Fixing Our Education System-Who Knows?

The following is an analysis of a Chicago Tribune article about a certain [financially failing?] Chicago Catholic school receiving financial assistance from the Archdiocese in order to implement a third-party program purportedly designed to save the school. Reference to the school and its circumstances at the time are not relevant. (Should you be wondering after reading, St. Gregory's will close at the end of this school year.) What is relevant is that while this was written about four years ago I believe that many of the thoughts remain pertinent, although some of the terminology may have evolved.

Thoughts on:

Chicago Tribune article "High school puts eggs in a high-tech basket," March 24, 2010, by: Pete Reinwald.

At the outset I feel obligated to say that there is little agreement among educators or industry leaders regarding how to fix our assumed failing education system. Worse, there is no scientific evidence that any of the proposed "fixes" have or will improve results. Technology, national curricula and standards, revised pedagogies, revised classroom management techniques, more or better teachers, charter schools, longer student days, fire the entire faculty and staff, year-round schooling, close failing schools, monetary incentives (teacher and/or student), funding infusions, you name it, we simply don't know what can or will yield the outcomes we expect.

The article points to St. Gregory's lack of funds as the major issue. We don't know if there is also a problem with student achievement resulting from the lack of funds. If such is the case, given the low student/teacher ratio, some would agree that there is justification for adopting the rather drastic and very questionable Arne Duncan reconstitution reform tactic of firing all and rehiring all. I often wonder how this would play out if we also required school board members, and district/diocese and state administrators to reapply for their positions. Anyway, it does seem clear that St. Gregory is a failing school, at least from a financial perspective. Their (or at least Tony DeSapio's) strategy appears to be to increase enrollment, grants and individual donations through implementation of the Partnership for 21st Century Skills framework. Of course, this strategy will work only if the revised curriculum is marketed successfully and the added new students' families are able to pay a significantly higher tuition. Increasing enrollment will involve catering to a different demographic and require redefining the mission of the institution, at least implicitly. Regarding marketing of the new curriculum, the Partnership provides all the current buzz words and a plan. None-the-less such a turn-around could take years and a considerable investment in advertising, marketing, infrastructure improvements, curriculum development, professional development and technology.

I do not understand how the Archdiocese decides which high schools will receive what amount of financial support from the Archdiocese. If the article is even somewhat accurate, it seems that even Sister McCaughey does not know the formula and has little control over the Archdiocese's contributions. At least she admits that St. Gregory's receipts are "out of whack." I also question the tuition. If the tuition is (will be) $7,700 and 85% of the students are receiving (will receive) financial assistance of $3,200, the out-of-pocket tuition for those families is only $4,500 (assuming one student/family). There is not enough information in the article to determine the sources of other revenue. Having had considerable experience with budgets and finance at rather high levels, I can say with some confidence that while St. Gregory might be able to implement "a new technology-based teaching and learning initiative," unless it finds other sources of revenue, it will do so without a sufficient and significant increase in hardware, software and technology professional development.

I would support any educational program or effort designed to replace rote memorization and curricula replete with standards and objectives not readily transferable to life after college with "a curriculum based on a national model that emphasizes analytical thinking, problem solving and communication. . . .” It just makes sense to me that that should be the direction we should be heading, in part and admittedly, arguably so. The pedagogical model espoused by the Partnership for 21st Century Skills is not new. It is simply "constructionism" or "constructivism" organized, operationalized and digitalized. The Partnership calls it a "framework" and as is usual with academic models, is represented by a graphic:

