile.” They dash back faster than they went.

It was delightful to lie there in the hot sun, while the cannon balls were flying & whistling over our heads. The first ball struck about four feet from the men on our right. Soon the enemy’s cannon ceased firing. We laid there in suspence, not knowing what would be the next orders. All the boys were perfectly cool & picked berries, cracked jokes about the war, etc. Soon were were told to advance into the woods and thicket to find the enemy.

Fall in boys, is the order of our gallant Colonel McConnell, as he dashes up on his beautiful charger. Falling in, the order, double quick, is given, and down through the streets of Centerville we go, and cross Bull Run creek at Blackburn’s Ford, where we smell the enemy’s powder for the first time . . . We get behind a battery to support it, and lie down to watch the rebel shells burst in the woods beyond. Nothing is accomplished by this battle, but to find out the position of the enemy . . . Thus ends our first day’s fight, the battle of Blackburn’s ford.

Having had their first taste of what was to come, for the next three days the men of the Third would prepare themselves for battle.

______

Quoted selections are from Britten, David G. Lieutenant Colonel, Retired. Courage without Fear: The Story of the Grand Rapids Guard. Xlibris 2004. A free e-edition is available on Scribd

Superintendents on Twitter

2011-07-15T11:32:00.002-04:00

While still relatively rare, there's a growing number of state and school district superintendents coming out of the closet on Twitter. We need their voice and "out-loud leadership" in the school reform and funding debates.

Here's a list that hopefully keeps growing:

@suptflanagan

@clindhol

@edubrew

@colonelb

@principalspage

@SuperScot

@gormang

@BobMiller146

@scusdsupt

@canyonsdave

@TDOttawa

@DanielLFrazier

@suptsmith

@ewilliams65

@chrkennedy

@acrozier22

@pammoran

@tebotweets

@HTSSupt

@JRonneberg

@paulgausman

@johnccarver

@ndcardinal

@DrMelSmith

@POUSDSupt

@mikelubelfeld

@wbsuperintendent
@bradfordgs
@SOMSDsuper

Google+: New Car Smell or Valuable Force Multiplier?

2011-07-15T09:54:00.001-04:00

Pardon my initial skepticism but I live on the "battlefield of life" where time is a scarce resource and consequently I tend to budget it tightly when it comes to testing new technology tools. My typical method of inquiry includes questions such as: Is it the "new car smell" that's caught my attention? Could it be the different gizmos and gadgets that give it a "shiny penny" appearance? Or does it have real potential to be a force multiplier on a fluid battlefield, overcoming the scarcity of time and leveraging what it takes to accomplish my mission and achieve our vision?

You see, twenty-two years of military training in mission analysis leads me to make quick on-the-fly evaluations of new ideas, tossing down any that don't readily appear on the outset to be of value in overcoming MODD (things that make our day difficult), as I traverse the avenue of approach to the objective.

Twitter proved quickly to be a valuable force multiplier. It's leveraged my ever-shrinking time resources to provide me with a "drive-thru" personal learning network (PLN), helping me defeat the MODD and close on the objective. The old way of reading every journal or new professional book, attending lengthy conferences, or taking more graduate-level courses was an inefficient time consumer. Twitter has compacted that learning and even made it mobile.

Facebook has proven to be a force multiplier, too, although I sometimes question the overall value. It certainly allows me to maintain professional and personal relationships with a relatively small investment of time. Let's face it (no pun intended), relationships are inherently time consuming and while Facebook is no substitute for face-to-face relationships, it's the next best thing when time resources have become thin. And you have to admit that compared to a hundred years ago, when communications meant writing a letter and waiting weeks for a reply, both Twitter and Facebook have certainly been force multipliers in speeding up communications and make battlefield decisions.

Other Google attempts at social networking have proven a bust, at least to me. They took far too much time in setting up, learning the ropes and building networks, especially if an extensive, suitable network has already been established via Twitter or Facebook. Now comes Google+ and once again I'm naturally curious while skeptical that it will prove any more valuable as a force multiplier. In the meantime, the daily disruptions of the battlefield demand attention and results. There is little time to enjoy that new car smell.

Time will tell but then again, time is a limited resource.

"Uh, Miss, is that on the test?" - The Death of "Why?"

2011-07-14T11:18:00.001-04:00

From The Death of "Why?": The Decline of Questioning and the Future of Democracy by Andrea Batista Schlesinger (Kindle Edition)

Our schools send the message to children that the answer is all that counts. We test students to death, conveying the idea that correctly filling in the bubbles is the same as learning. Our classrooms become dedicated to the cause of test preparation, as science and its guiding philosophy - that we must discover, ask questions, accumulate evidence, make determinations - become optional.

This addiction to answers affects our democracy, too. We have the mistaken belief that even the most pressing challenges facing our country...are problems to be "fixed" once and for all, if only we can find the right solution and the right person to implement them.

