We could use another Sputnik

Two recent events brought my views on instruction and curriculum into focus. The first was the passing of Neil Armstrong, the remarkable astronaut who walked on the moon. The second was the landing of the Curiosity rover on Mars. These pivotal events made me reflect on another space launch of long ago. On October 4, 1957 the Soviet Union launched Sputnik, the world’s first orbiting satellite.  

The successful launch had stunning effects in the U.S.  First, Americans were incredulous that the Soviets were in the lead in the space race.  They could not believe they were lagging behind after coming in first in so many areas.  Second, feelings of paranoia about Russians increased.  Americans were fearful of the Russian government and thought Russian spies were peering into their lives.   In short, the United States perceived itself as scientifically, technologically, militarily, and economically weak.

“The launching of Sputnik was a trumpet call to the U.S. educational system.  Even if the public did not know much about rocketry, satellites, or space, they did understand a perceived blow to national pride.  Until that time, the U.S. stood at the forefront of medical research, automobile design and manufacture, and electronics” (L.Barrow, 2010).

I was a toddler at the time, but by the time I reached elementary school the effects of that launch were incredible.  After Sputnik, the Federal government took several remarkable actions:  President Eisenhower established the position of a Presidential Science Advisor; The House and the Senate reorganized their committee structures to focus on science policy; Congress created the National Aeronautics and Space Agency (NASA). Congress tripled funding for the National Science Foundation to support basic research, and on September 2, 1958, Congress passed the National Defense Education Act.  This act provided funding to United States education institutions at all levels. The act authorized funding for four years, increasing funding per year: for example, funding increased on eight program titles from 183 million dollars in 1959 to 222 million in 1960. That was a lot of money for that time.  Educational reformers enjoyed financial support from both public and private sources for their curriculum projects.  Federal agencies, particularly the National Science Foundation (NSF), and major philanthropic foundations, particularly Carnegie Corporation of New York and the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, provided ample support for the development of new programs. These efforts were strategically aimed at increasing interest in science and math and attracting students to choose a career path in those fields.  Lucky for me, 1960 is also the year I officially began my education at P.S. 194 in Brooklyn.

Schools were different then.  I had over 35 students in my class.  Students were grouped by ability.  If you were lucky enough to test into one of the Intellectually Gifted Classes or IGC as it was more commonly referred to, then you were in for a treat.  I worked with a math consultant in third grade, and we were given French lessons to help round us out.  In fifth grade, we examined the base systems of our numeration system and constructed a personal abacus. In the summer of my sixth grade year, I was invited, along with a host of others, to study at City University to work with mentors and professors.  Materials and supplies were new.  Science and math curricula were being rewritten and the emphasis shifted from teaching facts and definitions to a focus on fundamental principles.  

Culturally, there were lots of changes going on in the country.  The year Sputnik was launched, Martin Luther King Jr. founded the Southern Christian Leadership Conference.  Two years before, Rosa Parks had refused to give up her seat to a white rider.  Elvis Presley was popular and promoting his movie and record  Jailhouse Rock,  released one month after the Sputnik launch. ( Presleys’s recordings were illegal in the Soviet Union.)  Television was claiming the nation’s evenings and becoming the media of the century.  The day Sputnik launched, ‘Leave it to Beaver’ aired for the first time.   Jack Kerouac named the generation the Beat Generation.  Herb Caen, a writer for the San Francisco Chronicle, coined the term ‘beatnik’ adding the Russian suffix –nik after Sputnik was launched.

Fast forward to 2012. Today, I am a school administrator working under the constraints of a heavily burdened school system.  Our high school lab is outdated.  Textbooks are obsolete before the ink in them is dry.  Today, research involves computers and technology. Science programs need electronic whiteboards, probes, PCs, laptops, and electronic data bases. We need teachers who understand the teaching of research as well as the doing of research.  What happened to all the innovation and reform?

As the world became flat America began its dive into a deep recession. We began to worry about our fuel. We kept hearing about the burgeoning power of Brazil, India, and China. Our national debt reached epic proportions. Once again, we looked to our schools for answers. This time the focus was literacy and a back to basics movement was instigated.  The No Child Left behind Act was passed in 2001.  However, unlike the vision of the Sputnik education reforms, this legislation focused on discrete skills that could be easily assessed. An obsession with accountability and assessment spawned an entire industry.   Absolute test scores mattered, rather than growth and progress, and the emphasis was to sanction low scoring schools rather than to reward success. 