The rainbow in the upper portion of the graphic represents student outcomes and the light blue rings on the lower portion represent support systems or "inputs" in systems theory. Notable is the emphasis on outcome skills rather than knowledge. Skills have historically been associated more with training than with formal education. This is a bit of a clue to how the program operationalizes learning. Additionally, I am concerned that Information, Media, and Technology Skills occupy a separate outcome area implying that they should continue to be skills learned separate from the core subjects and life and career skills. I question whether learning technology for technology's sake is an efficient use of educational time, or that using technology only as an advanced digitalized pencil, whiteboard or calculator is an efficient use of very limited funds. One can summarize 21^st Century skills as the ability to use a range of electronic technologies to access, synthesize and apply information; the ability to think critically and creatively and evaluate the products of one’s thinking; and the ability to communicate effectively and collaborate with others, particularly in diverse and multicultural settings. While I have only given their 28 page guide a cursory look, I think the Partnership does intend that technology be fully integrated into the other outcome categories. And the guide does not recommend or even encourage a 1:1 learning initiative (a laptop for every student). So, what’s new except the cant--“21^st Century skills?” Except for the introduction of electronic technology (certainly not restricted to the 21^st Century), these skills have been recognized as desirable educational goals as far back as Aristotle. Lastly, while I find reference in the 21^st Century skills mantra to creativity as it relates to utility and workplace productivity, there is no mention of  aesthetics, intellectual play, imagination, the pleasure of a subject, and just plain wonder. How un-engaging is that?

1:1 programs are rightfully controversial among educators and technologists alike. There are obvious disadvantages almost all of which tend to be practical and financial. The advantages, purported to be educational, are not so obvious and certainly not scientifically validated. In upper income environments, 1:1 programs tend to benefit students. However, in lower income environments, the challenges presented by the disadvantages tend to nullify the potential advantages. Because it is so difficult to establish controls in the educational environment, each side of the issue has the right to have issues with the results of any 1:1 experiment. I come down on both sides. If a school can afford it and the students are coming from a culture that values and supports early and life-long learning, a 1:1 program's advantages will outweigh the disadvantages. On the other hand. . . . In other words, I do not think that St. Gregory will benefit from a 1:1 learning initiative (other than as a marketing ploy).

Dr. Alford and her curriculum consulting company appear to be spearheading the program using Holy Family Catholic Academy as a template. As a model for St. Gregory, Holy Family does not fit well. It is a Pre-K-8 institution in a relatively homogeneous upper class suburb. St. Gregory is a high school serving a diverse under class population. Twenty-one percent of Holy Family’s students receive financial aid; 85% of St. Gregory’s students receive financial aid. Holy Family’s student body is more than double that of St. Gregory. Holly Family has 44 teachers and a staff of seven; St. Gregory has 16 teachers and staff of 11 (top heavy?). Holy Family has a relationship with a local college that affords Holy Family students frequent access to state-of-the-art science labs, computer labs and a performing arts theatre (surely at some cost to Holy Family) and their faculty includes six adjunct Harper College faculty members; it is unlikely that St. Gregory has such a relationship. Holy Family’s middle school students possess netbook computers, either family-leased or provided by the school. (As an aside, the article mentions that Holy Family students use Harper College’s computer and technological facilities three mornings a week, yet the middle school has implemented a 1:1 program and their website boasts, “All classrooms have wireless internet connections and are equipped with multiple computers.”)

In conclusion, I fail to see any causal relationship between the initiatives outlined in the article and resolving St. Gregory’s financial difficulties.

Fixing Our Education System-Who Knows?

The following is an analysis of a Chicago Tribune article about a certain [financially failing?] Chicago Catholic school receiving financial assistance from the Archdiocese in order to implement a third-party program purportedly designed to save the school. Reference to the school and its circumstances at the time are not relevant. (Should you be wondering after reading, St. Gregory's will close at the end of this school year.) What is relevant is that while this was written about four years ago I believe that many of the thoughts remain pertinent, although some of the terminology may have evolved.

Thoughts on:

Chicago Tribune article "High school puts eggs in a high-tech basket," March 24, 2010, by: Pete Reinwald.

At the outset I feel obligated to say that there is little agreement among educators or industry leaders regarding how to fix our assumed failing education system. Worse, there is no scientific evidence that any of the proposed "fixes" have or will improve results. Technology, national curricula and standards, revised pedagogies, revised classroom management techniques, more or better teachers, charter schools, longer student days, fire the entire faculty and staff, year-round schooling, close failing schools, monetary incentives (teacher and/or student), funding infusions, you name it, we simply don't know what can or will yield the outcomes we expect.

