A Case for Reinventing Public Schools

Some friends of mine are engaged in instigating a really important conversation in their community. Minority parents and students have been attempting to show how the schools are profiling certain young people as potential gang members and forcing them in one way or another to leave school – primarily to improve their drop-out and graduation numbers.

As many as 100 young people have already left one of the schools through these means.

The conversation that has begun is about developing something that will although these young people an opportunity to experience more of life and achieve some or all of their goals – while removing the typecasting and stigma of an ‘uneducated’ person.

I applaud this and really, truly hope that something good can come of it. It even looks like some school personnel are willing to participate in this conversation.

I know it’s hard as someone involved in the schooling system to continue to want to do good – and do the best you can – while all around you there are challenges and criticisms about what’s going on. Much of what’s going on is not your fault. At the same time much of what is going on is actually harming young people.

Do Schools Harm Young People?

The following is part of a note I wrote to my friends in this community. This is the first time I’ve been public in this explicit a way with one of the most important insights I’ve had about schools and schooling.

I am only posting one side of the conversation here. I am not including the many emails that have gone back and forth about why this kind of thing happens (profiling and forced drop-outs) but I am posting my response which refers to how and why I believe some of this activity might come about. I am open to any and all comments and further conversation about this.

Here’s part of my email:

One of the clearest and most powerful ways I can communicate about how schooling and education are different is by using the example of American Indian Boarding Schools. The methodologies used in those schools are the very same methodologies used in every public school in the United States today – in varying degrees and some less than others. We really have to understand that public schools are not healthy for young people. They never were intended to do anything like what we have talked about and what you are talking about doing this evening and with the entire community inclusion and transformation process.

The same tactics and intentions were used in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, to destroy existing native cultures and South Africa during apartheid to control and limit blacks from getting anywhere beyond the ghettos. Schools are tools for white oppressors to dominate and control the poor, native people and people of color – and anyone from another culture.

No one that I know would admit to this publicly. That’s one reason why I’m only copying a few of you.

A few of the tactics that are evident (and this is not an exhaustive list) in the use of schools to destroy people and cultures are:

• taking responsibility away from the parents and family
• separating children from their homes and their parents
• forcing the use of another and non-familiar language (English)
• not allowing elements of existing cultures to be present – be it language, dress, or cultural idiosyncrasies
• celebrating sameness and removing difference
• corporal punishment and force for non-compliance
• grading, ranking, dividing, profiling, and segregating children by achievement or any criteria
• a forced and controlled curriculum
• mandatory attendance
• separating the school from the rest of the community (insulating the school from the community)
• social injustice and inequity

The racial profiling that has been discussed that is happening Capital is likely happening in every school everywhere to some degree or another. This is a natural part of the “schooling” process and one of the reasons I have harped on making this distinction so hard. Needless to say it’s harmful to individuals and ultimately very harmful to society.

What Miguel has suggested for the conversation this evening – and for the larger conversation – is about helping young people feel wanted and to feel a part of something that helps them develop their own identities and self-expression while in the context of learning and serving. These few concepts are anti-thetical to school and schooling and CANNOT be a part of what we know of as school. Something else has to be created to do that.

There is one more thing for this short rave. The young people that are being pushed out and/or dropping out are the smart ones. I doubt that many people around them can see how smart they really are (although John G made reference to this in one of his emails). These young people deserve our respect and our best thinking and resources.

This conversation you will be having this evening and the ones that follow could be the most important conversations any of us have ever had. The seeds for brilliance are there.

A recent study put out by the Department of Education shows that students using online methods of learning actually perform better than those who just learn in the classroom. That shouldn’t come as any surprise if we really understood what’s happening in the classroom – or paid any attention to the rise in the number of users of computers and other devices accessing the internet.

Why would it be a surprise that people learn more when they have choice, can take their time, and learn what they want to learn when they want to learn it?

Or why would it be a surprise that a blended situation – some online and some face to face – would produce better results than just one or the other?

What is surprising is that the Department of Education would publish such a study.

To me this is looking in the wrong place for something that isn’t really that important. Online courses simply replicate a methodology that is really only valuable to a small percentage of the population. Rote learning or drill and practice isn’t really an optimal strategy for either online or face to face learning. So replicating what is done in the classrooms in an online environment isn’t any better. What would be interesting to me would be seeing a change in the methods used to learn in either situation. What about experiences? What about making connections to the rest of life? What about theory? What about learning for deeper meaning and wisdom?

On December 11, 2008 I posted an article written by David Langford about paying students to learn.

An anonymous person commented that there is research that says there are positive effects of incentive based programs. I forwarded that response to David and asked him if he was interested in responded. He sent me the following:

Thanks for passing along my article to those who might listen. Unfortunately we are fighting a losing battle with extrinsic manipulation. It is so easy to implement these programs it is hard to stop politians and administrators. The new pick for Education Secretary Arne Duncan is also an advocate of pay-for-grades and implemented such a program in Chicago. I am fearful we may see an escalation of this thinking during the Obama administration.

