When I read the quote, I decided that it would make a good New Year’s resolution, especially in light of a white paper that I recently read entitled Best Practices to Next Practice: A New Way of “Doing Business” for School Transformation. I thought that the message relayed by Ray McNulty in the paper would be a good thing to share with anyone struggling with school reform efforts.

Tackling the downward trend in U.S. student performance is a double-edged sword for schools. First is the seemingly all-inclusive crumbling of the institutional icons ( i.e. financial markets, housing industry, American automobile manufacturing, job opportunities) that have embodied the foundational cornerstones of the American society and prosperity for decades. The result is what Secretary Arne Duncan and others refer to as a “new normal” for U.S. schools – “a time during which schools are being required to do more with fewer resources and the harsh realities of global competition face every student.” (McNulty, p.9)

Second, the U.S. education system is currently steeped in 100+ years of tradition that has “concretized” (a John Antonetti word) the parameters of what can and cannot be done in education. The result is a mindset  steeped in “best practices” and piece-meal “innovations” that, when implemented, often fall short of expectations. What is needed, according to McNulty is a switch from “best” practices to “next” practices.

As defined in today’s educational reform jargon, best practices are those practices that have become standardized through use and have been proven successful in dealing with various identified problem arenas. The problem, McNulty explains, is that these innovations are too-often  introduced and implemented within a business-as-usual structural framework and result in the elimination of important elements that don’t “fit-in” to the concretized (see above) parameters of American education tradition. McNulty refers to these as “sustaining” innovations.

One example of a sustaining innovation is the introduction of technology in our classrooms. The failure of technology infusion into classrooms to meet the expectations projected by researchers and technology vendors alike can be attributed to the fact that schools have implemented the use of technology in support of current instructional practices (sustaining innovation) rather than as a  “disruptive” innovation that stretches and transforms current practice to embrace all of the elements of technology and thus, reap all of the potential benefits of the innovation.   “A better 20^th century school is not the answer.” (Ray McNulty)  A different 21st century school is.

“If the world is changing, shouldn’t our practices in schools change? Shouldn’t our mindset and work be rooted in creativity and innovation and not just in best practices?” (McNulty, p.5)

It will be “disruptive” innovations, implemented and tested by educators that are willing to take a risk and venture into the area of the “not-yet-proven yet potentially promising” that will move the system forward on the path to twenty-first century  success.

McNulty cites the case Michigan ‘s rejection of  sustaining best practices that required every high school student to take district-approved courses by districted-managed instructors in lieu of a “next” practice disruptive innovation seat-time waiver program that allows students in participating districts to take courses by certified teachers online and off-campus.

“… for effective change to accommodate students in today’s world, educators need to do more than think outside the box or “outside the system” — they need to build an altogether new structure in which to spur new thinking. Disruptive innovation, rather than sustaining innovation, will make a real difference, but it is difficult to break free from a system that has been in place for more than 100 years.” ( McNulty, p.6)

What say you? Are you struggling with sustaining innovations that fall short of expectations? What steps could you take to transform those sustaing innovations into disrupting innovations?

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.

1. 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.
2. Data-driven decision making and student mapping for impactful instructional planning
3. Collaboration and shared responsibility
4. 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])
5. Instructional adaptability based on progress monitoring toward standards mastery; flexible grouping
6. 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.

Last month, September, 2011, NBC hosted a second annual Education Nation Summit “to address the developments, challenges, and progress of the past year, as well as identify and explore new, exciting opportunities to reinvent America as an Education Nation.” In the last panel discussion of the 2-day seminar, students were given the chance to speak to policymakers, reformers, funders, and other stakeholders in the American educational system.

Lisa Nielsen, the Innovative Educator, summarized this panel discussion in an article entitled 20 Things Students Want the Nation to Know About Education.  Here is the list that Lisa compiled:

1. I have to critically think in college, but your tests      don’t teach me that.
2. We learn in different ways at different rates.
3. I can’t learn from you if you are not willing to connect with me.
4. Teaching by the book is not teaching. It’s just talking.
5. Caring about each student is more important than      teaching the class.
6. Every young person has a dream. Your job is to help bring us closer to our dreams.
7. We need more than teachers. We need life coaches.
8. The community should become more involved in schools.
9. Even if you don’t want to be a teacher, you can offer a student an apprenticeship.
10. Us youth love all the new technologies that come out. When you acknowledge this and use technology in your teaching it makes learning much more interesting.
11. You should be trained not just in teaching but also in counseling.
12. Tell me something good that I’m doing so that I can keep growing in that.
13. When you can feel like a family member it helps so  much.
14. We appreciate when you connect with us in our worlds such as the teacher who provided us with extra help using Xbox and Skype
15. Our teachers have too many students to enable them to connect with us in the way we need them to.
16. Bring the electives that we are actually interested in back to school. Things like drama, art, cooking, music.
17. Education leaders, teachers, funders, and policy makers need to start listening to student voice in all areas including teacher evaluations.
18. You need to use tools in the classroom that we use in the real world like Facebook, email, and other tools we use to connect and communicate.
19. You need to love a student before you can teach a student.
20. We do tests to make teachers look good and the school look good, but we know they don’t help us to learn what’s important to us.

Now, any brain-research savvy person knows that a list of 20 items is too much for our brains to handle all at once. In order to make sense of the list, establish connections, and create some meaning around these 20 bits of information we have to “chunk” the content. So, I have created 3 categories that represent the essential elements of educational programming – 1) Curriculum, 2) Assessment, and 3) Instruction. “Chunking” the list with these categories produces the following list:

Curriculum

4. Teaching by the book is not teaching. It’s just talking.

8. The community should become more involved in schools.

9. Even if you don’t want to be a teacher, you can offer a student an apprenticeship.

10. Us youth love all the new technologies that come out. When you acknowledge this and use technology in your teaching it makes learning much more interesting.

14. We appreciate when you connect with us in our worlds such as the teacher who provided us with extra help using Xbox and Skype.

16. Bring the electives that we are actually interested in back to school. Things like drama, art, cooking, music.

18. You need to use tools in the classroom that we use in the real world like Facebook, email, and other tools we use to connect and communicate.

Assessment

1.  I have to critically think in college, but your tests don’t teach me that.

11.  Tell me something good that I’m doing so that I can keep growing in that.

17. Education leaders, teachers, funders, and policy makers need to start listening to student voice in all areas including teacher evaluations.

20. We do tests to make teachers look good and the school look good, but we know they don’t help us to learn what’s important to us.

Instruction

2  We learn in different ways at different rates.

3. I can’t learn from you if you are not willing to connect with me.

5. Caring about each student is more important than teaching the class.

6. Every young person has a dream. Your job is to help bring us closer to our dreams.

7. We need more than teachers. We need life coaches.

11. You should be trained not just in teaching but also in counseling

13. When you can feel like a family member it helps so much.

15. Our teachers have too many students to enable them to connect with us in the way we need them to.

19. You need to love a student before you can teach a student.

You may agree with my categories or you may not.  Perhaps Dr. Bill Daggett’s 3 R’s, Rigor, Relevance and Relationships, would be a better set of categories. The fact is, that this type of “chunking” exercise becomes a jumping off point for dialogue and inquiry as participants draw connections between isolated pieces of information and essential constructs for learning. As participants examine, explain and advocate their choices within a collaborative dialogue, what started as fragmented bits and pieces become solid connectors that help to define concepts and create shared meaning. After all, true learning can be defined as the creation of meaning around conceptual guideposts.

Whether it’s a school leader initiating a dialogue among teachers about what good instruction looks like and how instruction is tied to curriculum and assessment, as is the purpose of the activity above, or a kindergarten teacher comparing the parts of a story that students like and dislike  in two or more separate stories in an effort to define the essential parts of any story (characters, plot, setting), critical thinking and conceptual “chunking” go hand in hand in the learning process.  Try it and see!

First we as educators need to stop referring to “ALL” students – lumping them all together which then gives us permission to categorize students by labeling them. Don’t think so? Think about it for a minute. When someone says “all”, our brains immediately start thinking in terms of groups. “ALL” students means special education, poverty, 504, gifted, etc.(labeled groups), just the labeling mindset that we are trying to get away from by using the term “ALL”!

 (I came to this realization, or awakening as I sometimes refer to it, after some collaborative work with Dr. Katherine Sprott of the Midwest Equity Assistance Center.  Our dialogue, focused on equitable educational and instructional practices, brought to light some of the hidden  assumptions deeply embedded in our cultural backgrounds. One of these assumptions was that “ALL” meant all students when in the reality of traditional thought processes, “ALL” means all groups of students – a big difference!)