The article points to St. Gregory's lack of funds as the major issue. We don't know if there is also a problem with student achievement resulting from the lack of funds. If such is the case, given the low student/teacher ratio, some would agree that there is justification for adopting the rather drastic and very questionable Arne Duncan reconstitution reform tactic of firing all and rehiring all. I often wonder how this would play out if we also required school board members, and district/diocese and state administrators to reapply for their positions. Anyway, it does seem clear that St. Gregory is a failing school, at least from a financial perspective. Their (or at least Tony DeSapio's) strategy appears to be to increase enrollment, grants and individual donations through implementation of the Partnership for 21st Century Skills framework. Of course, this strategy will work only if the revised curriculum is marketed successfully and the added new students' families are able to pay a significantly higher tuition. Increasing enrollment will involve catering to a different demographic and require redefining the mission of the institution, at least implicitly. Regarding marketing of the new curriculum, the Partnership provides all the current buzz words and a plan. None-the-less such a turn-around could take years and a considerable investment in advertising, marketing, infrastructure improvements, curriculum development, professional development and technology.

I do not understand how the Archdiocese decides which high schools will receive what amount of financial support from the Archdiocese. If the article is even somewhat accurate, it seems that even Sister McCaughey does not know the formula and has little control over the Archdiocese's contributions. At least she admits that St. Gregory's receipts are "out of whack." I also question the tuition. If the tuition is (will be) $7,700 and 85% of the students are receiving (will receive) financial assistance of $3,200, the out-of-pocket tuition for those families is only $4,500 (assuming one student/family). There is not enough information in the article to determine the sources of other revenue. Having had considerable experience with budgets and finance at rather high levels, I can say with some confidence that while St. Gregory might be able to implement "a new technology-based teaching and learning initiative," unless it finds other sources of revenue, it will do so without a sufficient and significant increase in hardware, software and technology professional development.

I would support any educational program or effort designed to replace rote memorization and curricula replete with standards and objectives not readily transferable to life after college with "a curriculum based on a national model that emphasizes analytical thinking, problem solving and communication. . . .” It just makes sense to me that that should be the direction we should be heading, in part and admittedly, arguably so. The pedagogical model espoused by the Partnership for 21st Century Skills is not new. It is simply "constructionism" or "constructivism" organized, operationalized and digitalized. The Partnership calls it a "framework" and as is usual with academic models, is represented by a graphic:

The rainbow in the upper portion of the graphic represents student outcomes and the light blue rings on the lower portion represent support systems or "inputs" in systems theory. Notable is the emphasis on outcome skills rather than knowledge. Skills have historically been associated more with training than with formal education. This is a bit of a clue to how the program operationalizes learning. Additionally, I am concerned that Information, Media, and Technology Skills occupy a separate outcome area implying that they should continue to be skills learned separate from the core subjects and life and career skills. I question whether learning technology for technology's sake is an efficient use of educational time, or that using technology only as an advanced digitalized pencil, whiteboard or calculator is an efficient use of very limited funds. One can summarize 21^st Century skills as the ability to use a range of electronic technologies to access, synthesize and apply information; the ability to think critically and creatively and evaluate the products of one’s thinking; and the ability to communicate effectively and collaborate with others, particularly in diverse and multicultural settings. While I have only given their 28 page guide a cursory look, I think the Partnership does intend that technology be fully integrated into the other outcome categories. And the guide does not recommend or even encourage a 1:1 learning initiative (a laptop for every student). So, what’s new except the cant--“21^st Century skills?” Except for the introduction of electronic technology (certainly not restricted to the 21^st Century), these skills have been recognized as desirable educational goals as far back as Aristotle. Lastly, while I find reference in the 21^st Century skills mantra to creativity as it relates to utility and workplace productivity, there is no mention of  aesthetics, intellectual play, imagination, the pleasure of a subject, and just plain wonder. How un-engaging is that?

1:1 programs are rightfully controversial among educators and technologists alike. There are obvious disadvantages almost all of which tend to be practical and financial. The advantages, purported to be educational, are not so obvious and certainly not scientifically validated. In upper income environments, 1:1 programs tend to benefit students. However, in lower income environments, the challenges presented by the disadvantages tend to nullify the potential advantages. Because it is so difficult to establish controls in the educational environment, each side of the issue has the right to have issues with the results of any 1:1 experiment. I come down on both sides. If a school can afford it and the students are coming from a culture that values and supports early and life-long learning, a 1:1 program's advantages will outweigh the disadvantages. On the other hand. . . . In other words, I do not think that St. Gregory will benefit from a 1:1 learning initiative (other than as a marketing ploy).

