Posts from — October 2007

The great cybernetician, Stafford Beer, coined the phrase, “the purpose of a system is what it does.” What we wish it did lies in the realm of visioning and strategy formation. What a system does can be expressed in terms of its recurring and onetime outputs as well as its key processes. So, the purpose of a school, for example, is to produce both graduates and dropouts, because these are clearly outputs of the system. We may wish or prefer that the school only produce graduates, but until we gain a clear view of what a system really does, we are impotent to change it.

Here’s an article from ABC News that says 10% of the high schools in the US are ‘dropout factories.’ In this article the author is defining a dropout factory as one in which no more than 60% of the students that start the school actually finish (graduate).

I had read at some point that the dropout rate in the US was around 30% (I can’t remember the source of that). That figure may be significantly influenced by schools that are mentioned here in this article – but whatever the figure actually is educators must come to terms with the fact that schools as we know them today produce a significant amount of students that do not finish.

1 in 10 Schools Are ‘Dropout Factories’
By NANCY ZUCKERBROD AP Education Writer • WASHINGTON Oct 30, 2007 (AP)
It’s a nickname no principal could be proud of: “Dropout Factory,” a high school where no more than 60 percent of the students who start as freshmen make it to their senior year. That dubious distinction applies to more than one in 10 high schools across America.

In my humble opinion one of the ways to improve these numbers is to make the education system and schools more engaging and connected to the rest of life. The following brief story gives a good example of making schools engaging and meeting young people where they are while at the same time increasing enthusiasm for learning.

This article shows a great example of doing just that:

Hip Hop High: Rhythm and Lyrics Teach Everything from English to Algebra
The musical language of the street has new fans: teachers, who are using it as a classroom tool. • by Eric Hellweg
Like many sixteen-year-olds, Amir Ali spends a lot of time after school talking with friends about sports, girls, and music — specifically, hip-hop music. But last year, during his sophomore year at Lynwood High School, in Lynwood, California, Ali noticed a drastic shift in these spirited afternoon after-school conversations.

Following along similar lines of a previous post regarding the purpose of education, it looks like there is a movement building around the idea that the ‘basics’ are just not good enough in todays world. If it is true that the original purpose of education is to ‘school’ the poor in the ‘basics,’ teach discipline and reduce crime – making a the kind of a shift being suggested by the Partnership for 21st Century Skills is very significant. Incorporating 21st-century skills such as critical thinking and problem solving, communication and self-direction, as well as computer and technology skills into the curriculum will change education significantly.

As I’ve suggested in previous posts, the ‘curriculum’ is not as important as the ‘method’ employed. We must use the knowledge we have gained about how people learn, use our understanding of the brain as a complex organism and employ the tenants of experiential/project based learning if we have a chance of turning the ‘schooling’ system into an ‘education’ system.

Here’s the article referred to above:

Voters urge teaching of 21st-century skills
Poll suggests ‘back-to-basics’ approach to education is not enough for nation’s citizens
By Meris Stansbury, Assistant Editor, eSchool News
Results of a new poll commissioned by the Partnership for 21st Century Skills shows the vast majority of U.S. voters believe students are ill-equipped to compete in the global learning environment, and that schools must incorporate 21st-century skills such as critical thinking and problem solving, communication and self-direction, and computer and technology skills into the curriculum. But the upcoming presidential election, researchers say, presents a perfect opportunity to charter a new path to success for America’s students.

In several previous posts I have been exploring this idea that public schools are a tool for the Federal Government to ‘school’ the public in the ‘basics’ in order to produce a disciplined society (and reduce crime). In one of the articles I read about the origins of the ‘free’ public school system the author was suggesting the aim of the education is to indoctrinate the public. I have just finished reading an article (link below) that says a teacher has NO constitutional right to express personal opinions (free speech) in the classroom.

Here’s a quote from the article:

A teacher’s speech is “the commodity she sells to an employer in exchange for her salary,” the Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said in January. “The Constitution does not enable teachers to present personal views to captive audiences against the instructions of elected officials.”

I wonder how many professional teachers working today would know this? I wonder, if they did know this, if they would say they comply with the law and DO NOT express personal opinions in the classroom?

If I interpret this properly this ‘law’ says that a teacher must ONLY say what they are approved to say by the local School Board. I presume the local School Board takes their mandates from the State School Board, which in turn takes their cues from the Federal Board of Education.

What does this mean to the anyone that is interested in changing education (or transforming education)?

Here’s the article:

Supreme Court denies hearing for fired ‘honk for peace’ teacher
Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer • Tuesday, October 2, 2007
An elementary-school teacher who was dismissed after telling her class on the eve of the Iraq war that “I honk for peace” lost a U.S. Supreme Court appeal Monday.
The justices, without comment, denied a hearing to Deborah Mayer, who had appealed lower-court decisions upholding an Indiana school district’s refusal to renew her contract in June 2003. The most-recent ruling, by a federal appeals court in Chicago, said teachers in public schools have no constitutional right to express personal opinions in the classroom.

And, if one is involved in education something like this would again make it seem like the only people that know what is good for young people are the people in charge – not the teacher in the classroom.

Taking this to the extreme, as I have suggested in previous posts, the education system is not set up to teach people to think. It also appears that the system isn’t designed for people in the system to think either.