Could this be why our political leaders in Washington, DC, and state capitols can't work out solutions to some of our biggest problems? Are they too busy "filling in the bubbles" instead of spending time working together to ask the critical questions, explore the evidence, and discover new solutions? Is their narrow focus only on a pre-determined solution, the so-called "right answer?" Have we finally created a culture that only values the "correct result?"

If we continue the emphasis on bubble-like testing, are we doomed? Is it too late to change? Are any of these questions on the test?

Technology, not test scores, will point students toward the future... #edreform

2011-07-12T16:53:00.002-04:00

For most children, the key to success will continue to be sharp critical skills, strong connections, effective communication and the nerve to be creative and entrepreneurial. The difference is that we are living at a time in which all of those skills are defined by one's proficiency in connected media. Furthermore, for students facing poverty, violence and disability, online learning networks can provide empowering educational experiences that transcend the circumstances of the classroom.

In Digital Age, schools that succeed are schools that connect

By Shelly Blake-Plock

The Baltimore Sun, July 12, 2011

Lee Middle School Teachers Learn this Summer

2011-07-12T10:41:00.001-04:00

Teachers at Lee Middle School took a short break from their summer recess to learn how to use technology in the classroom, and how to make use of creative learning spaces to better engage their students. Godfrey-Lee's own Sarah Wood, technology integration specialist, and Kelly McGee, media specialist, planned and led the sessions that began this morning.

The training is part of our district's vision for 1:1 technology that emphasizes an "anytime, anywhere, any device" culture of teaching and learning. It also demonstrates that to effectively utilize a vast array of technology tools in the classroom, teachers must be learners, too.

Godfrey-Lee is entering the second year of our five-year plan to provide 1:1 technology in grades 6-12 and make mobile learning carts along with other devices available to grades K-5. Students entering our 6th Grade Campus at Lee Middle & High School receive a mobile digital device (this year they will again be Dell 2100 netbooks) they'll use throughout their experience at Lee. When the new school year begins, our middle school will be approximately 80% equipped with mobile technology. Next year, we'll complete the implementation at the middle school level and include the 9th grade at Lee High School.

See the full gallery on Posterous

Westley Field and the Future of Schooling - #ISTE11

2011-07-06T12:05:00.003-04:00

It appears that I saved the best for the last. Westley Field spoke on the Future of Schooling Wednesday afternoon and although my brain had about all it could take from this fantastic conference in Philadelphia, I was certainly glad I hung around to the finish.

Westley is Director of Online Learning and IT Manager for the MLC School in Sydney, Australia. A private school for girls in grades K-12, MLC is a future-focused school utilizing 1:1 technology tools for blended learning and collaboration. The school's website proclaims that "...students need to be able to learn in teams, collaboratively, as a class, a section, a whole community or alone...in the city, in the outback and around the world,...anywhere and anytime." Westley is one of the key leaders in making that happen and his philosophy of 21st century learning is out front in transforming K-12 education.

Last fall, Westley made a trip to San Diego where he presented to a group of technology directors from that area. The 99-minute video of that presentation mirrored what he had to say to us at ISTE this summer. Titled: Emerging Technologies to Transform Learning in School, it's well-worth watching by school leaders and teachers everywhere.

Westley's philosophy of technology in education can be summed up by a response he makes to a frequently asked question: Is this (1:1 technology) an integral part of the whole teaching process?

Absolutely. We are preparing students for both their working lives and their personal lives. Many current vocations include the integrated use of technology and it could be argued that technology has become integral to everyday communication. Restricting access to technology would be creating a false environment limiting the development of those skills required for 21st century living and learning. The technology is not as significant as the skills of communication, collaboration, research, independent learning, networking etc.

He also has a great response for those who might question technology in the classroom as a negative change that risks inappropriate behavior or wasting of time by students:

This is not a technology question it is a behavioral question. We have one rule for the use of technology in the school - it must be used to improve your educational outcomes. If students choose to use it in other ways then we regard that as a behavior issue not a technology issue. Limiting access to technology reduces the students skills in learning how to keep safe when using technology.

While much of his presentation focused on the steps schools and districts should take when implementing (or deciding to implement) a 1:1 tech plan and his school's Broken Hill and other real-world learning experiences, I found Westley's down-to-earth philosophy about 21st century learning both entertaining and inspiring. My favorite take-away was a simple yet profound statement of advice: Question everything. Is it helping move toward the future? If not, get rid of it.

Right on, mate!

Third Michigan at Gettysburg

2011-07-03T17:43:00.003-04:00

One hundred-forty-eight years ago, the Third Michigan, made up of men primarily from the Grand Rapids and surrounding areas, marched into Gettysburg on July 2 deploying as skirmishers, holding the line from the Peach Orchard to east of the woods. Colonel Byron R. Pierce was in command but was wounded below the left knee that day and replaced by his brother, Lieutenant Colone Edwin S. Pierce. The Third eventually took up a position in the Peach Orchard.

