Not surprisingly, most of the qualities he mentions are qualities we expect of our students (see, for example, IB learner profile). Modeling for students and collaborating with them are two that stood out for me. Check out the list and see what you think.

Last month the National Governor’s Association for Best Practices (NGA Center) and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) released the Common Core State Standards, an attempt to standardize K-12 education across the U.S. To date, 48 of the 50 states have adopted the standards, Alaska and Texas electing not to adopt. The final version of the standards is due out by late spring.

It is clear that there is a wide disparity in what students are learning from state to state, and I appreciate the effort to standardize education across the country. According to the Common Core website, the standards are:

• Aligned with college and work expectations;
• Clear, understandable and consistent;
• Include rigorous content and application of knowledge through high-order skills;
• Build upon strengths and lessons of current state standards;
• Informed by other top performing countries, so that all students are prepared to succeed in our global economy and society; and
• Evidence-based.

I’m having an initial look at the standards now, and I have to admit, I’m pleasantly surprised at first glance. The standards are set out clearly (unlike many sets of standards), and there appears to be ample focus on inquiry and higher order thinking skills and activities while allowing flexibility for teachers to adapt instruction to their teaching styles. Moreover, states are free to adopt, reject, or abandon them as they see fit. Keep in mind, this is a first glance, and I’ll report more once I have a deeper look. I think a states-sponsored initiative such as this is well overdue, and I hope it bears fruit. You can view the draft standards here. Let me know what you think.

Bridging the Gap

“The origin of the fissure between lower and higher education in the United States stems, in part, from the laudable way the nation created education systems to deliver curriculum for both K-12 and higher education.” Thus begins Dr. Michael Kirst’s interesting brief history of the curricular chasm between high school preparation and university expectations.

Kirst explains that in the late 19th century there were no organized standards for college entrance so the National Education Association appointed the first commission to try to bridge the gap between high schools and universities. This, in turn, led to the creation of the College Examination Board with regulated admissions testing for many colleges.

In the early 20th century, a new report recommended that high schools adapt themselves to the needs of less academic students, at the same time still providing a different track for students definitely headed to university, which led to the formation of “comprehensive high schools.” This development led to a high school system which was deemed not to adequately prepare students for the rigors of university study. Continuing into the present, the focus on high school as college prep has been diminished for most students, according to Kirst.

Kirst points out that today’s effort to connect the high school and university divide centers in Advanced Placement classes (with standards dictated by the universities) and the International Baccalaureate program. (At this point, Kirst opines that IB is limited in “scope,” which could have a couple of meanings. I’ve asked for clarification on that point.) Meanwhile, the more able students are being better prepared for university while weaker students are getting further away from the target. And the divide persists…

Personally I believe that the IB Diploma program (Grades 11-12) is a good option for many students and can be taken at a higher or lower level of rigor. However the IB Dip is only available in a limited number of American schools, though the number is growing, which may be the “scope” limitation to which Dr. Kirst refers above.

Photo by akahodag

I’m not sure where or when the authors went to school, but I attended a public school as well as a very traditional Catholic school in the early 80′s, and I think it’s a bit inaccurate to depict them by some of the qualities mentioned in the left column. To wit:

• Focus on memorization of discrete facts. While this was a part of nearly all classes, it was certain not the focus. Skills and personal qualities were an important component of what we learned and what the school was trying to do.
• Lessons focus on the lower end of Bloom’s taxonomy. Not at my school. Critical thinking, synthesis and evaluation were important components of our classroom activities.
• Passive learning. I’m afraid I don’t know what that means in this context. Most of my classmates were very actively engaged in discussions and projects.
• The discipline/trust/motivation dichotomy is simply inaccurate and unfair in my experience.
• Low vs. high expectations. Highly disagree.
• Curriculum is  meaningless to the student. Huh?

Look, if one is to frame a proper argument, it is not helpful to set up straw men. (I learned that in my 20th century classroom.) Lay out the argument on the accurate merits. It does us all a disservice if we’re creating false dichotomies and inaccurately assessing other paradigms. Again, I’m taking the 21st century train, but the 20th century train did pretty well in getting me where I am. Let’s keep it real.

…I wondered how many schools could point to someone, anyone, who is in charge of learning. By that I mean someone who manages the culture of the school by focusing not on outcomes as much as how learning is writ large in the system. Someone who also understands the ways in which social Web technologies accentuate the need for the learning skills we’ve desired all along: creativity, critical thinking, independent thought, collaboration, etc. I know I keep going back to this, but I wonder how many of us can look at our colleagues and answer the question “How does that person learn?” And think of the leaders in our schools in that light as well.

The Langwitches blog focuses on this question and more specifically asks: What is the difference between waiting to be taught and willing to learn? Whether it be in working with students or teachers, it appears that a learner who is waiting to be taught is on a steeper learning curve and perhaps more difficult to work with than one who is willing to learn.

A major factor not to be underestimated is that the presenter of a novel approach has to be a practitioner of what he or she is proposing and have the concept/skill/approach/content/mindset deeply ingrained in his or her own being. In other words, the teacher/facilitator must be a model or very active learner of what is being conveyed. The teacher must be practicing what he or she is preaching.

In education, there may be too many of us willing to slide along without seeking simply to become better at what we do or keeping informed of innovations and evolutions in our profession. Would we want to go to a doctor (or lawyer, for that matter) who finishes his degree and then stops studying and keeping current in his field? Of course not. Should parents of our students expect anything less of us as educators?

But back to the question, the most important thing that I can do in terms of trying to develop myself, my teachers, or my students is to be an active practitioner of the skillset/mindset I’m attempting to transfer. Then, perhaps, those around me will be actively engaged and willing to learn rather than waiting to be taught.

Comments?

Image by Amarand Agasi

Julie Lindsay addresses this topic in her e-Learning Journeys blog. An excerpt:

I tried to explain that my class does not end when the students work out the door. The collaboration, interaction and socialisation continues. My students interact with each other, they interact with me, their teacher, via online tools of various names and varieties which could all come under the broad term of ‘social networking’. They have their own online areas, including digital portfolios, as well as community areas. They post to blogs and respond to each other. They are out there using social bookmarking, folksonomy, class wikis, creating podcasts and vodcasts and putting them online, using social imaging (flickr) and anything else I can think of to encourage motivation and excitement in their ultimate quest for learning. I do not apologise for this. I do not essentially see anything wrong with this in 21st century learning. In fact this approach has changed my whole teaching style and changed the way I interact with the students. The development of PLEs (personal learning environments) and ubiquitous and mobile computing means I now start my classes with ‘…open your blogs, refer to the class wiki…etc’ rather than ‘..take out your books and copy from the board’.

Read more.

Photo by San Diego Shooter

The student’s nightmare began when he was a fifth grader, when his father began to keep track of his academic ranking in the class.

Ranked only within the top 10, he was frequently subjected to ridicule by parents and relatives.

“If you fail to enter a key university, you had better kill yourself, and I would not drop a single tear …” he quoted his father as threatening.

Like nearly all students of his age, he was put on a quasi-military regimen.

A college can provide a brief respite from pressure, but soon the specter of employment expectations will begin to loom.

This approach to education is not limited to China, but is evident throughout most Asian countries. I think it’s clear that the effects of such an approach to education are having and will have deleterious effects in the long run; the question is whether Asian nations believe the trade-off is worth it.

Cartoon by Zhou Tao