I read through each of the studies the person who responded offered. None were credible comparisons of the blatant manipulation offered in the Chicago Public Schools or in Washington D.C.

Offering girls in Kenya scholarships to continue to go to school if they work hard does not compare to throwing money at kids who get A’s, in a fabricated rating system, when they are already guarenteed a free education: Apples and Oranges comparisons. The study from Texas cited on paying students to take AP courses I believe lacks credibility since in order to get the predicted results they wanted they changed systemic factors such as opening AP courses to anyone interested instead of doing what they had always done by limiting class size to class rank. This is only one of a multitude of problems in this study.

The real problem is not how to make a better buggy whip, but should we be making them to begin with. I know I could produce the same positive correlation to improved work by beating children if they do not work hard. But, should we adopt that as a program and then start improving it? Automating or improving a bad process just means you can do something very bad quickly and to a larger number of people. Maybe Harvard would like to promote that study since they seem to be the source of promoting these pay-for-performance programs. I like the line in the movie Jurassic park that goes something like this, “You were so busy trying to see if you could you forgot to think about if you should!”

All of these types of programs and studies take time away from studying and fixing the real problems. No child will say I don’t work hard at school because they do not pay me enough, but they will say it’s boring or my teacher dosn’t care. Who will work on these problems? Let’s work on the real problems preventing high quality work and effort instead manufacturing new problems.

I’m interested in hearing from others about this very important topic.

One of the arguments I have for re-inventing public schooling is the rapid rate of changes taking place in society. Schools and schooling are the most disconnected institutions we have on the planet. By disconnected I mean, what is taking place inside of schools is disconnected from what is taking place outside of schools.

Sure there has been a push to get technology into schools – but that technology has been viewed and used under the same fundamental operating principle that is driving all schooling (control and compliance) and the methodologies technology has been applied to are the same fundamental concepts as traditional teaching (sit and get; drill and practice).

There is a large amount of data from many sectors of our economy and society that demonstrates increasing rates of change moving towards exponential rates of change. We see increasing rates of change in global population, in consumption of resources, and increasing pollution. We see the same types of changes in the use of technologies like fax machines, cell phones, computers, and the internet. The amount of data being digitized and stored on computers somewhere in the world has followed a similar curve.

Over the last 100 years the system of public schooling (including colleges and universities) has changed some but very little compared to the rest of society. This gap, which we can call an Opportunity Gap, continues to grow. The longer we wait to make necessary changes the worse it will get. And this gap actually explains a lot of what people are experiencing today in public schooling.

Every organization in the world is facing the challenge of managing within this environment of rapid change. In the competitive environment the amount of pressure on companies to adopt and stay competitive is quite significant. Product life cycles for consumer electronics companies in some competitive markets have shrunk from 18 – 24 months to around 6 months and some companies complete the entire cycle from concept, through development, through to the end of a products life in that time period.

More significant for leaders and managers of organizations (especially large ones) is having an understanding of the impact this kind of environment has on ‘how they manage.’ How you manage in an organization that is moving fast – staying up to speed with the rate of change – is different from how you manage in an organization that is moving slower. And managing a slower moving organization that is attempting to close the Opportunity Gap is different still.

Partly because of the fact that schools have been kept separate from the rest of society, and partly because of the slow moving changes within the schooling system, the managers and leaders in that environment have not felt the same kinds of pressures as business leaders. Until recently society has not demanded these leaders to have the same kind of competence. But that luxury is quickly being eroded. Pressure from the outside is growing and the skill sets of school leaders will be challenged significantly.

Here’s a short video that makes the argument for re-inventing schools better than I could with pages or writing:

Based on recent learning and insights I’ve changed the name of this blog to Schooling ≠ Education. This new name reflects the most important and critical shift in thinking that is necessary for the reinvention of public schooling.

As noted in one of the first posts on this blog, it was back in 1999 that the first ideas for writing a book emerged. This first inspiration came after visiting with a small group of teachers and having conversations about topics I had thought were common knowledge (topics I had been talking to colleagues about for nearly 20 years at that point).

I was working in a unique and powerful learning environment that reflected an integration of physical space, technology and process. During the conversation we talked about the rate of change, complexity, structures and their influence on behavior, as well as the brain and how humans learn. The original name for this blog, There is No One Right Answer, was an attempt to break through what I call “the right answer syndrome” and get people to think.

