School Leader

Considerations for Kentucky's English/Language Arts standards revisions

Senate Bill 1, passed with overwhelming support in the 2017 Kentucky General Assembly, directs the Kentucky Department of Education to begin a process of reviewing and updating the state's education standards. Over a six-year period, committees made up of content area and grade-level teachers and higher education representatives will review the standards, gather input from across the state, and generate recommended revisions to ultimately be approved by the Kentucky Board of Education.

This process will begin in 2017-2018 focusing on English/Language Arts (ELA) and Math standards. Two years ago a process took place to review standards in these areas, and those recommendations will serve as a starting point for the new review protocol outlined under SB 1. The recommended revisions for each area are available for public feedback here and here.

I do not have content area expertise in either ELA or mathematics, and so as a member of the state board I will rely heavily on the recommendations of teachers in both areas (and I want to emphasize that what follows are my individual perspectives only and not those of the state board in general or anyone affiliated with Western Kentucky University, where I work). However, I've grown deeply concerned about a shift that has taken place in reading instruction in recent years and the impact I think that shift has had on students of poverty. Specifically, I believe that an over-emphasis on reading as a skill has caused schools to neglect social studies, science, and arts in early grades, ultimately depriving many students of the domain-specific knowledge they need for reading comprehension and academic success in later grades (see numerous links laying out my thinking on this topic at the end of this post).

I'd like to see the ELA review committee give serious consideration to this trend, and how changes in standards might encourage schools to shift their attention back to a rich, content-laden curriculum for the early grades.

I would strongly recommend that standards review committee members spend some time with E. D. Hirsch's latest book, Why Knowledge Matters: Rescuing Our Children From Failed Educational Theories (see my reviews of this book here and here), and, to a lesser extent, Daisy Christodoulou's Seven Myths About Education (review here). Hirsch argues that, while student decoding skills have improved in recent years thanks to a much heavier emphasis on reading instruction and intervention, that improvement has not translated into higher proficiency rates in later grades, especial in other subject areas. Hirsch believes this is because, in response to skills-driven state and Common Core standards, elementary teachers have begun to spend excessive amounts of time trying to teach students "transferable" reading skills like finding the main idea in a passage, leaving behind any meaningful time devoted to subject areas like social studies, science, the arts, and substantive literature. 

Hirsch argues there is no such thing as a generic skill for finding the main idea in a passage. Citing research summarized by Daniel Willingham, he says that such generic skills can be effectively taught in as little as ten lessons, at which point instructional time should shift toward teaching students the domain-specific content knowledge they need to actually understand complex reading passages in later grades. Hirsch founded the Core Knowledge organization to promote a specific, grade-by-grade curricula to deliver such content.

My own review of Kentucky's academic standards showed that our ELA standards don't differ that much from Hirsch's Core Knowledge Sequence, except in their specificity at each grade level. But the biggest difference is in social studies and science, where Kentucky doesn't describe grade specific learning standards for grades K-3 at all [updated clarification: Kentucky's science standards are grouped in bands by K-2, 3-5, etc. but n0t individual grades]. In a presentation last year to the Prichard Committee for Academic Excellence, Robert Pondiscio and Lisa Hansel from the Knowledge Matters campaign argued in favor of early grades state standards in the content areas that would do just that, creating an opportunity for more instructionally valid reading tests based on the actual domain-specific knowledge students have been studying. 

I'd like to see all of these topics considered in Kentucky's upcoming standards review process. Proposed changes in our school accountability system might include a component holding schools more accountable for devoting more instructional time to content areas in grades K-3. I would like to see the committees charged with revising social studies, science, and arts standards consider articulating specific content standards for the same grades. But to provide teachers the flexibility and time to actually teach curricula aligned these standards, we should also consider whether Kentucky's ELA standards should be pared down, especially in these skills-related areas like finding the main idea of a passage.

I am eager for more reading and early grades teachers to weigh in on this dimension of the standards review process, and look forward to the discussion. 

Update, 6/30/17: Here's a thoughtful piece by reading Timothy Shanahan arguing that reading and content knowledge instruction should support each other.

Usual disclaimer: All views expressed on this website are mine alone and do not reflect the opinions of the Kentucky Board of Education (where I serve as a member) or Western Kentucky University (where I serve as associate professor in the Department of Educational Administration, Leadership, and Research).

Related posts:

• Seven Myths About Education
• Why Knowledge Matters: The Most Important Education Book of 2016
• Why Knowledge Matters, Part II: Strengthening Standards with a Content-Rich Curriculum
• If caring is king, content is queen.
• Yes, kids need to know about the American Revolution.

MontessoriPublic issue on charters and choice

MontessoriPublic is a new print and online publication from the National Center for Montessori in the Public Sector, an organization that celebrates and supports public Montessori schools and programs. The latest issue includes a series of articles on charters and school choice, including the opportunities and potential threats to Montessori from these policies.