When President Obama gave his State of the Union address on January 25, 2012 he once again put science, technology, engineering and math in the forefront.   I became hopeful. The subjects of science, technology, engineering, and math have been bundled into a neat little acronym called STEM.  We were reminded that our international test scores ranked us seventeenth in math, ninth in reading, and twelfth in science.  The test that was used was the Program for International Student Achievement or PISA.  The test was given to 15 year old students in 65 countries and administered by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).   People were surprised and upset by the performance of the American students.  President Obama proposed some new measures.  He reached out to Teach for America to train 11,000 STEM corps members by 2015 and he will prepare 4,000 new STEM teachers from 31 UTEACH sites by 2015. 

Unfortunately, Teach for America has an abysmal track record. Recruits get 5 weeks of training and then teach for one hour a day for 12 days.  The classes they teach during training only have 10-12 students in them.  Many new recruits leave after 2 years.  This program cannot possibly replace a university four year teacher preparation program that mandates 40 weeks of student teaching, and often leads to a Master’s Degree.  You can keep the Teach for America recruits.  UTeach, on the other hand, is a much better initiative.  It was created in 1997 to address the shortage of qualified secondary mathematics, science, and computer science teachers.  The program has been well-received, cited by the National Academy of Sciences as a model program and addresses the need for more highly qualified mathematics and science teachers.  I look forward to having these teachers come to our schools, but we need more help than this. Much more.

In the years since Sputnik, we have learned quite a bit about what works in education.  Rather than put forth more political rhetoric, the President needs to take action and start reforms that we know work.  William Mathis, a former Superintendent of Vermont, and occasional writer for the Washington Post, reminded us of what worked in his article “What international test scores really tell us:  Lessons buried in the PISA report.”

·         Students from low socio-economic backgrounds score a year behind their more affluent classmates.  However, poorer students who are integrated with their more affluent classmates score strikingly higher. 
The difference is worth more than a year’s education.

·         Tracking students in ability groups results in the gap becoming wider.  Poor children are more frequently shunted into the lower tracks.

·         Schools that compete for students (using vouchers, charters) show no achievement score advantages

·         Students who attended pre-school score higher, even after more than 10 years.

·          In schools where students are required to repeat grades the test scores are down and the achievement gap is larger.

·         Schools that have autonomy over their curriculum, finances, and assessments score higher. 

·         The best performing school systems manage to provide high quality education to all children, despite socioeconomic differences. 

I help prepare the budget for my district each year.  For the past five years, our New York State and Federal aid have gone down.  Funding for schools is inequitable and inadequate. Many of our schools were built during the baby boom of the fifties and are crumbling. Districts cannot afford both capital projects and daily operations. Infrastructures cannot support the technology that is so badly needed. Although the Federal government has become more prescriptive, it has failed to build on the vast research on what works in education.   Instead, it has begun a systematic dismantling of public education by promoting vouchers, and privatization.    The need for real reform is now.  We must end the obsession with high stakes, poor quality tests by developing assessment systems that provide multiple ways to show what students have learned.  We need to outfit our schools with the latest technology.  We need to overhaul our curriculum so it focuses not on facts and figures, but on problem solving, creativity and imagination.    As Einstein said, “Not everything that counts can be counted.”

Perhaps we need another Sputnik.

Facebook Frenzy

I just read an incredible statistic. 

People spend 500 billion minutes per month on Facebook.  The average Facebook user spends 55 munites per day on the site (Facebook, 2010; Hepburn, 2010). 

This fact was listed in Willima M. Ferriter's article "Digitally Speaking."

Although teachers, students, and administrators are becoming increasingly involved in social media, these spaces are banned in most schools. I looked at the law governing internet usage in New York State schools.  The law is called the Children's Internet Protection Act or CIPA.

The Acceptable Use Policy in my district and in most schools does not allow Facebook.  How can we teach our students how to use social media properly if we are denied access? 

Student Learning Objectives or SLO's

Today I had to present information to my staff about Student Learning Objectives or SLO's.  I wonder what folks were thinking when they created a term that had an acronym that sounded like 'SLOW.'  These objectives do seem to slow you down.  I did the best I could explaining all the components of  the template.  The SLO's need to define a population,  identify two points of time to measure growth, use historical data, and set clear criteria. This comparable growth component is worth 20 points to teachers on their effectiveness barometer. Point values are based on a possible score of 100.  New York State has designed the point system so that most teachers cannot reach into the 90+ range.  This range is also referred to as the 'highly effective' range.

