While I strongly support the idea of demanding our children have a genuine opportunity to improve or develop skills such as critical thinking, problem-solving, leadership and adaptability, such skill development is only possible with mastery of rigorous content. Content is the "what we teach." Content provides the context for all skill development. No matter how good our intentions, no matter whatever reforms we may bring to our education system, if we fail to create a set of no-nonsense, rigorous, focused content standards, we will be short-changing Ohio's children.
Foremost among these are the misguided changes it would make in Ohio's academic standards, assessments and accountability system.
Nobody says the present arrangement is perfect. But the 2010-11 state budget, House Bill 1, would take it from fair to poor.
Dutifully following one of the hottest fads in American education, the measure gives dramatically more attention to "21st-century skills" than to the three R's and actual knowledge. It ignores some key reasons we send kids to school in the first place. It sets lofty goals for which there are no practical gauges of progress or performance. And by changing the assessment system, the bill would make it far more difficult to compare the future performance of Ohio's schools and students with their past performance.
In January, Strickland opened the 21st-century-skills door -- known in the education field as "P21" -- when he urged that Ohio schools do far more to develop "critical thinking and problem solving, communication and collaboration, media literacy, leadership and productivity, cultural awareness, adaptability and accountability."
This theme made it through the House and now awaits Senate attention. It was -- predictably -- endorsed at a recent hearing by Ken Kay, president of the Arizona-based Partnership for 21st Century Skills, who admonished the committee that "content-based" learning is "old-fashioned."
This is a path to educational perdition. Nobody says kids should only memorize facts, and everybody agrees that they also need to be able to think critically. But as every good educational psychologist attests, one cannot think critically unless one has something to think about. You need the core skills and knowledge at least as much as you need "cultural awareness."
Moreover, schools are far more adept at imparting the former than the latter. And no known assessment scheme can measure one's acquisition of such skills as leadership and collaboration. Once these replace computation, grammar, vocabulary and the causes of the Civil War as goals of schooling, we can bid farewell to accountability.
Unfortunately, that's one reason so many educators have climbed onto the P21 bandwagon. They know this is a way to evade being held to account for educational outcomes.
Yet of the six criteria that House Bill 1 would lay upon the State Board of Education for the new academic standards it is charged with developing, just one deals with "core content and skills." The rest are P21-style dreams that cannot be reliably assessed.
Nor is that the end of the problem. House Bill 1's criteria for Ohio's future school standards are entirely oriented to college and workplace preparation. That's important , but what about public education's obligation to prepare young people for citizenship; for knowing their country's history, geography and literature; for acquiring decent values and behavior patterns; for becoming good neighbors and competent parents?
The mandate to develop assessments to replace Ohio's current testing regimen also is well-intended. But besides all the cost and bother, the delay and the complexity involved, this move almost certainly will mean that future performance reports cannot be compared with past evaluations. Ohioans will have no way to know whether their schools and children are doing better or worse. District and school ratings -- e.g. "effective," "academic emergency" -- which educators, parents and taxpayers only just now are getting accustomed to, will lose their meaning. And the state's pioneering efforts to gauge the "value added" by schools to their pupils, based on the present testing system, will have to be scrapped.
The Senate should pause before assenting to such changes.
Chester E. Finn Jr. is president of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, an education-policy think tank based in Washington, D.C., and Ohio.
5 comments:
What he says makes sense to me. Of course, I picked up on the "leadership" part. Schools imply "team sports" is what builds leadership. I would be happy if schools would do a better job teaching students to be responsible citizens and parents, just as Mr. Finn points out, and competent in their fields. That to me, is the basis of the teamwork and leadership our country needs. If someone else is not a conscientous parent, citizen, capable car mechanic, designer or doctor, that impacts my quality of life much more. That is critical thinking. I think Fordham put out a book a few years ago called "Where Civics Education went wrong". It seems we are teaching students how to be coddled and entitled, not competent and responsible to others and society.
District and school ratings ... will lose their meaning. And the state's pioneering efforts to gauge the "value added" by schools to their pupils, based on the present testing system, will have to be scrapped.So much for increased accountability. Once upon a time, Ohio's teachers' unions pledged support for Ohio's quality efforts. Improving the quality of education would lead to more students choosing (unionized) public schools over alternatives. Union members would keep their jobs. Accountability would ensure support for additional taxes, if necessary.
So now Ohio's "pioneering efforts to gauge the 'value added'" might be at risk? Tennessee increased taxes for education based on their value-added accountability system--an example Ohio ought not forget.
