Cynicism and The Current Education Accountability System

This blog is going to be a little bit of a stream of consciousness.  The reason for this different format is twofold.  First, I am still trying to “flesh out” my ideas and thinking on the subject.  By writing my ideas down it will help me make more sense of them.  Secondly, if there is anyone out there reading this blog, you can contribute to the development of my thinking by posting comments!

Is the current system of education where “accountability” and testing are paramount encouraging (or creating) cynicism in teacher behavior?  Let me explain.  Currently Pennsylvania is like many States where teacher evaluations are tied to how well students do on a test.  Good, bad or indifferent, this is the system that teachers finding themselves in.  On top of that, schools and districts are being judged by how well students do on tests.  This puts an incredible amount of pressure on students to do well on tests and for teachers to do everything in their power to assure students do well on the tests.  Let’s look at the students first. 

Imagine being in a system where you have to know the minute details of photosynthesis to get your diploma (I only mention this because I live with a biology teacher).  What is the value in knowing the minute details of photosynthesis?  I am sure there are very important reasons that people can give to defend the importance of photosynthesis to our students.  I can also imagine that at some point Pennsylvania (like other States) convened a group of science teachers and asked them to answer one question:  what is the most valuable things that a student must know to graduate.  I also assume that these content experts had a difficult time winnowing what they felt was necessary down to a manageable level.   As I go further in this thought exercise I can imagine that if I were asked to participate in a similar exercise for history, I would have a hard time getting to the “necessary” knowledge base for students.  With all of that being said, it still does not answer a simple question of “why”.  Why is this information important for students in our society?  Why do they have to know this material?  Why are we as a society forcing this down the student’s throats?  I do not have the answers to these questions.

Since we have no real good answers to the above questions, let’s look at the ramifications of the current system by asking this question:  does the current system of “accountability” produce a cynical response in the way teachers teach?  You can also ask two questions that are closely related: do teachers and school systems teach to a test and is that a good thing.  The answer to the latter two questions is “of course”; and the answer to the former is yes (in my humble opinion).  Teachers are forced to make sure that they “get through” the curriculum…regardless (or in spite of) actual student learning.  If someone is going to be tested on certain information for a Keystone test (Pennsylvania’s end of course exams),  most teachers are going to make sure that all students are at least exposed to that material.  They do this for two reasons.  First, they have a moral obligation to do everything they can to assure that students are placed in the best position to graduate.  In today’s world, that means passing an end of course exam.  We know the importance of a high school diploma and to assure that students reach that milestone is important for teachers and society.  Second, most people in the workforce want to keep their jobs.  This is a natural (some would say evolutionary) response.  Thus, teachers are going to make sure that they “cover” everything that will be on a test because they are being judged on how well students do on the test.  Someone might say, “Yea, so what.  What is so bad about that”…  my answer is simple.  By doing everything in their power to make sure they “cover” everything to make sure students do well on an end of the year test, the educational system has placed the institution ahead of the learner.  The learner is secondary in this scenario and there is no chance for them to be the primary concern.  If learning was fundamentally the foundation of the system, then teachers could design lessons of instruction that assured that students learned the information…even if it meant that some students did not “cover” all of the material.  Teachers would design lessons that allowed students to “show off” their knowledge in ways other than a test.  But that is not the reality of the system we are in.  Teachers must (for the students and their own sake) teach to the test…the learner be damned. (I want to make something clear at this point.  I realize there are “alternative” measures for students to prove their knowledge in the current system.  My question is this: who will take advantage of them after they have failed a tests at least once and truly do not understand the test questions or the concepts being tested?  Not many… most will just give up).  So I ask myself…does the current system encourage a cynical response to learning?  What do you think?

Of MOOC's and Master Degrees

What is more valuable for a person seeking employment in a public school setting, proof of completion in a world class MOOC, or Master’s degree?  Traditionalist would say that a Master’s Degree is proof of expertise and is a good indication of competence.  I agree.  A graduate degree from a well respected university is one way to “prove” that a person has a certain amount of competence in their field. However, I believe our society (and the education community) is undergoing a disruption that will have a significant impact on how educators (learning facilitators) do their jobs.

The educational sector is being disrupted in significant ways. To illustrate, I will share a story of my eldest daughter who is in middle school.  Emma is a very motivated student (a trait she is blessed to have from her mother) and is extremely goal oriented.  She studies hard and does well in school because she believes  that what she learns now will help her reach her goals in the future.   Emma can also be precocious.  For example, she has told her science teacher that she is bored in class and that she is familiar with the information that he is teaching.  She asked him if it would be all right for her to “go online and watch some TED talks and attend MOOCs and then they can discuss what she learns”.  To the teacher’s credit he said “yes”, just as long that she keeps up with her class work. Last night, I asked her how her “self training” was coming along.  She shared with me a lecture series that she had downloaded from Spotify about the meaning of life…she said it was “pretty good”. 