All too often, these labels carry parameters that limit learning opportunities for students by relying on standard protocols and traditionally embedded cultural assumptions. Instead we need to start thinking in terms of each INDIVIDUAL learner. How else can we personalize the learning experience that is the vision of the new Common Core State Standards and next generation assessments? With the promise of  individualized growth data that the new assessments will provide, focus shifts from group performance to individual growth.

Second, we as educators need to stop talking about “doing” differentiated INSTRUCTION and start providing differentiated SUPPORT for individual learners. Too often differentiated instruction is interpreted as different assignments for the same content that educators  often design with the underlying assumption of differentiated expectations. This assumption undermines the conceptual basis of the Common Core State Standards which is  college and career readiness for each individual high school graduate. The concept of learning progressions – one of the main structural elements of the CCSS -includes a set of  expectations for each learner and appropriately ordered building blocks that, when followed sequentially and with fidelity, lead to success. The reality of today’s classroom is that learners are entering this progression at differing points based on individual experience, background, and capability. In other words, each learner enters the learning continuum with individual differences that require not adjusting expectations but different levels of support for success in meeting the expectations of college and career ready.

I presented this argument to a group of teachers and one skeptical high school teacher asked me to give her a real life example of what that would look like – same assignment or expectation, differentiated support. The example that I gave was note taking.

Note taking is a high yield instructional strategy (Marzano) and, therefore, a high leverage learning activity for students. There is certainly a place for direct instruction in every classroom, and, therefore, an expectation for note-taking. The underlying assumption embedded in traditional educational structure is that note taking is a writing process that  supports student comprehension, understanding and retention of content knowledge. The key word in this assumption is “writing.” What has emerged is an instructional distortion of focus. The focus has
been on the “writing” rather than the intent and purpose of the “process.”

We all realize that we will have several students in any classroom who are not high functioning writers – a skill that is required for the traditional note-taking writing process. We also have students that cannot write and comprehend at the same time. These students can get the words down as the teacher makes notes on the board, but the students’ cognitive energies are focused on the writing task rather than the comprehension and understanding purpose. So how do we support these students in the note-taking process?

A teacher may prepare an outline of the direct instruction content which can be distributed to the students that have writing process needs getting in the way of listening and understanding. To support student listening and accountability, students are directed to highlight the main points and big ideas as the teacher presents material. Students are also given the opportunity, guided by the teacher, to draw lines and arrows or other graphic aids representing the connections between the main points listed on the outline. This not only focuses the cognitive energies of individual students, but also serves as a support in the organization of ideas. Students see how ideas are organized in an outline
format. They also see the connections between the big ideas and supporting content. In addition, students have a study guide in hand that supports learning throughout the unit.

After hearing my example, the teacher informed me that the support method that I described would not work in her classroom. Other students, she pointed out, that did not receive the outline would complain that it was not fair for some students to receive the printed outline while some students had to write their own outline. Very simple solution, I replied, give everyone the outline and a highlighter. The purpose of the support is to strengthen the comprehension, understanding, and retention of the content. Will that purpose be supported by each individual
learner taking part in the highlighter note-taking process? Yes. In addition,  the focusing of cognitive energy on the content rather than the writing process  allows for the opportunity of increased interaction by learners with the  content.

Later, when the learning objective and purpose is focused on the organization of ideas and outlining, the student has an interactive experience with outlining that can be revisited in support of meeting this skill-based learning objective. Students connect outlining as an organizational skill by connecting it with an application within the context of content comprehension and understanding. Hmmmm…………….

What are your comments and questions? What words do you have trouble with?

At the present time, there is some discussion as to how “college and career ready” is defined and, once defined, how the goal can be achieved.  CollegeCareerReady.org defines the phrase as “the level of preparation a student needs to enroll and succeed—without remediation—in a credit-bearing general education course at a postsecondary institution that offers a baccalaureate degree or transfer to a baccalaureate program, or in a high-quality certificate program that enables students to enter a career pathway with potential future advancement.”

First there is the question of college and career ready, as opposed to college or career ready. Some feel the two are the same while others question whether the statement means that every student goes to college. The question also arises about whether this will signal a move toward tracking students as many European countries do, forcing students to decide at a young age whether they will travel the road to college or a trade school.