I would take Checker's words with a grain of salt. Certainly the meat of HB 1 deserves attention. But the folks at Fordham, as well as the folks at Core Knowledge have been railing against the idea of "21st Century Skills" since the Gov's plan first came out. The stance (although frequently denied) is that rigorous content cannot co-exist with an emphasis on higher order thinking skills. This is questionable logic. But the Fordham folks have consistently down-graded state standards (including Ohio's) that do not prescribe set reading lists and stress history (the collection of dates) and geography (a collection of facts) over "social studies" which is much more wide-ranging--and in fact provides context for the kinds of civic responsibility concerns that Finn raises.
I personally don't get the emphasis on lots of factual learning without an application context, and I don't really get the threat that is perceived in the collection of abilities fostered by "21st century skills."
There is always the concern that the "skills" poorly taught will result in fluff. However, I don't see this as more damaging than "content" poorly taught as a collection of factoids. It is interesting that the Ken Kay's list so closely parallels that developed by a State Board committee (EDGE) in conjunction with state business people.
In the end, to offer up such skills and do it well and appropriately, we will need to change both the way that teachers are trained and the way that schools are organized. I suspect this scares the pants off of some people. We may have to stop trying to boil everything down into a five level rating (meaning the local report card). Parents should be able to look at a variety of measures: curricular, instructional, financial, disciplinary or climate oriented, long term results.
Interesting that you see similarities between the EDGE committee findings and 21st Century Skills. I see the similarities as well and yet . . .
You might ask if the EDGE Top Ten and 21st Century Skills were the same, why didn't 21st Century Skills and be done with it. I'd been to the presentations by Mr. Kay and I'd witnessed more than one vigorous debate about skills vs. content. From my point of view, 21st Century Skills seemed more like it took workforce skills and turned them into a brand name-- a club states are asked to pay to join. And, this is just me, when I attended those presentations (some might say revivals), I did very much get the impression that it all could be done with "skills" and that content wasn't really needed if students knew how to look up information.
Our primary Ohio research placed a greater emphasis on content knowledge (particularly in mathematics) as well as reading, writing and speaking than does 21st Century Skills. Having sat in on some of the interviews conducted as part of EDGE's work, I can tell you that content did not get short shrift. EDGE also did not call for content standards to incorporate a laundry list of buzz words like HB1:
The standards shall specify the following:
(a) The core academic content and skills that students are expected to know and be able to do at each grade level.
(2) that will allow each student to be prepared for postsecondary instruction and the workplace for success in the twenty-first century;
(b) The development of skill sets as they relate to creativity and innovation, critical thinking and problem solving, and communication and collaboration;
(c) The development of skill sets that promote information, media, and technological literacy;
(d) The development of skill sets that promote flexibility and adaptability, initiative and self-direction, social and cross-cultural skills, productivity and accountability, and leadership and responsibility;
(e) Interdisciplinary, project-based real world learning opportunities;
(f) Opportunities for the inclusion of community service learning.
(2) After completing the standards required by division (A)(1) of this section, the state board shall adopt standards and model curricula for instruction in computer literacy, wellness literacy, financial literacy and entrepreneurship, fine arts, and foreign language for grades kindergarten through twelve. The standards shall meet the same requirements prescribed in divisions (A)(1)(a) to (f) of this section.
All this from students that have minimal readings and mathematics skills?
Wait until we get into Willingham's book and look at how the brain really operates. Given what cognitive scientists are learning, I think content mastery is more important than ever for students.
From Melanie Elsey's testimony to the House Finance Committee:
HB-1 proposes replacing the OGT with 4-part assessments required for graduation:
1. A nationally standardized test selected by the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) and Chancellor (NOT the State Board of Education (SBE) which would be a public process).
2. Series of end-of-course exams selected by the SPI and Chancellor (NOT the SBE, which would be a public process)
3. Community Service Project which will assess the student's civic responsibility, leadership skills, collaboration skills, cultural awareness, global competence, flexibility, adaptability, and self-direction.
4. Senior Project (individual or group) - will assess mastery of core knowledge in a subject area selected by the student, written and verbal communication skills, critical thinking, problem solving, real world and interdisciplinary learning, creative and innovative thinking, technology and media skills, personal management, self-direction, time-management, work ethic, enthusiasm.
The SPI and Chancellor (not the SBE which has a public process) will jointly designate the scoring rubrics and required overall composite score for the assessment system to assess whether each student is college or career ready. The lack of PUBLIC oversight in the process is one layer of the flawed design of this bill. It ramps up when we consider that the SPI and Chancellor will attempt to design a test to measure the ENTHUSIASM our our children! How can a rubric be designed that can possibly assess the individual personalities of a whole state full of potential graduates? Who exactly is qualified to judge what is considered an acceptable level of personal management, work ethic, or enthusiasm?
Living and working in a family and a community have always been the best way to teach to skills named above to our children. For children who don't have appropriate role models at home, schools can help to fill in the blanks. But don't force kids to pass through some kind of psychological gauntlet as a requirement for high school graduation.
Post a Comment