Colonel De Trobriand positioned the 5th Michigan and 110th Pennsylvania on the southern edge of a wooded ridge just west of the Wheatfield, with the 3rd Michigan on his western front, the right portion of the regiment being extended to the Peach Orchard, and deployed as a skirmish line at the Emmitsburg Road, connecting with the skirmish line of the 5th Michigan near the Rose house, a little east of the road. The 40th New York and 17th Maine, also in the same woods, De Trobriand held as a second line of reserve, with the 40th on the left and the 17th had its right at the northern edge of the woods about one hundred yards from the Peach Orchard, in the rear of the 3rd Michigan. At about 3:00 a.m. the Third Michigan broke camp and marched off, passing through Emmitsburg and crossing into Pennsylvania at 6:00 a.m. The distance, noted Colonel De Trobriand, was only seven or eight miles, but it had rained, and the roads were terrible.

The Third Michigan came up to the front at the line of battle near Gettysburg sometime between 9:00 and 10:00 a.m. joining the rest of Birney’s First Division. The regiment rested briefly in the Third Corps area, somewhere along the slope of the high ground near Little Round Top. The Michiganders found Birney’s division with its left near Little Round Top and its right in a direct line toward the cemetery, “connecting on the right with the 2nd division of this corps.” The division’s “picket line was in the Emmitsburg road, with sharpshooters some 300 yards in advance.” By mid-afternoon, the Union line of defense ran roughly along the eastern side of the Emmitsburg Road to the Peach Orchard, where Birney’s First division held the line.

At about 2:00 p.m. De Trobriand’s “woefully under strength” Third Brigade, consisting of the 3rd and 5th Michigan regiments, “both small but of the best kind,” and the 17th Maine, the 40th New York, “the largest in the brigade,” and the 110th Pennsylvania, which was the smallest in the brigade with only six companies, was put in the fight.

Expecting an attack on the left General Birney assigned De Trobriand’s Third Brigade to a wooded area at the edge of the “Wheatfield,” in the center of his division’s line.

Source: http://thirdmichigan.blogspot.com/2008/07/in-peach-orchard-at-gettysburg-july-2.html

Years later, on June 12, 1889, a delegation of Michigan soldiers and political leaders gathered at Gettysburg to dedicate monuments to the Michigan regiments, including the old Third. General Byron R. Pierce led the delegation honoring the Third. A.S. Shattuck delivered the address which can and should be read at http://www.archive.org/stream/cu31924030924736#page/76/mode/2up.

#ISTE11: Should We Hang On to Our Horses?

2011-06-28T16:59:00.001-04:00

Finding a moment to relax and reflect on the past few days at ISTE 2011, I'm realizing that my time in Philadelphia has been akin to drinking from a fire hose. With hundreds of sessions to choose from and an equivalent number of vendors, the landscape for educational change through expanding use of technology is as incredibly vast as it is exciting. But at the same time, it's frustrating.

I can't help but come back to one of the five critical challenges in the Horizon Report 2011 K-12 Edition:

A key challenge is the fundamental structure of the K-12 education establishment — aka “the system.”

The contributors to this important annual report imply that traditional schools and their respective staffs are soon to find themselves irrelevant if they don't adapt to the changing methods and opportunities students have available for learning. School communities that hesitate will find themselves in a similar position as if the United States Army had decided to continue using horses while the rest of the world's military adapted to the technological change of the motorized vehicle - dead in the water.

Spending time at ISTE has certainly made one thing even more clear for me than ever before: the process of learning is changing and digital technology is helping drive that change, driving it perhaps at a rate faster than many of us will be able to keep up with, especially if we hang on to our horses.

Third Arrives to Defend Washington, DC

2011-06-14T10:45:00.001-04:00

The Third Michigan left Grand Rapids on June 13, 1861 and travelled by train and steamer to Washington, DC where it arrived three days later.

It reached its destination on the sixteenth of June and, trudging down Pennsylvania Avenue through horrid heat, passed theWhite House, where it was said that on the east portico both President Lincoln and General Winfield Scott could be seen sitting in plain view. However, the city was ill prepared to receive the arriving throngs of troops, and this inefficiency led to a shortage of tents and blankets for shelter.

Soldiers crowded the streets of Washington’s downtown area and quickly became unwieldy and undisciplined. Finally, after several days, encampments began to spring up on the outskirts of town. The Third Regiment occupied Camp Blair and spent its first days drilling and digging earthworks around the city at Georgetown Heights. - Courage Without Fear, p. 37

They were tired, hungry and weary when they marched to Chain Bridge just above Georgetown on the Potomac river, where they set up their first wartime encampment on the bluffs overlooking the river. The camp was first called Camp McConnell (after the colonel of the regiment) but then quickly changed to Camp Blair (after Austin Blair, then governor of the state of Michigan).

