A Disclaimer: blogs are, by and large, op-ed pieces written from the perspective of the blogger. Many are well researched, some are not. This posting is an opinion based on a decade personal experience, and if have a difference in oppinion, well, let's agree to disagree. I'll always listen and debate rationally, joke with you in a heartbeat, and we'll part friends, 'K? That being said, hear me out... .
Twenty-five years ago I worked in a factory in Ohio. The owner of the corporation was very concerned with the literacy/numeracy of his employees and not completely for altruistic reasons. Digital machine controls were beginning to proliferate and were showing increased productivity wherever they were used. He wanted to digitize his machine operations in all the plants he owned, but worried that his workers would not be able to understand, let alone use, the new tech. His solution was to establish after-work schools in trailers at all his sites to teach reading and math skills to the workers. Each trailer was equipped with ten or twelve pcs, a variety of user friendly software, and a full time teacher. I was fortunate enough to be involved in this innovation and saw for myself the progress my coworkers made, and the pride in the accomplishment that boosted morale and productivity. A few months after this began, I moved south and began my teaching career in earnest, but I always though back to the minischools and their effect.
Ten years later, I came back to Ohio. I didn't have a postition waiting, but within two weeks, I saw an ad for a charter that was opening schools in my area, so I applied and got an interview time. When I arrived at the interview site, to my surprise, the interviewer was one of the personnel ombudsmen that I had known a decade earlier at the factory. The charter academy was the evolutionary product of the literacy/numeracy project that the plant owner had started. She remembered me, and for the next six years I was involved in the charter movement from the inside as a teacher.
From the outset, though, several of us noticed a problem. The programs our students, all at-risk 16-22 year olds, were using were not only overly simple, being designed as suppliments for elementary and middle grade learners, but had no checks for understanding/speedbumps embedded within the program. Almost all the students were dashing through the instructional content and hitting the assessment segments, with the result that:
1) they were spending large amounts of time clicking answers at random and hoping for the best,
2) even at the third or fourth attempt, they weren't looking at content,
3) with mounting failure to "master", there was increased frustration and hopelessness
4) there was little or no understanding of content, only very temporary "knowledge" of a particular question asked in a particular way.
We teachers were spending much time checking attempts to see who was taking more than 2 trys at each lesson, and, when help and personallized instruction was attempted it was rejected outright with some variation on "just gimme the right answer to this question and get out of my ears with the lesson. All I need to do is answer the question right so I can move on."
I don't need to tell you our standardized scores, do I?
You would think eduware authors would learn, but ten years later, in another, competing charter where I was working, the same thing was occurring. Sure, the programs were more sophisticated and at a higher abliblity level, far more rigorous than the programs of even five years earlier, but the problems were exactly the same. You would observe a student diligently writing, filling whole notebooks, but a more carefull look revealed that what was being written was the "right answer" to a question. What followed was a blowthrough of the content, bypassing interactive example work, and another attempt at a 5 question assessment (the idea being that if they got these 5 low order questions right they "knew" the concept). See items numbered 1-4, above, for the result.
Let's delineate the pros of self-directed work:
1) small groups allow for personallized attention as needed,
2) mastery is not a group movement, but as the student can learn,
3) school days can be shortened to an essential 4-5 hours, allowing students to have jobs or take care of family needs, and
4) the use of current technologies allows for enrichment activities.
All this is very well intended, but the realities that I've observed are:
1) the climate of high-stakes testing that many of our students have grown up within has put primacy with the "right answer" rather than learning/thinking/metacognitional skills-rote is right, just memorize the correct response to a set question and you've "learned".
2) "At-Your-Own-Pace" means "Speed is All"-there is tremendous pressure to graduate students so the faster they complete the better. The students not only want to get through quickly, but they sense the desire to move through as fast as possible. Understanding is important, but more time is spent coaching on question types than on content.
3) The speed issue means that enrichment is very far off the students' radars. While it is possible to set up breakout sessions, few students will participate since they're more interested in completing credits/hours.
Ok-enough with the negative, whiney, hand-wringing nonsense. Sometimes you just gotta get it out of your system.... .
What's the solution to this problem? Obviously, there is a place for charters in the world of education. How do we make the concept more effective?
First and foremost, we need to abandon the "At-Your-Own-Pace" hook. We can remain true to the very positive and successful individualized education concepts without turning kids who don't know how to learn loose on the latest fad in digital learning no matter how well crafted and intentioned. Let's use the learning technologies as a foundation and support for small group learning communities in structured settings using blended learning techniques. Lip service don't count. It has to be done and made such an integral part of the curriculum that the assessments that count toward mastery are not soley digital, and that from the very beginning.
Second, no student should be let loose on the technology until they have demonstrated that they know how to learn. Before any courseware/groupings are assigned there has to be a rigorous, concentrated learning skills course taught, and any assignments to be based on a battery of mastery tests and personalized interviews. No more "well, you passed Pre-Algebra, so we're putting you in Algebra I". True mastery must be demonstrated.
Third, while we need to maintain the recovery programs, there needs to be a concerted effort to head off future problems by a rigorous, relevant middle grades program, again based on mastery, not grade level or seat hours. No student should be advanced to high school level courses without actually mastering previous concepts. This could mean that a student is still working on "6th grade" math, but is also doing "8th grade" language arts. So be it. Blended learning, far from being a panacea, becomes the ultimate in differentiation, proven to be a successful model. Learning communities, not grade level blocks, are the key.
Here's how I envision it working:
A student comes into school and checks in at the attendance desk, which frees the classroom teachers from admin duties. She proceeds to her homeroom where she logs in. She had difficulty with the math lesson the previous evening, so she registers for a breakout session for tutoring. She also checks her school mailbox for announcements and class messages. Her science teacher found a cool article to reinforce a concept they worked on last week, and her working group for language arts has a collaboration submission for review and consideration in class. The homeroom supervisor provides her with the study skill of the day via messaging software and she uses the remainder of the session working on that. She proceeds through her schedule, attending courses assigned by mastery level, all having two co teachers in the classroom using flip, direct instruction, or learning community where appropriate. There are mixed classes-some students are a year older or younger, but all are at a similar mastery level. Every lesson is accompanied with a technology application/project integral to mastery. Paper is kept to a minimum-she has a school assigned laptop and much is done through collaboration software or publishing programs. Her classes are no larger than 15 students, and learning problems are quickly addressed through direct questions and/or chat messages. There is a lunch/free period of one hour. Behavior and discipline issues exist, but are dealt with in a non-coercive/quality image viewpoint. The counselling staff, freed from administrative tasks of assigning classes, actually works with students to help them through any challenges they face. Severe issues are handled quickly through strategic time-outs and extra help to solve problems rather than reacting. Every member of the faculty and staff has de escallation and conflict resolution training.
Sounds utopian? Not really; everything mentioned above actually exists now, but are rarely brought together in one package. Is this a costly way of doing things? Sure, but if we're ok with paying big bucks for the latest in designer cloths, fancy cars, and cool gagets, shouldn't we be cool with spending money to ensure our kids' futures? What cost our kids' images of love, power, freedom, and community? Would recovery/rescue education programs still be needed if we got away from the student-as-interchangable-widget model to real education and entrepaneural development? Instead of pushing kids through, how about educating them?
Just sayin'... .
