Vouchers and the Community School

Free market thinking suggests that the solution to poor school quality is school choice and competition. Align incentives, and schools will be forced to develop and promote their competitive advantage to earn  students, and therefore, their right to exist and perhaps, grow.

Democratic, humanitarian thinking suggests the solution to poor school quality requires investing in our public schools--not "throwing money" at them, but really investing the time, energy, thought and resources to identify their needs, address them, and by extension, address the needs of the community.

I posit today that we don't need to chose. In fact, both camps are right.

What if we did provide vouchers to not a few, but to all students? These vouchers could range from $500 to $15,000, depending on how far we want to go, but essentially they would be designed to give students and parents choice for where they wanted to pursue a vast array of academic and extracurricular learning. These vouchers could permit enrollment in a full-time college prep program, an after school music program, an outdoors adventure summer camp, or a specialized engineering course. With these vouchers, private providers, regulated by an accreditation board, compliance agencies or private ratings agencies, but most importantly, by the market, would compete for the business of students seeking the very best along an array of interests. Wouldn't that help produce a crop of new, excellent programs? Wouldn't that give new opportunities to kids?

Well sure. You really can't argue that it wouldn't produce some great new programs, and give some amount of choice. What you can argue, and the evidence bears it out, is that if vouchers replace public schools, they end up gutting schools as the center of a community, and leaving behind many students and families who are not "educated consumers." That's the cost of vouchers, and why, in this thought experience, I propose vouchers as one half of the solution. Now for the other half:

Imagine that the vouchers previously discussed were used to merely supplement investments in strong, community based schools. These schools would provide critical functions--counselors and academic advisors would support all local students in their academic and career planning, as well as their social and personal health and wellness concerns. In the lower grades, mandatory and excellent literary and math classes would give young children the foundational skills to advance to higher grades, regardless of what specialization they might choose down the line. Classes in civics and government would be taught for middle and high school (and adult) age students, because spreading this knowledge is a public good, and we should guarantee it for the well being of all members of the community.

The community school would house a medical clinic, apprenticeship classes, a library, a media center, tutoring and babysitting. It might have computer labs where students could do distance learning provided by institutions from around the world, and it might have an auditorium where visitors and presenters could educate large audiences.

The community school would provide the home for local sports teams and clubs, to help build local pride and relationships between neighbors. The community school might grant diplomas, or it might simply facilitate students earning diplomas elsewhere. Either way, the community school would serve primarily to support the children and families of its local community, preparing them to contribute to the social good and to achieve their dreams.

Imagine a school system where learning doesn't need to occur in the local school, but it where it absolutely can. That seems like a system that leverages the best of American freedom and democracy, and provides the best model to ensure these national treasures persist for generations into the future. 

Grad School and Career Planning

Should I go to grad school? Do I need the credentials? The network? What do I need to learn for the rest of my career? Would I be better off teaching it to myself with free and inexpensive resources, or through a degree-granting program? Do only the top-10 schools justify the opportunity cost of losing out on two years of more work experience? What if the program is free? What if it's part-time? What if it's only one year? What if I just traveled the world for a year: wouldn't that be a better education? What if I start my own business or non-profit: wouldn't that be a better education?

These are the questions that my peers and I ask ourselves all the time. Two years ago I was pretty sold on at least applying to MBA programs; however once I started running my own business it seemed like everything I needed to learn I was learning as I went. Not only that, but grad school is expensive! Well, not all of the programs out there, but the fact is that most grad schools involve assuming 5-6 figures of debt.

Right now I have friends who are at top business schools, who are in or have done a variety of graduate school programs, or who are considering whether or not to go. There seems to be no consensus on whether or not it is worth it, though the most sage advice seems always to be along the lines of "do what's best for you." What's interesting and to many, what's stressful, is that the economy seems to present so many unknowns now. What will be most valued in the labor market of the future? Do we all need technical skills? Creative skills? Management skills? Work experience? World-class networks? Passion?

I'm curious where other come down on this.

-Joe

Trivia, Information and Meaningful Learning

I find it interesting the degree of consensus apparent in America's education discourse today. Much is said about how 21st century learning is all about creativity, critical thinking, curiosity and character. Everyone's growing interest, from Barack Obama on down, is in "STEM" (science, technology, engineering, math). While many private sector people are still excited about using data to personalize instruction, few people anywhere endorse the current regime of standardized testing. Finally, with the availability of flipped classroom software, iPads, Kindle, google and video games, everyone seems to want to do away with the textbook. 

Yet it seems we still have a fundamentally unresolved issue. That is, what information do students need to learn, and how should they learn it? 

It's easy to say (as Tony Wagner does in Thomas Friedman's op-ed this weekend), that most of the information we teach students in school they will "never use" or they can easily look up online if/when they need it. But when you look more closely at the discrete nuggets of information we teach, it starts to look less trivial. Do we really think students should not learn basic information about American history or biology?

