In my weekly scan of education in the news, I found an article from The Bay Citizen written by Zusha Elinson and published on October 8, 2011. The article, entitled “Universe is Expanding, but Where Do I Park” described an event featuring University of California, Berkley physics professor Saul Perlmutter, who was recently awarded the Nobel Prize for his discovery that the universe is expanding at an accelerating pace. While normally, this kind of in-depth physics content does not immediately grab my attention, one of the final quotes from the speech did catch my attention. “Probably the single most important thing about the Nobel Prize for most people is whether they get the coveted parking space on campus,” Although Mr. Perlmutter’s comment was made in relation to the parking nightmare that is the University of California, Berkley (and most other University campuses across the nation), when I saw the headline I could not help but think of it as a metaphor for the purpose for education.
The focus of educational reform movements such as the Common Core State Standards Initiative, the Next Generation Assessments, and, of keen interest to those of us here in Missouri, the vision of Top 10 by 2020, is the development of those skills necessary for success in the global community. The “universe” of our students has expanded over the last 6 decades from local, to state, to national, and presently to a global community. With an emphasis on defined arenas of content disciplines and skill sets necessary for success in this global competition, we have overlooked an important aspect of personalization. The key to success for each and every individual student is the development of a personal mental model of where they, as the person that they are, fit into this expanding universe – “Where do I Park?”.
Don’t get me wrong. Standardization of expectations - high expectations for all – is necessary and the movement toward consistent standards throughout American public education represents a positive step toward aligning knowledge and skills within the universe that we find ourselves living in. Standardization of expectations is necessary; however it is not sufficient the highest measures of success. Balanced with this standardization of expectations must be attention to students as independent thinkers and doers with the ability and confidence to successfully adapt to the unpredictable by relying on their own experience, knowledge, skills, and habits of mind. While the standards describe the “what” (essential knowledge, skills, and habits of mind) for success, it is up to educators to provide the personalization of the educational experience by supporting individual differences throughout the instructional process.
“The new century promises changes beyond imagination. If the present is any kind of prologue, the possibilities for the future seem staggering. A journey into uncharted waters awaits the emerging school population. How do we prepare students for such an unknown? Linda Darling-Hammond stresses the need for all students to learn at high levels and sees the job of instruction as that of enabling diverse learners to construct their own knowledge and to develop their talents in effective and powerful ways. The future will demand flexible and thoughtful people unafraid to meet the unknown head-on. As Albert Einstein is often quoted as saying, ‘No problem can be solved by the same consciousness that created it. We must learn to see the world anew’”(J. M. Jenkins, Phi Delta Kappan, February 1, 2002).
J.M. Jenkins describes 6 elements of personalized learning systems 1) a dual teacher role of coach and advisor; 2) the diagnosis of relevant student learning characteristics; 3) a collegial school culture; 4) an interactive learning environment; 5) flexible scheduling and pacing; and 6) authentic assessment. As I read this article, it was not hard for me to align the language that I have repeatedly used when working with groups of educators around the common core state standards.
- Relationships (as in rigor, relevance and relationships) with each student in the classroom by getting to know each student’s strengths and needs and providing appropriate differentiated SUPPORT for success.
- Data-driven decision making and student mapping for impactful instructional planning
- Collaboration and shared responsibility
- Providing opportunities for students to interact with the content for the purpose of developing understanding by attaching meaning to concepts and raising skill levels through practice. (It is important to separate skill-based practice activities from simple rote feedback practices. The skills that I am talking about are those processes that require students to function at higher levels of thinking – applying, analyzing, evaluating, and creating – as content is manipulated to arrive at solutions for tasks given – rigor [as in rigor relevance and relationships])
- Instructional adaptability based on progress monitoring toward standards mastery; flexible grouping
- Relevance (as in rigor, relevance and relationships); assessment for learning integrated with real world activities, problems, and scenarios. ( This is what the Next Generation Assessments are all about!) Integration of content and skills for a recognizable purpose.
One of the key concepts to remember when talking about personalized learning in a public school setting is PURPOSE. The purpose of our educational system is to ensure that our students graduate high school with the knowledge-base and skills (see definition in my #4 above) to be successful in post-secondary pursuits. Standards are necessary to define the breadth of knowledge and skill required for success in the global community that is today’s, and tomorrow’s, world. The common core state standards do this fairly well, thus providing a purpose for instructional process. What will define the success of any educational system is the alignment between these expectations of achievement and the instructional processes and supports implemented by district, schools, and teachers.
On a related note, I was recently able to enter into a conversation between teachers via my Twitter account that illustrates one of the pitfalls of the current debate over standards and testing. I am going to quote what was said using anonymous labels (to protect the innocent).
- Teacher 1: “we are a test-crazed system. it’s disrespectful to kids. but who cares about kids, right???”
- Teacher 2: “Already giving 24+ tests a year, for crying out loud!”
- Teacher 3: “I feel your pain. The massive testing will be the hardest part. More $ diverted to Pearson!”
- Teacher 1: “we eat, breathe and sleep common core right now. all meetings, all plans, etc. are in support of cc. I HATE IT!”
- Teacher 3: “There are ways around common core- hidden curriculum is something nobody can stop.”
The conversation points out the importance of reassessing our systems and the links (or gaps) between expectations (standards), curriculum, and instruction. The problem with the the assessments that these teachers are complaining about is that the instructional programming that is going on in schools is not aligned with the expectations that are being assessed. The purpose of standardized assessments are to measure outcomes in terms of expectations. It’s the “black box” that exists between the input of expectations (standards) and the output of achievement as measured by standardized tests that holds the secrets of educational programming success (or failure). That “black box” represents the systems that we call schools.
Low levels of achievement and achievement gaps are not symptoms of poor assessments any more than a lack of weight loss is a symptom of a bad weight-loss program. (Are those who have been unable to lose weight [including me personally!] calling for a ban on the manufacture of personal scales?) It’s the implementation and alignment of the educational (or weight-loss) programing – what goes on in the “black box” that is our educational system that needs to be scrutinized. Expectations (high standards) are non-negotiable, assessment as measures of achievement toward expectations (high standards) are non-negotiable. What we as educators have control over is the alignment to and implementation of the system we are a part of to the expectations of success for each individual student that journeys through our classrooms. We need to start thinking in terms of passing the” black box” test of alignment and implementation rather than fixating on the failure of standardized testing to improve educational programming.