Dr. Alford and her curriculum consulting company appear to be spearheading the program using Holy Family Catholic Academy as a template. As a model for St. Gregory, Holy Family does not fit well. It is a Pre-K-8 institution in a relatively homogeneous upper class suburb. St. Gregory is a high school serving a diverse under class population. Twenty-one percent of Holy Family’s students receive financial aid; 85% of St. Gregory’s students receive financial aid. Holy Family’s student body is more than double that of St. Gregory. Holly Family has 44 teachers and a staff of seven; St. Gregory has 16 teachers and staff of 11 (top heavy?). Holy Family has a relationship with a local college that affords Holy Family students frequent access to state-of-the-art science labs, computer labs and a performing arts theatre (surely at some cost to Holy Family) and their faculty includes six adjunct Harper College faculty members; it is unlikely that St. Gregory has such a relationship. Holy Family’s middle school students possess netbook computers, either family-leased or provided by the school. (As an aside, the article mentions that Holy Family students use Harper College’s computer and technological facilities three mornings a week, yet the middle school has implemented a 1:1 program and their website boasts, “All classrooms have wireless internet connections and are equipped with multiple computers.”)

In conclusion, I fail to see any causal relationship between the initiatives outlined in the article and resolving St. Gregory’s financial difficulties.

Excellent Article on What's Wrong with Education in U.S.

http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/2153/the_vampire_school.aspx#.UV6u0H9wo8E

The article is lengthy but a couple of significant points can be garnered from the following dialogue and the third to last paragraph.

The dialogue:

Someone knocks at your door.  “Hello,” says the fellow, flashing his card.  “My name is John Smith.  I hear you have a twelve-year-old boy here.”

“Yes, my son Bobby.  Has he gotten into any trouble?”

“Oh no, sir, not yet.  I am simply here to talk to him about sex.”

“I see.”

“Yes, I am licensed by the state and the school district,” he says, flashing another card, “to talk to Bobby about sex.  He is here, perhaps?”  The man elbows his way into the living room, glancing at the titles of the books in your bookcase.

“As a matter of fact, he isn’t.  He’s down by the pond fishing with his little brother.”

“A pond, fishing,” says the man, writing on a notepad.  “Unsupervised fishing at a pond.  Very well.  When may I see him?  My appointments are rapidly filling up.”

“Shouldn’t I first know something about you?” you ask, naively.  “Suppose you don’t believe the same things I believe.”

“My dear sir,” says the man, arching an eyebrow, and smiling ever so slightly, “it is not your place to know anything about me.  If there’s any knowing going on, it will be I who must find things out about you.  But really,” he continues, assuming an academic air, “the subject of sex is as scientific and precise as physics or mathematics, so that what you happen to believe about it is of no more import than what you believe about the composition of the moon, or the area of a circle.  It is a part of my work”—here he lowers his voice to something between a purr and a growl—“to disabuse young people of theprejudices their parents bring to sex.  Now then, when will your son be available?”

You hesitate.  More writing on the notepad.

“Will tomorrow at noon be all right?”

“Tomorrow at three, fine.”

You begin to close the door.  “Not so fast,” says Mr. Smith.  “There’s the little matter of the fee.”

“You mean you are going to charge me money for this?”

“My dear sir,” he beams, “recall, I am an expert.  You wouldn’t want to do your own plumbing, would you?  No, of course not.  Or prepare your own meals, except under duress?  Or provide your own entertainment?  Play your own musical instruments?  Invent your own sports?  Get together with your own neighbors to play cards?  Build your own garage?  Farm your own land?  Read your own old and musty books, and think about them by yourself?  Make love to your own wife without the aid of expert tips from magazines and pornographic videos?  Worship God with your fellow believers?”

“What’s wrong with that?” you stammer, but he snaps the notebook shut.  “I haven’t all day.  Here is my bill.  I make $50 an hour.  Sixty hours with Bobby should about do it.  If he fails, my colleague Ms. Jones will be available for remedial lessons.  Good day.”

And you give in.

