Overcoming the Obstacles to STEM Learning in an Urban School

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

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?

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

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

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…”