This story illustrates two major points that underlie a significant shift in the education sector. 

1.     Emma is in charge of her own learning.  I understand that not everyone learns like Emma.  My youngest son (in 4^th grade) would not be able to thrive in such a self-directed system.  But that does not mean that he is thriving in the current “default” system of education either.  The point is that even he should have the opportunity to have a varying degree of input into what and how he wants to learn.  Everyone should have a say in their learning.  Education is becoming radically learner centered.  This means that the needs of the learner are not just important; they are the most important facet in education. 

2.     The current system of education is not sufficient for today’s society.  This implies that learning is more important than education.  Education represents the institution where learning is supposed to occur.  Our current system of K-12 education places the institution above the needs of the learner.  That is not to say that the current system does not value student learning…it does.  Rather, our current system places at its first priority the needs of the institution above the learner.  We must move away from the current, industrial age model of schooling.

These two points underscore the importance of learning and the decreased importance of traditional credentials from the traditional education system.  For example, if I am a superintendent hiring a biology teacher what should I consider to be more relevant to my hiring decision,  an applicant that has a traditional Master’s Degree in “teaching” or someone that has worked their way through a series of high quality MOOC’s facilitated by the leading biologists in the world? I say the MOOC’s because the learning is important, not the traditional credential.  My answer may be unconventional; it may even be foolhardy.  However, I believe that the shift and disruption that is occurring in education justifies my response. 

I will discuss this topic further in other blog posts.  Please leave comments to start a discussion surrounding MOOC’s and master Degrees.

Some Random thoughts on Virtue and Education

I have become fascinated with the political philosophy that underpinned the beliefs of our founding fathers. Through my journey of learning, I have discovered that we must move beyond the simple Lockean stereotype that we have pigeon-holed most of our founding fathers.  The men that influenced our founding fathers ranged from Locke, Hume, Montesquieu, Smith and many others.  It seems to me that the founding fathers were charitable in their ability to take divergent political thoughts and use them to create a country.  I am certainly not a professional historian (or even an amateur one) but my journey of self discovery has been enlightening for me. 

During my “learning journey” I came across a quote by Montesquieu from The Spirit of Laws (Book V).  The quote is, “Virtue in a republic is a most simple thing: it is a love of the republic…”.  This quote immediately brought forth two questions that I have thought about a lot recently.

1.     Does virtue imply a citizenry that acts for the common good of their community and country?

2.     What does it mean to have “virtuous” leaders in the education realm?

My attempt to answer question #1:

I want to be very clear that I believe that a society cannot thrive when the majority of its citizens do not have some belief in the value of doing “good” for the common good.  I know that we are living in a world of hyper individualism and that being a “community organizer” is viewed as a bad thing. Therefore,  I believe the real issue facing us in the United States is deeper than just a dichotomy of “individualism versus community”.   This is expressed in a tension between a political view of small and local or large and national.  It seems to me that this tension between the individual and their community and the larger society in which they live has been hard baked in our society since the American Revolution.  The tension was evident in the early days of the Republic and was not resolved at the Constitutional Convention.  Currently in my thought process I see it as a question of allegiance.  Where should a virtuous person place their allegiance: their local community or the larger society?  Our country has fought a civil war over this question trying to determine a local “state’s rights” view versus a nationalistic view. 

I think this plays out in my field of interest which is education.  People are torn between their allegiance to their local school and community (micro) and what they perceive (and have been told by their federal representatives) as a failure of the larger, national (macro) education system.  People intuitively know that local schools are important; that most schools (and school officials) are turning themselves inside out to help kids; and that local change can create a better learning system.  Polls have consistently shown that people approve of their local schools while also overwhelmingly claim that education as a whole is not doing well.   I believe that we can base high quality educational decision on the very simple framework of the local community.  I will expand more on this in later blog posts.

My attempt to answer #2:

            In education, I believe a “virtuous” leader has two main qualities.

1.     They are radically learner centered.  This harkens back to what I alluded to in attempting to answer my first question.  Let’s keep things as simple as possible and have a laser focus on the learners.  By focusing on the individual and the community in which they live we can better attain the needed focus.

2.     Virtuous educational leaders are committed to dismantling the current “factory” model of education that we currently subject our children to.  The system was good for what we needed in the 19^th century, but we need to create a new system focused on the needs of learners and their communities at the local level.  Use the local successes to inform larger policy discussions but we must not continue with the current method of a “top down” education policy system that attempts to fit every school and community into similar policy subscriptions.