Those same topics discussed back in 1999 are still, to this day, not common knowledge – or not knowledge enough to make a difference in what we are doing in our schools. Over the last ten years I have continued to ponder why making necessary changes and improvements in schools and schooling is difficult/challenging. Today my core theory is that most people make the mistake of confusing schooling with education. This mistake is prevalent around the world, in every country, in every walk of life, in governmental circles, in business circles, in churches and religious institutions, and in homes and villages.

My theory is that real, substantive, and necessary changes will not be able to be made until the people involved in schools and schooling make the mental shift and see that schooling is not equal to education. Until that time as that mental shift is made the necessary actions and requisite behaviors will not be made.

Hence, the new name of this blog, Schooling ≠ Education.

I will be persistent in urging people to adopt this point of view and this understanding in the desire to help people see that we will never get the kind of educational experience we truly want for our children unless we make this change first.

If there was ever any doubt, people involved in schools and schooling must see this SlideShare Presentation:

Wow! my blog is now listed on Alltop.

Not familiar with Alltop? Check out their site – they aggregate news and blogs under specific topic headings. Check it out.

Here’s the area where I am listed – http://education.alltop.com/ (it’s at the very bottom – but hey, at least I’m there).

David Langford is one of the smartest and best consultants I know working in the schooling world. His knowledge and experience of quality and it’s application to schooling is beyond par. The following article came in a recent email newsletter from him. I couldn’t say it any better! I’ve copied the newsletter in its entirety. Enjoy.

Quality Learning: Paying students to learn?
By David P. Langford

In the past, I believed most educators understood the inherent differences between extrinsic and intrinsic motivation, and valued the latter over the former. However, this does not seem to be the case. Pay-for-grades, gold stars, student-of-the-month programs and attendance rewards are all too prevalent extrinsic motivators used to push students to do a better job. I’ve found an overwhelming amount of evidence that these schemes do not work in the long term, and can even dangerously affect attitudes toward learning. (Alfie Kohn does an excellent job of compiling the evidence against extrinsic motivators in his books No Contest and Punishment by Reward.) There is no lack of evidence that pay-for-grades programs do not work, so why do schools continue to use them? The short answer is: because they appear to work.

Extrinsic rewards and punishments always seem to work if you do not count the costs. Studies have shown that you can get people to do almost anything if you make the motivator—payment or punishment–strong enough. For example, would you sabotage a colleague for ten dollars? Most people would answer “no.” But what if I upped the stakes? Would you do it for one thousand dollars? Ten thousand? One million? If I continued to increase the reward, most people would agree sooner or later–especially if they got to pick the colleague.

The same principle is true with students. If you pay students to get good grades, more students will get good grades for a while. Very quickly students who were only working to get the reward will discover that it is hard work to maintain good grades, and they will decide it isn’t worth the effort unless the reward is increased, because the motivation for getting good grades is not to learn, but to be rewarded. The concept of “learning” to improve one’s self never comes into play with the reward system. Just as teacher unions negotiate for higher pay, so student “unions” will eventually want to negotiate for a higher reward.

Extrinsic Theory: Improved Grades = Reward

Most always these reward schemes are touted as a “new trial program,” as if the idea of extrinsic motivation is a new one. In Washington D.C., Chancellor Michelle Rhee, who is making a valiant effort to improve a failing system, was asked why they implemented a “new” program that pays students to get good grades and attendance and she responded, “When critics say that it’s sad to pay students, I say it’s sad that only 8% of D.C. eighth-graders are proficient in math. People in the suburbs use incentives for their kids all the time, like giving them $10.00 for an ‘A.’ Kids in our program can save money for college or get a bank account.” (Parade Magazine, November 16, 2008, p. 26.) It’s unfortunate that we have such huge education gaps in this country and I am certain Chancellor Rhee feels the need to do something about it, but the bottom line is that two wrongs don’t make a right. Just because some parents bribe their children to get better grades does not mean we should apply the same principle to all students. We can easily sabotage motivation through the best efforts of well meaning people.

If the pay-for-grades theory is correct, there should not exist a single example of students succeeding on their own. Yet there are thousands–if not millions– of students who work hard because of a love of learning. Dr. W. Edwards Deming often stated that it only takes a single example to invalidate a theory. Having only 8% of students proficient in math is a dismal statistic to face, but the problem is in the system–not the students. Manipulating students with money will improve some students’ performance for a short period of time, but what happens to students when you can no longer afford to pay them and their attachment to learning is for money? Smothering intrinsic motivation is a cost too great for even one student.