At the outbreak of the Civil War, Chain Bridge was one of the key Potomac River crossings into Washington from Virginia. (The other two were Aqueduct Bridge, near the current Key Bridge, and Long Bridge, around the site of the 14th Street Bridge today.) The bridge was originally constructed in 1797 by Georgetown merchants who wanted to compete with the port of Alexandria. The bridge enabled them to transport goods directly from Virginia into Georgetown. In 1808, a chain suspension bridge was built at the site -- this bridge became known as the "Chain Bridge," but the name stuck and carried over to subsequent bridges. The original Chain Bridge collapsed and in 1852 was replaced by the crossbeam structure that existed at the time of the Civil War. - Ronald Baumgarten

The bands, the crowds, the patriotic fervor of late April soon give way to war's harshest reality: death. The first man to die was William Choates of C company, who died on July 1, 1861, not amidst the glories of battle but in the throes of fever. He was buried near Camp Blair, and is presumably buried there still.

Sources:

(1) Chain bridge photos and description from "All Not So Quiet Along the Potomac" blog by Ronald Baumgarten

(2) Description of the Third's movement from Grand Rapids, Michigan to Washington, DC from "Courage Without Fear: The Story of the Grand Rapids Guard" by David Britten, Xlibris, 2004

(3) Photo of Third Michigan in camp at the Chain Bridge from "The Third Michigan Infantry Research Project" by Steve Soper

(4) Other material from "3rd Michigan Volunteer Infantry Regiment" Wikipedia site

See the full gallery on Posterous

150 Years Since Third Michigan Left Cantonment Anderson

2011-06-10T06:27:00.003-04:00

"Organizing a regiment of infantry for war was no easy task. It was expected that Grand Rapids would provide five of the ten companies required." - Courage without Fear: The Story of the Grand Rapids Guard

On June 13, 1861, The Third Michigan, a regiment of Infantry comprised mainly of Grand Rapids area men and led by Colonel Daniel McConnell, broke camp at Cantonment Anderson and marched several miles north to the newly constructed train station, headed for the seat of war. This moment ended two months of struggle organizing and training over 1,000 men in response to President Abraham Lincoln's call for troops. Over the next three years, the Third would find itself engaged in no less than twelve major campaigns and twenty-seven engagements. By the end a little more than half would be alive or remain fit for duty.

The Third’s engagements include Blackburn’s Ford, Bull Run, Yorktown, Williamsburg, FairOaks, Savage Station, Peach Orchard, Glendale, White Oak Swamp, Malvern Hill, Second Bull Run, Chancellorsville, Gettysburg, Wapping Heights, Auburn Heights, Kelly’s Ford, Locust Grove, Mine Run, Wilderness, Todd’s Tavern, PoRiver, Spottsylvania, North Anna River, and Cold Harbor.

Fifty years after the Third departed Grand Rapids, an aging group of veterans led by the regiment's own Major General Byron R. Pierece gathered on the site of what would soon become South High School and dedicated a monument marking the "hallowed ground" where it all began.

On Saturday, June 11, 2011, another group will gather at that same site to re-dedicate the original monument along with a new historical marker to help educate current and future generations on the role played by Cantonment Anderson in the war of the rebellion. I'm honored to have been asked to play a small role in the re-dedication and will be speaking specifically on the Third Michigan's trials and heroic experience.

You can read my compilation of the Third's organization at Cantonment Anderson and its Civil War experience in a free e-book version of Courage without Fear: The Story of the Grand Rapids Guard. It's contained in Chapter 2 beginning on page 24.

"(The Third) reached its destination on the sixteenth of June and, trudging down Pennsylvania Avenue through horrid heat, passed the White House, where it was said that on the east portico both President Lincoln and General Winfield Scott could be seen sitting in plain view." - Courage without Fear

Update: Remembering the 1,040-man West Michigan regiment who fought in Civil War 150 years ago | http://t.co/YwPDFRO MLive.com by Garret Ellison

Want to learn more about the Third Michigan? Steve Soper's blogspot contains wealth of personal/organizational details. http://is.gd/Fjudiw

Manufactured Budget Crisis?

2011-05-14T12:46:00.003-04:00

The Michigan Senate Fiscal Agency released its economic outlook this week in advance of Monday's official revenue forecast. The Senate's revenue predictions are based on the tax requirements prior to Governor Snyder's huge shift in taxes from business to individuals, particularly retirees and lower income workers.

In fiscal year (FY) General Fund/General Purpose (GF/GP) and School Aid Fund (SAF) revenue is expected to total $18.8 billion, up 6.6% from FY 2009-10. The increase reflects an improving economy, combined with lower income tax refunds, and is $557.3 million above the January 2011 consensus estimate. General Fund/General Purpose revenue is estimated to rise 12.8% to $7.7 billion while SAF revenue will increase 2.7% to $11.1 billion.

In FY 2011-12, the economy will grow more slowly than in FY 2010-11, resulting in slower revenue growth. General Fund/General Purpose and SAF revenue will total an estimated $19.2 billion, up 2.2% from FY 2010-11 and $690.5 million above the January 2011 consensus estimate. General Fund/General Purpose revenue is expected to increase 2.3% from the FY 2010-11 level to $7.8 billion and SAF revenue is projected to grow 2.1% to $11.3 billion.

