Six Assertions

Longtime Portland Educator Gary Vines sent me the website of Education|Evolving; one of the things I love about it is that the home page starts with six assertions. "Click on one of these and you will be taken to second listing of more specific assertions in that area. Click on any one of these and you will be taken to a listing of reports, newspaper clippings, audio recordings, links, etc. that we have created or made available because they explain or support that assertion."

One such sub-assertion: "a radically different model of school organization, in which the authority for arranging both the learning program and the administration of a school is placed with a formally-organized group of teachers . . . and in which the teachers accept collegially the responsibility for the school's success."

The model also asserts that the organization and governance model of the school matters a great deal - if we create communications and decision-making structures that work on a human scale, we can be genuinely accountable to our students, colleagues parents, and community. Our approach, while similar in spirit, it not entirely teacher-led; while all decisions about teaching and learning rest with the teachers (our Professional Learning Community model of curriculum implemenation, teacher improvement and advancement) we envision two other key governance elements; facilitative leadership from principals and participative citizenship from students.

Our principals are "facilitative leaders" charged with maintaining that Professional Learning Community and with connecting the work of each site to the larger network of schools (in addition to being the public face of our sites, managing reports and data and compliance, etc.). One of the key characteristics of the best replication models is that effective sharing of practice - both within schools and among similar schools - enable the teachers working in them not only to get consistently better individually, but to get better at the unique aspects of the model. In a sense, our principals are "cheif accountability officers." Technocratic as that sounds, it combines the role of head coach, ombussman, and curriculum director to ensure fidelity to the "best practices" that we are building our model on. For more on this, see Debbie Maier's article in the Summer 2005 issue of Rethinking Schools, or the websites of the School Reform Initiative or the National School Reform Faculty.

The small school structure is crucial as well to ensuring that every student is a participating citizen in the governance of the school. In addition to monthly all school, parliamentary style meetings, students are expected to develop the skills to largely self-manage school culture. Structures like civil rights teams, peer mediation, fairness committees and restorative justice systems enable student input to beyond planning dances and complaining - and at a small school, both enable and require each student to play a regular role. For more, see Everyday Democracy.

Small is beautiful and radical

In this article, "Small is beautiful and radical" Maine local agriculture advocate Eliot Coleman uses French comic heroes Asterix and Obelix to explain why the transition to small farms is radically beautiful! He makes the point that small organic farms are ultimately about nutirtion, and draws important distinctions between those farms and market-motivated agribusiness or large-farm interests go organic. Not long ago, I heard John Piotti of Maine Farmland Trust say that organic or conventional is not as crucial as "sustainable" and that finding the right balance will enable Maine to emerge as as major agricultural state in the new food economy. Eliot argues that both organic and small matter...thoughts?

Race to the Top?

The article "Is Academic Overachievement Hurting our Kids" raises questions about the impact of both the competitive achievement and high stakes testing cultures that have come to characterize how we measure, place value on, and offer opportunity to our young people. The title answers the question: over achievement by definition implies too much of something. If the question were posed as, "Is underachievement hurting our kids?" there would be little to argue about. The better questions have to do with what we mean by achievement, what we mean by standards, how we measure such things, and what effect those measurements have on kids and on the larger society.

Grades, especially numeric averages, are primarily useful for sorting; they sort, first, the kids who behave in a way to that produces high numerical grades from those who do not. Exacerbated by college admissions systems that place ever-greater emphasis on micro-distinctions between numerical ratings, many kids become "high-achievers." Without being too flip, Wall St., Washington DC, and our health care system might be offered as evidence that the measures for sorting and providing employment to high achievers has little overall benefit to society (though it clearly has economic benefit to the folks who come out on top.)

Standardized tests are not nearly as damaging to kids as numerical grades - in fact, properly used as data sources that inform strategies such as "assessment for learning," they can be invaluable. The problem is in the substitution of such data for all other measures. In implementation, they become rigid, limiting, decontextualized lists which systems and teachers then feel forced to teach to. NCLB's promise was that, after years of well-intentioned "reform," (what GW Bush, or more likely his speechwriters, referred to as, "the soft tyranny of low expectations") there was finally some teeth in the proposition that schools needed to try to teach ALL kids well. Unfortunately, achieving such limited-scope data gains became the means by which schools, principals, and now, if Arne Duncan has his way, individual teachers are assessed.

This approach squeezes out all of the other aptitudes and accomplishments that not only are not measured by such tests, but that thrive in opposition to such narrow definitions of human learning and capacity. Traits like curiosity and creativity that underlie all genuine great achievement, or skills like problem-solving in context that enable students to not just pass tests, but to understand the value of and applications for the concepts they're being tested on, become a luxury.

MFES' position is this:
High standards are necessary for ALL students, and measurement of those standards is crucial to effective teaching and learning. But numerical grades and standardized test are at best, a small part of that. How do we teach, hold students to, and measure standards of perseverance in the face of hardship? How do we teach, hold students to, and measure standards that determine when the media, or food, or energy they consume is good for them and their fellow citizens or not? How do we teach, hold students to, and measure standards that enable them to recognize that while competition is good, the numbers game is just that, a game...a race to a dubious top that in practice leaves a lot of trampled, battered competitors who often end up deciding that since they can't win such a race, they might as well give up.

Argument from Maine small business for rethinking education spending

Education spending, not tax cuts, best job creator

This editorial raises a number of fascinating points - the most salient for MFES is that our K-12 schools are not producing graduates who envision working in Maine.

"And starting in college may be too late. Many high school students don't even know what kind of jobs might exist and what they would need to do to qualify for them."

'Innovative schools' in legislation

'Innovative schools' in legislation

Article from Kennebec Journal describing Baldacci admin's upcoming legislation...very few details, longer response when we hear more.