Indeed, the original decision to include information in the curriculum was independent from the core objectives of the oft cursed industrial model of education. In fact, teaching information is based on a fundamental understanding about learning: information provides the schema for analyzing claims, creating ideas, and expressing oneself. Students don't need to learn all the information out there, but there is a minimal level of knowledge necessary for intellectual reasoning and core skill competency. 

We should think twice before we launch a crusade to eliminate all the content from the curriculum. In fact, it may not matter so much what content we teach, so long we (a) teach facts (b) teach enough of them (c) teach them effectively and (d) don't let the information instruction overwhelm teaching critical thinking, literacy and creativity. 

Enter new concept: multi-layered learning. In multi-layered learning, student experiences draw from content and skill instruction simultaneously. Good teachers have been doing this forever, but intentionally structuring pedagogy to couple skills and information together offers greater promise for driving achievement in both. Multi-layered learning takes what would otherwise be trivia, and makes it information relevant for application. 

Two models are particularly effective in delivering multi-layered learning: game-based and project-based learning.  Both models provide some level of structure with elements of choice. Both models have a fundamental orientation to information, while calling upon the learner to do something. Both of these models are highly interactive, involve individual and group learning, and connect discrete skills and knowledge to larger learning objectives. Even mini-games that emphasize drill and practice are an important part of preparing students for 21st century challenges--these games can be a fun and effective way to teach foundational information without using class time, therefore making learning in school all the more rigorous and meaningful. 

Let's forget the idea that education will ever be easy. It won't. There is no panacea, short-cut or simple answer. Information, skills, and understandings all matter. If we can do more to build our instructional practice around multi-layered learning, we will have a better chance of engaging students in their learning and providing them all they need to succeed in the future. 

Teachers Happy Despite Poor Work Environments

A recent article on Gallup.com reports that teachers have very high satisfaction rates in key areas when compared to other professions. Namely, their self-reported overall wellness is second only to physicians among 14 professions.

Unfortunately, teachers are unhappy with their workplace. Gallup reports:

Despite enjoying top marks in overall wellbeing, teachers rank toward the bottom (eighth out of 14) of the professions surveyed on one very important element of wellbeing: work environment. They rank sixth in saying their “supervisor treats me more like a partner than a boss.” And they are dead-last -- 14th, behind coal miners and truck drivers -- in saying their “supervisor always creates an environment that is trusting and open.” They are also dead-last in saying they were “treated with respect all day yesterday,” and experience the second-highest stress level across all occupations. 

This corresponds to what I've seen personally in schools and gathered from other research on the topic. It suggests that if we could correct the problems of schools being poor work environments, we would have a much easier time retaining talent in the teaching work force.

Wouldn't retaining good teachers go a long way in addressing an array of problems from poor student achievement to dropout rates? And if teachers don't like the work environment, what about students?

Gallup doesn't take this step in the article, but I think this survey is suggestive of the root causes of our education system's issues: poor school leadership, dysfunctional school culture, and bad curricula. 

The Future Teacher

I think a lot about the role of the teacher and how it really doesn't match up well to the needs of students or the structure of the ideal school. Teachers are asked to do so many different things with such diverse skill requirements that every teacher is weak in at least one critical area, even if he or she is amazing in other areas.

Think about it---if a teacher is a great lecturer, we expect her to also be great at data tracking. If he's great at lesson plan writing, he also has be great at one-to-one tutoring. If she's amazing with building fair and accurate assessments, she also has to be great at talking to parents.

Is this really realistic, let alone ideal?

With technology, regulations and school practices changing, I see the role of the teacher shifting. For this change to benefit teacher and students, we, as teachers, need to know what we want our profession to look like. What should a teacher's job be? I would argue that in the future school a teacher has 3 primary responsibilities:

·      Learning resource curator

·      Class captain

·      Student (and parent) advisor

I arrive here by asking the question: what can the teacher, and only the teacher, do?

Answer: The teacher is the interface between students and their learning objectives.

Not the answer: build resources from scratch, hands on skill building or information delivery, write and grade assessments or design and manage data trackers.

Why?

Because books, videos, adaptive learning software, experts and classmates can all be the source of information.

Because only the student himself can do practice required to increase skills.

Because professional designers, scientists, developers, and writers can create lesson plans, games, assessments and curricula that are standards-aligned and proven to improve educational outcomes.

However:

ONLY the teacher can modify, curate and adapt resources to the unique needs of her specific school environment, especially on the fly.

ONLY the teacher can communicate to a class the importance of a learning objective and can coordinate a group's efforts to all achieve that objective.

Finally, ONLY the teacher can reliably intervene and support a student who is struggling emotionally when the adaptive software fails.

If my predictions are true, then the most important skills of the future educator will be the ability to curate and utilize a variety of learning resources, manage a class of self-paced learners, and personalize coaching to the individual student.

The teacher will never be obsolete, because these are the critical, human functions that only a teacher can provide, and a trained, professional teacher will always do it better than any other person.

Do you agree with my assessment? If you are a teacher, how much does your current role resemble that of my "future teacher"? Are you advocating for the necessary support and resources so that you can do these 3 jobs of the future teacher as well as possible?