Intrinsic Motivation: Acquired Knowledge = Joy in Learning

When learning rewards and punishments are eliminated, systemic performance results will always return to what they were before extrinsic manipulation. Remember, 98% of the problem comes from the system, and students have little or no control over systemic factors. Manipulating student extrinsic motivators does not address the basic cause(s) of the problem. Try asking students with a Force Field Analysis to identify driving and preventing forces of learning, then prioritize the preventing forces with an NGT. You might be shocked to realize that existing factors preventing learning have nothing to do with lack of pay-for-grades. One of the most misguided efforts of quality improvement is trying to improve something that should be eliminated, such as automating grading systems, increasing training for behavior modification or improving the pay-for-grades program. I can guarantee you, in low performing schools there are fundamental problems with:

Teacher training and support
Leadership and management
Process Management
Communication
The way schools are built and maintained
The way technology is being used or not used
Funding for classroom books and materials
Vision and purpose

One of the reasons many extrinsic motivation programs have stayed around for so long and are continually resurrected and improved is because they are convenient for the people managing the system. They keep the focus off leadership and mistakenly place it on the people working in the system. In every education system I have consulted–from the U.S. Naval Academy to primary and secondary schools in the U.S. and Australia to pre-schools in Argentina–the story is the same: we blame students for poor performance without first considering the systemic causes. In psychology this is known as the fundamental attribution error.

If you want a significantly different result, you must first change the system. I applaud Michelle Rhee in Washington D.C. for trying to improve a broken system, and I offer my help. She has made many excellent systemic changes in D.C. such as closing 23 under-populated schools and paying for librarians, art, music and P.E. teachers at remaining schools. These systemic efforts will help to improve student motivation for learning.

Systemic problems are normally out of the circle of influence of students and none of these systemic problems will go away simply by bribing students to work harder within a failing system. Leaders must learn to, as Dr. Deming once said, “work smarter, not harder.” If you want a different result, try changing the system and watch what happens to behavior, instead of continually doing what we have always done by leaving the system alone and trying to change the behavior of the people in it.

©2008 Langford International Inc. All rights reserved.
e-Mail: office@langfordlearning.com
12742 Canyon Creek Road, Molt, MT 59057
Phone: 406-628-2227 Fax: 406-628-2228

With all this focus on No Child Left Behind and the ensuing testing culture that’s been created I wonder how many people have noticed that the predominate methodology used in schools has gone from Drill and Practice to Drill and Test.

Drill and Practice is an instructional strategy developed and used for much of the history of schools and schooling. Many people feel the practice is out of date and not appropriate for meaningful learning to take place. On the other side of the argument, people that still support the idea of drill and practice as an effective teaching methodology suggest that repetition is necessary for the brain to ‘wire’ itself appropriately.

From a web site on instructional strategies:

As an instructional strategy, drill & practice is familiar to all educators… Drill-and-practice, like memorization, involves repetition of specific skills, such as addition and subtraction, or spelling. To be meaningful to learners, the skills built through drill-and-practice should become the building blocks for more meaningful learning.
http://olc.spsd.sk.ca/DE/PD/instr/strats/drill/index.html

From another web site:

Development of basic knowledge and skills to the necessary levels of automatic and errorless performance requires a great deal of drill and practice. . . . drill and practice activities should not be slighted as “low level.” Carried out properly, they appear to be just as essential to complex and creative intellectual performance as they are to the performance of a virtuoso violinist.
http://www.audiblox2000.com/repetition.htm

I believe the accelerating focus on testing has shifted teaching methodologies to be more akin to drill and test. Tests are taking up more time and focus in the school setting. Many people have complained that teachers are teaching to the test at the cost of learning.

So the old method of drill and practice is giving way to the new method of drill and test. Learning suffers as a consequence.

From a Carnegie Mellon article:

A recurring criticism of tests used in high-stakes decision making is that they distort instruction and force teachers to “teach to the test.” The criticism is not without merit. The public pressure on students, teachers, principals, and school superintendents to raise scores on high-stakes tests is tremendous, and the temptation to tailor and restrict instruction to only that which will be tested is almost irresistible.

further it says:

There is a lesson here for teachers and assessment specialists alike. The tension between the instructional and assessment communities, as well the pejorative connotations that “teaching to the test” entails, will continue unabated so long as testing and assessment are seen as something quite apart from instruction and learning, rather than an integrated reflection of what was intentionally taught. To paraphrase A. G. Rud of Purdue University, what is needed is a deliberate attempt on the part of all parties to link curriculum, instruction, assessment, and standards in a more generative and even transparent way.

Disclaimer: I’m not advocating for either of these methodologies. In fact, I don’t recommend either methodology as being the right thing to do in today’s environment. The purpose of pointing out what I think is happening is to support people to make conscious choices – to know what they are doing and why.

In today’s world I recommend a whole person and brain based approach to learning – with the focus on learning NOT on teaching. Drill and practice is a good method for memorization but as I’ve said in another post memorizing is not the same as learning.

Making the mistake of thinking that schooling is education can lead to a very large number of additional choices that make sense in one context but are completely different in another context. If we continue to think about schooling the way we do we will force young people to do things they are not meant to do nor do they do naturally.