In FY 2012-13, GF/GP and SAF revenue will total an estimated $19.3 billion. This initial estimate for FY 2012-13 is 0.7% higher than the revised estimate for FY 2011-12, with substantial tax changes causing revenue to grow much more slowly than economic conditions would suggest. General Fund/General Purpose revenue will total an estimated $7.6 billion, a decline of 2.6% from FY 2011-12, while SAF revenue will rise to an estimated $11.7 billion, a 3.0% increase.

It now appears that much of Governor Snyder's "doom-and-gloom" predictions regarding our state's economy were misleading, or at the very least uninformed. Consequently, the Governor seemingly manufactured a crisis that allowed him to get away with (for now) shifting a billion dollars from K-12 public education through colleges and universities to support a general fund reduction in business taxes. While there's no guarantee that the Governor's plan will aid job growth in this state, there's definitely a guarantee that his cuts to public education will increase job loss, lead to higher class sizes, and further damage urban schools at a time when the focus should be on improving student achievement.

Even respected political reporter Peter Luke seems to be wary of Governor Snyder's raid on the school aid fund:

The new question is: “Why, with a big surplus in the state’s school budget, is my school district being cut so much?” The answer at this point seems to be: "Because we can.” That’s probably not going to go over well.

And he wrote this weeks before the Senate Fiscal Agency's belated projection, and passage of huge K-12 cuts by both branches of the legislature. He updated his thoughts after both narrowly passed separate versions of a K-12 budget bill and predictions of the surplus began to surface:

Even as lawmakers were casting politically perilous votes to cut schools in the past few weeks, an assumption was emerging that the state could have as much as $500 million more in revenue than was estimated in January.

Respected columnist Julie Mack of the Kalamazoo Gazette also points out the shift in K-12 funds to support tax cuts for business:

According to an analysis released Friday by the state House Fiscal Agency, the tax overhaul will cost the School Aid Fund more than $660 million a year. In 2011-12, the lose of revenues from the business tax means the State Aid Fund will have $10.6 billion versus $11.3 billion. That equates to about $440 per student.

It's going to be an interesting couple of weeks coming up, but in the end there will be winners and losers. The question, Governor Snyder, is whether you plan to bet Michigan's future on short term business gains with no guarantee of increasing job opportunities, or the education of our children who are the future of this great state?

Appreciation for our Teaching Team

2011-05-03T06:24:00.001-04:00

Today is Teacher Appreciation Day in Michigan, part of an entire week devoted to expressing gratitude for the wonderful work our teachers - past and present - have done with kids. Teachers live in the middle of two worlds right now. On one side are the minions of public school haters and union-bashing simpletons who have historically belittled the profession and blamed the results of their poor choices in life on teachers and public schools. Lately, they've been joined by the bastion of politicians, boy billionaires, and pretend educational leaders who have upped the visibility of the attacks and are now resorting to budgetary means of destroying the profession. On the other side - the kids. Their wonderful smiles, daily struggles, and naive quest to understand how the world works reinforce why we sought the teaching profession and why we continue to remain despite the growing obstacles that make it harder every day to succeed.

I can remember every teacher I ever had and the many times they were there when I needed them most. It wasn't always to celebrate great achievements or even simple understanding. Sometimes it was to reinforce the consequences of heading off in the wrong direction. For the latter, I appreciate them the most. I don't quite recall if I ever expressed that appreciation at the time (I'm sure I didn't) but in life's rear-view mirror, I'm greatly indebted to them.

So here's to an awesome Godfrey-Lee teaching team! You are my heroes and certainly the heroes of hundreds of students who have graced your classrooms. While it may feel now that you are in a war zone with the future of your kids, your classrooms, and your careers at stake, know that every day you make a difference in the lives of many and you, more than any other person or profession, positively impact the future of our world.

Thank you!

We Need More "Leadership Out Loud" Now!

2011-04-30T08:59:00.001-04:00

Two months ago, Governor Rick Snyder outlined a budget that literally guts K-12 public education in Michigan by raiding the School Aid Fund to benefit college and universities. Actually, that's not entirely true. While nearly $900 million will be taken from K-12 children and transferred to community colleges and higher education, the Governor and his minions in the state legislature are manning their wheelbarrows so they can take money out the backdoor and use it for general fund expenses. Primarily cuts in business taxes. This was Governor Snyder's intent long before we elected him to Michigan's highest office, but he used the smokescreen of wanting to improve education for our kids to disguise his real intent until he got to sit in the big chair. (Tell the Truth about Michigan's Budget)

This past week, he presented a 13-page tome on what he sees as needed actions for improving our public schools. While most of his ideas deserve a fair hearing and could be beneficial to our kids in the long run, they might once again be considered nothing more than additional smoke screens as he continues his efforts to defund (and destroy?) public education. You can write all the vision statements and strategic plans you want, but the proof is in the pudding and the very fact Governor Snyder is intentionally handicapping school districts and forcing Superintendents and Boards of Education to cut sorely needed (and successful) programs while laying off a vast number of outstanding young teachers, lays out his real agenda.