Let's consider what we know about incentives.  Would we welcome a class of students and tell them that most of them will not master the material we are presenting and really cannot get an 'A.'  Most of the class will fall into the middle range or 'C' category.  How many students would get motivated to do their best with that system?

The NY State Education department has created a DISincentive.  Although the theoretical concept of showing student growth as a direct result of a teacher's effectiveness seems like a good idea, the practical application unveils the gossamer nature of this idea.

The following is an example of the many flaws in the system:  ESL teachers must use the NYSESLAT test as an assessment in their SLO.  This test is fairly easy for students and they do well on it.  At the end of one year students are required to take the New York State English Language Arts (ELA) assessment.  This is a three day test with ninety minute sessions each day.  The test is difficult and requires students to persevere.  It is very difficult for the ESL population.  If a student must use the NYSESLAT as the pretest and then the ELA as the posttest to demonstrate growth, the teacher is up a creek.  It will be very difficult to show growth using these measures. 

New York State has aslo decided to allow teachers in a single school to band together and gamble their points on a single assessment.  So, the art teacher, for example, can hitch his wagon to the ELA results of the fifth grade class.  Are you scratching your head yet? 

I do really believe that the former system of teacher evaluation was flawed and highly subjective.  However, this new system hurts teachers and will ultimately undermine their effectiveness and will hurt kids.  Can't we do better than this?

Happy Birthday!

My birthday is on Memorial Day.  This was a wonderful birthday when I was a little girl because there was always a parade and music and people would be celebrating a holdiay and were usually in a good mood. I tend to be more reflective now and worry whether or not I am spending my time well.
I came across an article in the Harvard Business Review written by Tony Schwartz, the president and CEO of The Energy Project.  He was also celebrating his birthday and reflected on what he'd learned in sixty years.  I was inspired by his words and will certainly have a look at his new book.   Here is what he wrote:

1. The more we know about ourselves, the more power we have to behave better. Humility is underrated. We each have an infinite capacity for self-deception — countless unconscious ways we protect ourselves from pain, uncertainty, and responsibility — often at the expense of others and of ourselves. Endless introspection can turn into self-indulgence, but deepening self-awareness is essential to freeing ourselves from our reactive, habitual behaviors.

2. Notice the good. We each carry an evolutionary predisposition to dwell on what's wrong in our lives. The antidote is to deliberately take time out each day to notice what's going right, and to feel grateful for what you've got. It's probably a lot.

3. Let go of certainty. The opposite isn't uncertainty. It's openness, curiosity and a willingness to embrace paradox, rather than choose up sides. The ultimate challenge is to accept ourselves exactly as we are, but never stop trying to learn and grow.

4. Never seek your value at the expense of someone else's. When we're feeling devalued, our reactive instinct is to do anything to restore what we've lost. Devaluing the person who made you feel bad will only prompt more of the same in return.

5. Do the most important thing first in the morning and you'll never have an unproductive day. Most of us have the highest energy early in the day, and the fewest distractions. By focusing for a designated period of time, without interruption, on the highest value task for no more than 90 minutes, it's possible to get an extraordinary amount of work accomplished in a short time.

6. It's possible to be excellent at anything, but nothing valuable comes easy and discomfort is part of growth. Getting better at something depends far less on inborn talent than it does the willingness to practice the activity over and over, and to seek out regular feedback, the more precise the better.

7. The more behaviors you intentionally make automatic in your life, the more you'll get done. If you have to think about doing something each time you do it, you probably won't do it for very long. The trick is to get more things done using less energy and conscious self-control. How often do you forget to brush your teeth?

8. Slow down. Speed is the enemy of nearly everything in life that really matters. It's addictive and it undermines quality, compassion, depth, creativity, appreciation and real relationship.

9. The feeling of having enough is magical. It rarely depends on how much you've got. More is rarely better. Too much of anything eventually becomes toxic.

10. Do the right thing because it's the right thing to do, and don't expect anything in return. Your values are one of the only possessions you have that no one can take away from you. Doing the right thing may not always get you what you think you want in the moment, but it will almost always leave you feeling better about yourself in the long run. When in doubt, default to calm and kind.