Question number two focuses on measures for determining readiness. A recent study by Chad Aldeman of  Education Sector noted that “most high school accountability systems are lagging behind, failing to recognize college- and career-ready goals” (Aldeman, p 1). The study found that the measures currently in place do not serve as very good predictors of college success. As indicated in the chart below (Aldeman, p 5),  college success predictions based on current available measures often miss the mark.

ACT has established a scale of college readiness benchmarks aligned with the ACT test at the high school level as well as the EXPLORE (8^th grade)  and PLAN (10^th grade) assessments. Students reaching these benchmark scores on these assessments have a 50% chance of earning a B or better and a 75% chance of earning a C or better in corresponding college courses.

Some states, such as Florida, are developing College and Career Readiness indexes that include employment measurements as well as academic scales (Aldeman, p6). Other states have adopted College and Career Readiness standards. The Texas standards when implemented “will pave the way to better alignment between the public and higher education curriculum, thereby allowing students a more seamless transition between high school and college or the workforce.”

Where as the Common Core statdards that Missouri has adopted contain literacy standards for the content areas that Missouri has adopted contain literacy standards for the content areas (see Sept 30 blog post Content Literacy: Transitioning to the Common Core Standards for Literacy in the Content Areas), some states are  creating their own standards to replace, or supplement the Common Core Standards.

The Texas standards take a step beyond the Common Core Standards by including a section of cross-disciplinary standards that encompass cognitive, foundational, work habit, and integrity measures aimed at preparing students for the challenges of an ever-changing society. Minnesota has written a Roadmap to College and Career Readiness.  Massachusetts has created a resource page for College and Career Readiness. Located on this page is a link to the Massachusetts Early Warning Indicator Index . The model is set up to use data, already collected by the state, as the starting point for helping districts identify students who may be at risk of not graduating. The index takes into account, age , gender, attendance rates, mobility between schools, as well as academic measures.

Missouri schools have access to Missouri Connections, a web-based resource to help Missouri citizens determine their career interests, explore occupations, establish education plans, develop job search strategies, and create resumés. Using Missouri Connections, students can build career-focused portfolios that include interest and career assessments as well as career and course plans. Missouri educators can use the system to improve student career counseling and preparation, communicate with students and parents, manage curriculum to meet educational standards, and gather and review individual and aggregate data .

One thing is for sure, what we currently have in place is not working. A high school diploma is no longer a “key to success” in life. The global community has moved well beyond the 1950s and so too must the American education system.  Success in today’s and tomorrow’s work place requires most Americans to have skills beyond traditional high school curriculum and existing graduation requirements. We must all work to move Beyond the Rhetoric and actively support efforts, both individual and organizational, focused on closing  the high school graduation and college/career readiness gap that exists today.  

“The time has come to rethink not only what we expect of students and but also what we ask of our high schools and the leaders who are responsible for them,” said Matt Gandal, Executive Vice President of Achieve. “College and career readiness must be the goal for all students and in order for this goal to become a reality, states will need to make changes in what they measure, how they measure it, and how they structure their accountability systems to encourage all schools to aim higher.” (http://www.achieve.org/node/1048 )

Missouri, having recently adopted the Common Core Standards,  has established a timeline for transitioning to these new state standards.

Now is the time for districts to begin planning for the  transition to these new expectations so that in 2013 when the new assessments are based on these content literacy expectations, both students and teachers will be prepared.  Curriculum Mapping is a tool for initiating the dialogue for action toward integrating these skills across the content fields. On October 6, the SWRPDC will be providing an opportunity for school districts and teachers to begin implementing literacy across the content areas through a curriculum mapping process. Time is growing short for registration for the workshop. Please click the link below and enroll today.

https://www.mylearningplan.com/WebReg/ActivityProfile.asp?D=11005&H=1&I=803118

96 participants representing over 40 school districts attended the meeting. A great deal of information was shared and many good questions addressed.

Central to the discussion of this process is the Leadership and Learning Matrix.