Mike Rice, Superintendent for Kalamazoo Public Schools, and Julie Mack, reporter for the Kalamazoo Gazette, summarized the frustration we're all feeling, especially in districts like mine where a high percentage of kids live in poverty or low-income households where little English is spoken and basic readiness for school is lacking:

Since August 2007, Rice has implemented one reform after another — preschool overhaul, full-day kindergarten, new writing and math curriculum for the elementary, changes in the secondary schedule to provide more time in core subjects, new interventions for struggling students, major expansion of the Advanced Placement program, weighted grades, summer-school expansion, and on and on.
There have been major changes at every level in KPS. And Rice, to his credit, has done it without new funding. The Kalamazoo Promise, after all, goes to college scholarships; the district doesn't get a penny. By necessity, Rice has become very, very good at squeezing the most out of what he's got
.
And all these efforts are beginning to bear fruit. Tests scores are going up. There is a palpable sense of momentum in the district.
Enter Rick Snyder, lecturing Michigan educators on the need to improve outcomes among poor and minority youth, even as Snyder takes away schools' financial resources.
But the reality is that improving outcomes in a high-poverty district can be a Sisyphean challenge, and Rice needs every single resource that he has right now. Program and staffing cuts that are difficult in most districts — the elimination of counselors and social workers, an increase in class size —can be devastating in a high-poverty school, where students are depending on staff to provide the support structures they lack at home.

So I'm wondering where is the outrage? Where are the rest of the 500-plus school superintendents? Why aren't every one of you online right now using blogging, social media, email and every technology advantage you can to stop the Governor and legislature from making this disastrous mistake? If social networking can fuel the long-overdue changes being made in oppressive regimes around the world, it can certainly drive the conversations necessary to force our elected officials to see their decisions in the real light of day.

We have to stand up to the incessant misinformation about public schools and funding coming out of Lansing and fueled by the likes of organizations such as the Mackinaw Center and their obvious desire to end public education. I'm challenging all of my fellow Michigan school administrators to put your students before self and energize your base in a public way, challenging Lansing's quest for defunding and ultimately crippling public education. Our message to Governor Snyder has to be loud and clear: We agree with your desire to improve college-and-career readiness for Michigan kids, but to get there, you have to STOP the raid on the School Aid Fund now and restore K-12 funding to at least it's 2010-11 levels.

Lead out loud!

Response to Governor Snyder's Special Message on Education Reform

2011-04-27T16:54:00.001-04:00

Governor Rick Snyder today released his message on education reform nearly two months after he proposed a budget that forces draconian cuts that will negatively impact the classroom and Michigan's K-12 students. While there are many good ideas in his message, we are concerned about the cost of implementing a number of them and where that funding will come from.

A Special Message from Rick Snyder: Education Reform

The Governor's budget proposal is leading to significant layoffs and program cutbacks while at the same time he is calling for increased pay for teacher performance, additional dual enrollments to colleges, expanded use of technology and access to educational programs, more charter schools, and significantly more professional development for teachers and school administrators. While the educational policy implications make sense, his economic actions do not. The fact remains that schools are being cut by at least $470 per pupil this year under his budget proposal and many at-risk school districts, such as Godfrey-Lee, are planning for even deeper cuts exacerbated by reductions in federal funding and rising costs.

These reform proposals will have a greater chance of success for Michigan's kids if the Governor drops his insistence on transferring school aid fund dollars to higher education while cutting aid to K-12 students. If the Governor honored the intent of Michigan's voters when they approved Proposal A in 1994, schools would have as much as $200 per pupil in additional revenue that could be used to accomplish his ambitious goals. Instead, the Governor is virtually crippling our ability to conduct critical research and development, or "R & D" as its referred to in Governor Snyder's corporate world, leaving all of us wondering how we are going to operate even just the basic programs this coming school year, let alone his new proposals. Cutting schools back to 2005-06 funding levels makes it virtually impossible for districts to implement the 2011-12 technology and teaching methods he recommends.

The performance-based funding proposal in the Governor's plan is appealing on the surface but stands to penalize districts, particularly in urban areas, with high percentages of at-risk students. Reducing the amount of funding for students who may have limited English proficiency skills or come from low income urban households, based solely on their test scores and promotion from one grade to another, fails to recognize the obstacles to learning they face. Reducing funding to promote increased academic achievement is illogical especially since that funding decision will be made after a student has spent a year in the classroom. Schools cannot plan for staffing and support not knowing what it's per-pupil funding will be for that year. Previous studies and experience in our schools conclude that at-risk students require additional resources, services, mentoring and assistance to succeed. A performance-based system easily turns into a reverse-Robin Hood funding plan, taking school aid funds from the poor to reward the rich. Michigan's per-pupil funding system already rewards wealthy school districts on the east side of the state at the expense of schools in communities that are struggling economically. The Governor's plan will only add to that disparity.

Addressing school readiness issue is an admirable goal and long overdue in Michigan. One has to wonder how an understaffed Department of Education can take on the new responsibility inherent in the Governor's proposal and where the money will come form to fund this new agency. However, if his objectives can be accomplished without impairing or further reducing state revenues for public K-12 school districts, he will certainly have the support of the educational community.