I was honored the editor invited me to submit an article. You can access the issue here (my piece appears on page 10). Though it initially wasn't what I intended to write, the article wound up being about my own experiences as a Montessori dad, and how Montessori has deeply impacted my thinking about pedagogy, as well as my commitment to school choice. Every family, regardless of income or ZIP code, deserves access to a wide variety of great education options, including Montessori. And Montesssori schools need the kind of autonomy enjoyed by charter schools to remain true to the method.

I hope this issue of MontessoriPublic deepens understanding in the Montessori community of the complexities and importance of school choice, and helps school choice advocates better appreciate the place of Montessori in the education marketplace.

 

Seven Myths About Education

Over the last few years I’ve become keenly interested in the importance of curriculum and concerned about how curricular approaches in P12 schools have deprived students of critical content knowledge, especially in the early grades. E. D. Hirsch’s latest book, Why Knowledge Matters, is a masterpiece in this regard, arguing why and how this move away from content has exacerbated achievement gaps (see my posts on Hirsch’s book here and here). But I’ve recently discovered another great little book from the United Kingdom, heavily inspired and influenced by Hirsch’s work, that serves as a great companion piece to Why Knowledge Matters.

Seven Myths About Education, by Daisy Christodoulou, explores how certain myths have pervaded the assumptions and practices of educators. These myths suggest that knowledge is actually of little importance, and encourage teachers to use more “student-centered” methods, but in doing so actually undermine students’ ability to engage in critical thinking, which is inherently dependent on rich, domain-specific knowledge.

For each myth, Christodoulou explains its theoretical origins, but also shows how the myth really does influence teacher practice, often using the recommendations of the Office for Standards in Education (OfSted), the U.K.’s national education inspectorate that are hugely influential on what happens in British classrooms.

Christodoulou makes this case to answer the argument often made by defenders of current educational practices that no one actually suggests knowledge is unimportant or neglects the teaching of content (Hirsch shows how this neglect is very real in the U.S.). Christodoulou's strong conviction is that these myths do, in fact, heavily impact teaching practice and undermine the teaching of meaningful content in schools. That she is writing from a British perspective does not diminish the value of Seven Myths for American educators because education practices in these two countries are so similar and U.S. teachers will easily see the same patterns in their own context. This point is driven home in glowing forwards written by Hirsch himself, and by formative assessment researcher Dylan Wiliam, who says Seven Myths “may well be the most important book of the decade on teaching.”

The seven myths include the following:

• facts prevent understanding
• teacher-led instruction is passive
• the twenty-first century fundamentally changes everything
• you can always just look it up
• we should teach transferable skills
• projects and activities are the best ways to learn
• teaching knowledge is indoctrination

That some of these statements are myths will likely come as a shock to most educators trained in the last generation (e.g., teacher-led-instruction is passive; projects and activities are the best ways to learn). Christodoulou, citing the currently-popular education scholar John Hattie, notes that "traditional," teacher-led methods like direct instruction are extremely powerful when used effectively. Furthermore, she shows how "student-centered" instruction often involves vapid assignments requiring little to no actual critical thinking, and usually devoid of meaningful content. I've written before about Hattie's finding that project-based learning is a largely ineffective method, unless it is used by students to apply content knowledge they've already acquired.

Other myths tackled by Christoudoulou seem more recent to our education discussion, like the notion that an over-emphasis on facts prevents meaningful understanding, that in the era of Google what students know is less important than their capacity to find the right information, and that in the 21st century students need special skills like teamwork and effective communication. I routinely hear these arguments from educators, policy-makers, and business leaders. And I have to admit that I have made such arguments myself in the recent past.

But authors like Hirsch and Christodoulou have convinced me there are no such thing as transferable skills of any sort that don't require the use of domain-specific content knowledge. Even knowing how to effectively "Google" something requires a relevant vocabulary and framework of referent knowledge to know what to look for, how, and how to make sense of what is found. And Christodoulou easily dispatches the notion that there is anything unique about the skills needed for effectively navigating the 21st century:

It is quite patronising to suggest that no one before the year 2000 ever needed to think critically, solve problems, communicate, collaborate, create, innovate, or read...It probably is true that in the future, more and more people will need these skills, and that there will be fewer economic opportunities for people who do not have these skills. But that would suggest to me that we need to make sure that everyone gets the education that was in the past reserved for the elite. That is not redefining education for the twenty-first century; it is giving everyone the chance to get a traditional education.