11. Add more value in the world than you're using up. We spend down the earth's resources every day. Life's primary challenge is to put more back into the world than we take out.

12. Savor every moment — even the difficult ones. It all goes so fast.

Tony Schwartz is the president and CEO of The Energy Project and the author of Be Excellent at Anything. Become a fan of The Energy Project on Facebook and connect with Tony at Twitter.com/TonySchwartz and Twitter.com/Energy_Project

I viewed a clip from Ted Talks that was delivered by Sir Ken Robinson.  It was inspiring.  He offered a quote from Abe Linclon that was delivered in December of 1862 when our country was in a crisis.

 Lincoln said, " The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present.  The occasion is piled high with difficulty and we must rise with the occasion.  As our case is new so we must think anew and act anew .  We must disenthrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country."

I love that word, "disenthrall." What does it mean exactly?  Oxford says, "to free from a controlling force; to liberate." Perhaps this is what we must do now in education.  We must disenthrall ourselves with our systems as we know them.

Last week ended our first week of state exams for our students in grades 3-8.  Each day students were given a ninety minute exam in English Language Arts.  By the end of the exams some of our third graders cried.  One fourth grader threw up on his exam and then on his teacher.  Most of the kids seemed subdued by the ordeal.  Is this really the best we can do? 

     New York is currently implementing a new teacher evaluation system called the Annual Professional Performance Review or APPR.  The system is based on a 100 point score.  At least 31 points,  but not more than 60 points may be based on teacher observation.  40 points are based on results of student tests.  This is the part that does not sit well with me. If you have ever given a class a test you know that there are uncontrollable factors at play during the test taking.  Some student may have forgotten her glasses or didn't have breakfast or feels ill or had an argument with his best friend or any number of things.  Yet the architects of this system argue that there is reliability in this  new system.  Really?


     Why have New York's teachers become fair game for the public?  I believe that if you ask any New York adult to close their eyes and picture their greatest teacher, not one would hesitate.  People become effusive when they talk about their favorite teacher.  Somehow, those wistful memories of classroom nostalgia have been morphed into some Big Brother business model that will not serve public education.  Remember the Blueberry Story?


     Let me refresh your memory.  There was an owner of a famous ice cream company that was addressing a group of teachers.  He was describing how efficient his factory was in manufacturing his product, especially his blueberry ice cream.  When he was finished, a teacher asked him what he did with his bruised, spoiled, or unacceptable blueberries.  He replied that he threw them out of course.  She countered with the fact that public school teachers can't throw out their blueberries.  They have to make them acceptable.  The businessman became thoughtful.  He had neverr really considered this.  Year later,  we still cannot throw out our blueberries.


     I am completely in favor of accountability.  All of us have to measure up to a standard.  But this APPR is unfair.  It throws a teacher's fate too readily into the hands of an unreliable roulette wheel. Surely we can create a better system than this.  Please let saner heads prevail.

The Very First Time

     When I decided to return to school as a doctoral student, I did not imagine some of the struggles I would have. The juggle of family, job, and school was an enormous challenge.  The financial tag placed a strain on my budget.  My friends thought I had disappeared. But I recalled the ebb and flow of the semester and relearned how to schedule myself so that I could devote myself to my studies during certain weeks and come up for air on others.  Last semester I was given a difficult assignment by my professor.  I chuckle as I write this since I know that every assignment has been difficult.  I was asked to explore issues of identity, literacy, and power in a given setting.  My classmates chose their research among a broad range of topics:  one examined and wrote about identity and graffitti, another wrote about identity and Facebook, and another wrote about identity in an autitstic child with artitstic talent.  I struggled with my topic. Most of my classmates were teachers and many were able to work with current students or former students or students' friends.  As an administrator I wanted to explore how principals and administrators express their identity. Someone suggested I study blogs.
     I got lucky on my first venture into the blogosphere and wound up on Scott McLeod's site.  His appeal to administrators to begin blogging hit home so here I am.    As I read the blogs of  other administrators, I am reminded of James Gee's work on affinity spaces.   In affinity spaces people interact and relate to each other around a common passion,  proclivity, or endeavor.  By their very nature blogs are a magnet that attract like-minded people.
     I will continue to read and study blogs.  I am considering if blogs actually foster leadership?  What do you think? I would really like to hear from you.