In the coming years, school districts will already be facing the additional costs of implementing the new national Common Core Curriculum and a considerably different assessment program. The Governor and his staff should proceed cautiously with the bulk of these new reform proposals. Last year, our state legislature, with the urging of Governor Granholm, pushed through a pile of so-called reform bills in an ill-advised and failed attempt to secure Race to the Top federal funds without adequately considering the potential costs at the district level. We are only now seeing an effort by top Lansing officials to distance themselves from their roles in drafting and passing those bills, and even advocating undoing some of them such as the State Reform Office statute. Let's not add to the confusion and the implementation costs by forcing through more ill-planned reforms, especially while K-12 funding is being severely cut. Instead, the Governor's first job should be to restore state revenue for public education at least at the 2010-11 level so we can keep teachers in the classrooms and continue our extensive efforts to improve student learning for every child.

Yearning to Break Free

2011-04-21T21:16:00.001-04:00

As I finish up another great tome by Dean Karnazes (Run! 26.2 Stories of Blisters and Bliss), I find myself holding back the urge to lace up my shoes, head out the door, and hit the open road once again. It's been 19 months since my last ultra, a 50K (31 mile) run along the Potomac in Washington, DC, part of the North Face Endurance Challenge. Since then, I've struggled with persistent achilles pain that began long before DC but eventually getting to a point of having had to scale back significantly, even stopping my running for several months. A few physical therapists and a personal trainer later, coupled with an extensive gait analysis leading to orthotics and a change in shoes, I'm pain free and ready to ratchet it up once again.

I''ve set my sights on the Wisconsin 50K leg of the North Face Endurance Challenge this September. Between now and then I'll work through a 25K and a marathon (or two), while getting back into the swing of long weekend runs in early morning hours to outlying towns and other destinations.

Don't really know how it will all work out, but I recognized long ago that I'd rather run with pain then live life without running. Dean's extreme passion inspired me to run ultras the first time. Since then, I've accomplished more than a few marathons, 50K's and 50-milers, even taking on a 100K and a 100-miler. His latest writings convince me that it's time once again to hit the roads and trails. There's really no sense explaining why. I just need to break free.

An "Imagineering" Team Approach

2011-04-16T09:34:00.001-04:00

As we wrap up our first year of a five-year plan to implement 1:1 technology across our secondary and into our elementary grades, we find ourselves assessing the impact and looking to the future. As superintendent and originator of the 1:1 vision for our district, I'm excited about the future and what's in store for our kids.

Heading into this initiative, we revamped our tech support structure, merging the media staff to expand the scope and provide a broader range of technology integration support. Primarily consisting of five staff, including the director, augmented with media assistants in each of the school buildings, the number one mission of our tech-media team is evolving into a Disney-style imagineering approach to expanding our 1:1 and use of technology tools for learning.

While each individual has a dedicated role, my intent for the team is to collaboratively use their respective and collective skill sets to stay out front of evolving technology. Simply put, I don't want a team that follows the latest fads, but one that leads in identifying new ways to creatively use tech tools to improve student achievement and ready them for college and career. Put another way, I want a team that when they read the latest Horizon Report, they feel like they're reading a history of what they've already helped our district accomplish.

For any team like this within a school district to be successful, there must be support and leadership from the top. The superintendent must provide the team with the vision, resources, and freedom to strike out on their own and maximize their creativity. They must feel safe to take risks and have the public backing of the superintendent that enables them to support school administrators and teachers in adapting to new technology changes. The team cannot get bogged down in layers of management or administrative hierarchy that only serve to create paralysis. They must enjoy a close relationship with the superintendent and feel as if they are if not the most, one of the most important support structures in the district. And in the end, every member of the team must understand that they are expected to produce measurable results.

The horizontal, collaborative structure of the team requires that they hold each other accountable for contributing their fair share to the team's success. And it's important that each realizes that while he or she has a specific area of responsibility, such as network administration or instructional tech integration, by working together across the entire technology and media spectrum, the synergy they create will move the district further ahead than if each only paid attention to their respective areas. This is a "Google approach" to an un-departmentalized work team that places far greater emphasis on the ability of the group and its members to imagine the possible and employ creative solutions.

Insisting and allowing the district media-tech team to operate in this Disney-Google approach can potentially lead to similar structures within academic departments and grade-level teams, employing similar creative styles to analyzing results and imagining new solutions. In reality, this could be seen as the "early-childhood" method of exploration and learning - feeling the freedom to ask "why" and using that inquisitive nature to open new doors to discovery. Teachers, administrators, and even students using Disney-style imagineering and Google-style creative collaboration has the potential for removing schools completely beyond the bonds of the industrial model, and clearing a path to a true 21st century learning system.

Are We Comparing Apples and Oranges?

2011-04-10T12:33:00.001-04:00

As I'm reading through Education Week's article on KIPP attrition rates (Vol. 30, No. 27, April 30, 2011) I can't help but ponder the simplistic methods we've latched onto for comparing school achievement. For the most part, schools in each state and across the nation are simply compared by reading and math scores (state, national and international tests) and graduation rates. Occasionally, science scores are thrown in for good measure but are not consistently used in the same manner as reading and math.