This point seems exactly right to me based on my own experiences as a learner. I certainly hope that I possess "21st century skills." But my own education was not skills-driven, from elementary school through my doctoral studies. To the contrary, it was content-laden, and heavily supplemented by a voracious personal appetite for knowledge that my parents actively supported and encouraged. A favorite childhood past-time of mine was sifting through the World Book Encyclopedia, exploring any and every interesting idea or concept I encountered on a daily basis, with a dictionary close at hand to help, and a houseful of other quality books that introduced me to the world. To the extent that I am an effective 21st century learner, it was because my mind was steeped in content knowledge from my earliest days.

Closely related to the myth that learning in the 21st century is unique, Christodoulou tackles the myth (also handled aptly by Hirsch in the closing chapters of Why Knowledge Matters) that articulating a specific body of knowledge that all children should master is somehow politically biased toward the experiences of the traditionally empowered (like men, white people, and the wealthy classes) over the traditionally disenfranchised. But Christodoulou argues that it is just the opposite: that guaranteeing a rich, content-specific education to those who have historically been deprived such an opportunity is deliberately empowering and actually gives the marginalized tools for challenging societal and economic power structures. 

Hirsch is likewise emphatic on this point when he argues that current practices in American elementary schools, which have systematically squeezed out social studies, science, and the arts in favor of a time-consuming and skills-driven approach to reading, have actually deepened achievement gaps by denying children from low-income families the cultural and domain-specific knowledge they need for later academic and life success.

I have written a lot in recent years about my concerns that the factory model of education we inherited from the industrial revolution (which was not, in fact, designed to educate all students to high levels of knowledge) is not sufficient to meet changing economic demands and issues of justice that do, in fact, require us to give all students what was once an elite education. Moreover, the current system, based on arranging students by age cohort with little regard to their actual readiness levels and operated as a government monopoly, does a poor job of educating students at their individual readiness levels or providing the kinds of diversity of instructional and curricular approaches required in a pluralistic society.

But too many of my fellow educators have intentionally or accidentally, in the name of moving beyond the factory model of learning, thrown content out the window in favor of these myth-driven ideas about education. I'm all for personalizing student learning - but that should be primarily meeting students at their individual readiness level as they work through a rich, content-driven curriculum, not about sacrificing the complex body of knowledge we want every educated person to master. 

Of course it is true that we want students to do more than recall a bunch of disconnected facts. It's a poverty of good instructional knowledge and creativity that causes us to think we must either teach students content or teach them to think critically (as if they could think critically without something meaningful to think about). But from a practical perspective, educators simply haven't been taught how to do both. And doing so does require intentional planning and a comprehensive program of instruction. Paideia (better known as "Socratic seminars") represents one method, requiring students to engage in thoughtful collaborative discussion of serious texts.

But the best approach I've seen for this is classical education, based on the medieval Trivium of grammar, dialectic, and rhetoric, and captured beautifully in Dorothy Sayers' 1948 essay, The Lost Tools of Learning. As I wrote last year in summary:

According to Sayers, the early grades should focus on intensive absorption of a rich and varied, language-based curriculum.  In direct contrast to our modern trend of reserving social studies and science for the upper grades, classical education incorporates science and history from the earliest grades onward, along with the study of classical languages like Greek and Latin.  By the middle grades, students should be introduced to dialectic (logic) and start to synthesize all the content they've learned previously.  And finally the upper grades should have a focus on rhetoric, or argumentation, in which students learn to articulate their own ideas and opinions with evidence from the treasure trove of world civilization and participate fully in a virtuous life as adult and citizen.

This highly-intentional approach to learning ensures that as students absorb new content knowledge, they are systematically instructed and assessed on how to apply it through critical thinking tasks associated with logic and rhetoric. While classical education is spreading like wildfire in American parochial and independent schools and among homeschoolers, there are also promising signs of this approach in charter schools like the Great Hearts Academy network. I would love to see traditional public schools adopt a classical curriculum, perhaps using Hirsch's Core Knowledge Sequence as a foundation.

Such schools provide a laboratory for exploding the myths described by Daisy Christodoulou in Seven Myths About Education and demonstrating how the teaching of knowledge can - and in fact must - be the foundation for serious critical thinking.

Usual disclaimer: Opinions expressed on this website are mine alone and do not reflect the views of Western Kentucky University (where I serve as associate professor of educational administration, leadership and research) or the Kentucky Board of Education (where I serve as a member).

Related posts:

• Why Knowledge Matters: The most important education book of 2016
• Why Knowledge Matters, Part II: Strengthening standards with a content-rich curriculum
• If caring is king, content is queen.
• Yes, kids need to know about the American Revolution.
• The New Era of education has arrived.
• A classical education reading list.
• Classical education, Montessori, and the tension between the "what" and "how" of learning.

 

How to give all schools charter-like autonomy

During Kentucky's debate over becoming the 44th state to allow charter schools, and especially since the charter law successfully passed the state's General Assembly in March, I have often heard public school advocates ask why, if autonomy seems to be a key to charter school success, shouldn't all schools - including those operated by public districts - have a similar kind of freedom from regulation and oversight.