The third to last paragraph:  'When children are ready to learn a subject, they will learn it. He tells of a group of his school’s nine-year-olds and twelve-year-olds, who suddenly announced that they wanted to learn arithmetic—all of it.  So he dug up a textbook from 1898, full of examples and exercises, and gave it to them.  Addition took two classes, he says, and subtraction another two.  The children memorized the multiplication tables, then tackled the exercises.  “They were high, all of them,” he says, “sailing along, mastering all the techniques and algorithms.”  Then they went on to long division, fractions, decimals, percentages, and square roots.  “In twenty weeks, after twenty contact hours, they had covered it all,” writes Greenberg, “six years’ worth.” '

I believe that applies as well to adults.

Fighting Federal Tyranny-a Post by Patrick Archbold

States Rights, States Fights

from Creative Minority Report by Patrick Archbold

I live in NY, USA. I live under tyranny.

Oh sure, perhaps we haven't seen the worst of it yet, but it is coming. My right to exercise my religion, my right to decide what I wish to purchase and what not to, and my right to protect myself and my family are under constant attack and already greatly diminished.

Say what you want, but it is tyranny. When fundamental rights are diminished or dismissed in hurried secret meetings by secret legislative and executive cabals, you live under tyranny.

For when tyrants no longer fear ballots, they come after your bullets. Tyrants are not stupid. They must remove any lasting threat. Your ability to join with your neighbor to say 'no' and to defend that action with force is the only thing that threatens them.

So if liberty is not to completely die in this country, what must happen?

First let me say, secession is a fool's errand. As attractive as it may seem, it comes with a lot of unnecessary baggage that distracts from the cause.

What needs to happen is for several states to simply say no. No more. The federal government has broken the bonds of legitimate authority and states are no longer obliged to go along. States have rights too.

States need to simply say no. When the feds pass laws that abrogate the rights of its citizens, the states need to simply say no. Not here. Good luck enforcing it. And not just for intrastate commerce, across the board. HHS mandate, sorry not here. Citizens of this state can buy or not buy what they want. We will prosecute any federal employee who tries to enforce the penalty. Try us.

States also need to say no to the spending. They should pass amendments to their constitutions that prohibit sending more the 15% of the state GDP to the Feds and then withhold the money. The Feds will certainly respond by cutting off programs and other measures, but the States must take it on the chin. If enough of them do it at the same time, the Feds will be stuck. They can play that game and win with a few states, but if 10 do it simultaneously? Perhaps not.

They also need to say no to unfunded and funded mandates. They should reject the Federal money and decide for themselves which social programs they want and which they don't.

Do not get me wrong, this would be messy, imperfect, protracted and would likely have myriad unintended consequences. But if liberty is to survive in this country, the states must rebel. But this time don't leave the Union, save it.

Liberties

From an historical perspective, it appears that unchecked governments, democracies not excluded, will naturally and incrementally restrict individual and group liberties at an increasing rate until they exceed the tolerance of a significant minority willing to exchange immediate injury or death for a free future. In a democracy like that of the United States, with a supposed checks and balance system, the limiting of liberties occurs at a greater rate when there is collusion between the executive and legislative branches as when one party is in control of both branches. The Supreme Court may as well lean toward the ruling branches but even when evenly balanced or comprising unusually fair justices, it is of small consequence. The Court takes on very few cases and then only after an extended period of time. Then there is the powerful shadow branch, that enormous appointment-controlled, rule making and enforcement bureaucracy. America loses. Gun purchases go up.

Political Disagreements

Obama and the White House (despite how the term is used, I don't believe "White House" is a person) often use the phrase, "we can disagree without being disagreeable." What does that mean? It means that Obama and/or his express their opinions/beliefs in civil terms and those that might disagree likewise express theirs. Disagreements while heard are not considered. Obama, being in power, acts upon his, those who disagree, not being in power, are expected to shut up and go away, never to bring up the subject again and certainly never to act upon their opinions or beliefs. America loses. Americans buy more guns.

Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid. Your Liberties Are At Stake.

It is not a matter of church and state separation, it is a matter of religious freedom, the right to worship according to conscience.

http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/1211/churchstate_separation_and_the_obama_mandate.aspx