The article on KIPP reviews a recent study by researchers at Western Michigan University that concludes while the schools have a great reputation for high achieving minority students, they have an exceptionally high rate of attrition for black males in grades 6-8, over forty percent, than their neighboring schools in the same districts. Therefore, it's difficult to compare whether the KIPP schools are being any more successful overall than their neighbors.

While some folks would read this and cheer, because they merely want to see anything that's not a traditional public school fail, I look at it as more of an indicator of the inherent problems with simplistic approaches to comparing schools and school districts, something that NCLB – the current incarnation of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 – has turned into a cottage industry that has done more to enrich testing companies and so-called education reform activists, than it has to improve overall student achievement.

Here are a number of questions I have about the validity of comparing schools with each other:

Are comparisons valid between two or more schools that receive different levels of funding from either public or private sources? For instance, in the same Education Week article, the researchers found that KIPP schools receive far greater funding than surrounding districts, about $6,500 more per student than the average for the other districts. Even traditional public school districts will differ in their per-pupil revenues and shouldn't that be a factor?
What about schools that have differing numbers of students who are have validated limited English proficiency skills?
Can you compare schools in lower income urban settings with those in upper income suburban areas? Recent reports seem to indicate that achievement results on high-stakes tests do correlate well with urban versus suburban settings. And what about rural schools compared to urban or suburban?
How about schools that differ in the number of minority students. This can be looked at from two different perspectives: schools with higher percentages of students from minority groups that have traditionally struggled in school, and those with higher percentages of minorities from groups that have traditionally excelled in schools. Either way, would the comparisons be skewed?
And what about schools that are co-located in towns with major universities or multiple institutions of higher learning? Could it be expected that these schools might have a greater percentage of students with parents who have higher levels of post-secondary learning? Is that a factor?
What about schools in cities or towns with exceptionally low property values compared to more affluent districts or districts in vibrant business communities?
Would student transiency effect achievement comparisons between schools? What about schools with a higher percentage of students who are their by choice, not by circumstance?
And lastly (because I can't think of any more right now), what about the difference in demographics of the school staff? What if there are more males than females, or vice versa, on the staff? Or differences in what universities they earned their degrees? Or marital status and family statistics? Or even whether they lived within the school district or commute from many miles away?

My point is that comparing schools – traditional public, charters, or private – is often just an exercise in trying to make an apple look, feel and taste like an orange. If we only compare the two by their general shapes, than we can easily argue whether one is better than the other and we need to work harder to make the lesser one better. But when you peel back the outer surface of both, you'll see that there are many, many variables making valid comparisons difficult if not next to impossible.

But if the real motives for comparing schools are political, it's not likely the question of validity will stop us.

Don't Stand in the Way of Personalizing Learning

2011-04-08T12:37:00.001-04:00

Ronald A. Wolk, founder and former editor of Education Week, hits a homerun in his new book, Wasting Minds: Why our education system is failing and what we can do about it (ASCD, 2011). Of particular note is Chapter 11, titled One Student at a Time, where he describes in the opening paragraph what personalized education should look like -- not standardized systems bent primarily on higher "abstract test scores," but real work demonstrated in a variety of real-world applications. He goes on to prescribe in simple terms how to create personalized learning schools:

Today's students come from different socioeconomic situations and cultural backgrounds, learn in different ways and at different speeds, and have different talents, problems, and aspirations. To accommodate this enormous student diversity, the strategy should encourage the creation of new schools that are different from conventional schools and from each other, and they should offer a variety of educational opportunities. - pages 101-2

I contend that we once had this system of education, until the "great industrialization" and subsequent grading of schools came along, only to be followed later by the "great high-stakes testing era" we find ourselves in currently. Once upon a time, the classroom teacher was master of his or her domain and the students were of all ages where personalization of learning was the only successful avenue. Now, teachers are expected to spend all their time conforming to a one-size-fits-all curriculum, using the same strategies from classroom to classroom, and working in lock-step to prepare students for state and national tests. Failing to do so dooms the teacher by saddling her with the label of "ineffective." For learning is no longer the true measure, just progress of her charges towards proficiency on some abstract multiple-choice test.

Wolk suggests that new schools for personalized learning be created alongside so-called conventional schools, but why would we want to keep the latter? Why not unbridle all of our public schools -- traditional as well as charter -- and allow for the complete personalization of learning from top to bottom? Eliminate unreasonable laws and regulations that only serve to corral public schools in yesteryear methods and restrict their ability to readily transform into the personalized schools of tomorrow. Provide for a stable funding base (not asking for more money, just stable funding) that allows schools to plan long-term the improvement strategies necessary to support this transformation. Take public education out of the political arena and allow local communities to push for the types of schools they feel serve their kids best.

NCLB-ESEA in its current incarnation based on standardization of public education stands in the way of true educational reform and personalizing learning.