Just today, in an interview with Kentucky public radio, Kentucky School Boards Association spokesperson Brad Hughes said that public school leaders will be watching to see what lessons can be learned from charter schools and will seek the same kinds of freedoms for all schools. “You’re going to see public schools come back and say, ‘Hey, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.’ Let’s release that from all public schools, to be able to see if it’s going to produce there academically, will it produce results everywhere else,” Hughes said.

My own answer to this question is straightforward. Yes - all schools can have charter school autonomy, and I'm ready to give it to them today, if they are also willing to accept charter school accountability.

Charter schools are autonomous public (tuition-free) schools that are not run by a district. Charter schools are self-managed; they hire their own teachers on their own terms, set their own curriculum and instructional program, make their own schedule, and contract directly with vendors for all services used by the school. Charter schools are schools of choice, meaning parents elect to send their child to a charter school (as opposed to being assigned to the school by the district). If more students apply for a charter than the school has seats available, a lottery is held to keep admissions fair. They are governed by a "charter" - essentially a performance contract with an authorizing agent (in Kentucky that agent will be the local school district) that stipulates achievement targets the school must reach.

So in exchange for their autonomy, charter schools face the ultimate form of accountability, one that is essentially unknown to traditional public schools: if they cannot attract students or meet the conditions of their performance contract, they will be shut down.

Are public school employees willing to accept that level of accountability? Are they willing to operate with complete autonomy from the district, compete for students, and be subject to closure if students fail to learn or are unsatisfied with their educational services? If so, then certainly they are welcome to apply to be a conversion charter school, which is provided under Kentucky's charter law if a majority of parents are willing to support the move.

I'm willing to go a step further, though, and completely remake school governance so that all schools operate with this same balance of autonomy and accountability. The best model for this I've seen yet is outlined in great detail in Paul Hill and Ashley Jochim's 2015 book, A Democratic Constitution for Public Education. Hill and Jochim imagine a system in which the local school board no longer runs schools, but serves as an authorizer of a slate of independent schools of choice operating under yearly performance contracts.

This isn't in the realm of fantasy. Hill and Jochim's model is inspired by several urban experiences in "portfolio districts" like New Orleans and Denver which are successfully demonstrating how to create a healthy educational ecosystem that prioritizes parent choice, innovation, and school autonomy.

Hill and Jochim would have states replace local school boards with (ideally) elected Civic Education Councils (CEC). The CEC's main job is to hire a Chief Executive Officer (CEO, or superintendent). Hill and Jochim articulate a "constitution" for the governance of schools, the CEC, and the state educational authority that will function as a system of checks and balances to protect school autonomy. Schools would all be independently managed (districts would not own or operate schools), and would have to apply to the CEC for a contract or charter to operate. The CEC and CEO would review applications and approve a diverse portfolio of schools to operate in the district, designed to maximize education options for families.

Each student would be allocated a virtual "backpack" of education funds, adjusted for the student's demographic background and needs, which would follow the student to the portfolio school of that family's choice. Other than some small percentage retained by the CEC for administrative costs, no dollars would flow to any school other than the funds attached to individual students who attend them. A very small central office would be responsible for collecting, monitoring, and reporting performance data on schools and providing some oversight to ensure financial and operational transparency. Schools could contract with the district for other services like transportation or professional development, but would not be required to do so and could obtain those services from other vendors.

Schools that cannot attract sufficient enrollment or meet their performance targets would be subject to losing their charter and might be replaced by other operators at the conclusion of their contract.

I suspect most educators would consider this a radical change in school governance. Some would be reluctant to give up the considerable political power they current wield as district employees. However, Hill and Jochim's model is the logical conclusion of what Andy Smarick calls the "differentiation and choice" paradigm that is slowly replacing an outdated, one-size-fits-all framework of educational delivery that I believe is no longer sufficient for our rapidly deconsolidating economy and culture.

School autonomy would mean teachers and school administrators would finally be completely free to innovate and experiment with the only limit being whether their efforts yield results and satisfy their client families. Every school could become as "nimble" as charter schools in their responsiveness to student needs. And most importantly, every family would potentially have access to a much richer array of school choices, regardless of their ZIP code or income level.

So if educators are really serious about asking for charter-like autonomy, I encourage them to own the idea - and the accountability that comes with it. A Democratic Constitution for Public Education explores the technical challenges of such an approach in depth. It is must reading for anyone who genuinely cares about school autonomy.

Usual disclaimer: Opinions expressed on this website are mine alone and do not reflect the views of the Kentucky Board of Education (where I serve as a member) or Western Kentucky University (my employer).

Related posts:

• A visit to two charter schools
• Why the education establishment feels so threatened by school choice
• Education in the "Fractured Republic"
• A School Choice Primer, Part I, Part II, and Part III