What quadrant represents the reality in your school? Most of us are pretty good at measuring, collecting, and working with the “Effect” data – the student achievement data. And although, we can talk about about the adult actions that we believe might have some impact on the effect data, very few of us have any means of collecting the hard “antecedent” or “Cause” data measuring adult actions.  As seen in this matrix, the cause data is as important as the effect data – and it is the cause or antecedent data that the Decision-Making for Results/Data Team Training process focuses on – changing adult actions in a systemic and measurable way to identify direct links between effective adult actions and resulting student achievement. This process represents a evolution -not a revolution – in effective data management and utilization for sustainable improvement practices.

This year’s Administrators’ Conference also featured a “Data Fair”.  A data fair is a sort of science fair for adults where districts focused on change initiatives implemented either at the building or district level. Boards included displays of baseline and incremental data collections, a description on interventions or actions taken, and an analysis of results.

Some of the most powerful results were noted within the context of changes in adult (cause or antecedent data) actions that resulted in positive impact on student achievement (effect data).  These success stories are the ones that the state is seeking to replicate in all Missouri schools. Thus, the reason for endorsing a data-driven decision making process that has produced proven results when implemented with fidelity and supported by research-based instructional practices and strategies resulting from effective adult action within the classroom.

For more information about the Decision Making for Results/Data Team Training process, check out our upcoming training opportunities:  October 11 & 12, 2010, October 19 & 20, 2010, or November 11 & 12, 2010.  Feel free to contact our office with your questions or to schedule a training in your district.

I caught a televised interview this morning with the Superintendent of  Peach County Schools in Georgia focused on the implementation of a 4-day school week during the 2009-2010 school year. Like many districts, Peach County was faced with the reality of a 3% budget cut. Superintendent Susan Clark said she had only two choices that could save that kind of money: lay off 39 teachers, eliminating every art, music, and PE class -OR-something never seen before in Georgia, go to a four-day school week.

“What we did is not that hard. It just really isn’t hard. What it takes is courage,” Clark said.

Teachers now work four 10-hour days. The day for students is slightly longer than an average 5-day school day, but there’s no down time. Non-instructional parts of the day have been cut out. Individual tutoring is widely attended before and after class. The number of instructional minutes for students is the same, in some cases even higher, than it used to be.

On Mondays, the schools close. Finding daycare was a big concern for critics of the plan. Clark responded, “The mission of this school district is not to provide daycare. The mission of this school district is to provide students with an education.” The luxury of providing day care for 5 days a week was no longer an option according to Clark. (Click HERE to read the entire article from Channel 11 News, Atlanta, Georgia).

At the present time, there are 120 districts across the country that have opted for the four-day school week. In 2009, a bill was introduced in the Missouri legislature to allow districts the flexibility of a four-day week. The bill stalled in committee. With the recent budget shortfalls and funding cuts, including deep transportation cuts, schools may begin to look at the 4-day week option.

So what is the impact of a 4-day school week? Some of the pluses reported by 4-day districts include:

• Student drop-out rates decline.
• Student disciplinary referrals decrease.
• Student achievement is generally not affected either positively or negatively.
• Student and teacher attendance improves
• Students and teachers benefit from less interrupted class time as a result of longer class periods and fewer transitions at all grade levels. This increases the efficiency of instruction.
• Students and teachers share more positive attitudes about school. Consequently, there is a marked improvement in school morale .
• School faculty has more time for quality staff development (often the day off is used for this purpose).
• There is more time for participation in extracurricular activities and for personal business, such as doctor appointments.
• Students report they are better able to manage part-time employment.

Benefits for the School in General:

• Has significant savings on utility bills, substitute teacher pay, school buses, and building wear and tear.

• Can make up school days missed due to inclement weather on what would have been the fifth school day instead of at the end of the school year.

Cons include the viability of a longer day for students as well as child care issues for parents.

What do you think?

“Once you understand the logic behind modern schooling, its trips and tracks are fairly easy to avoid. School trains children to be employees and consumers; teach your own to be leaders and adventurers. School trains children to obey reflexively; teach your own to think critically and independently. Well-schooled kids have a low threshold for boredom; help your own develop an inner life so that they’ll never be bored. Urge them to take on the serious material, the grown-up material, in history, literature, philosophy, music, art, economics, theology – all the stuff school teachers know well enough to avoid. Challenge your kids with plenty of solitude so they can learn to enjoy their own company, to conduct inner dialogues. Well-schooled people are conditioned to dread being alone; they seek constant companionship through the TV, the computer, the cell phone, and through shallow friendships quickly acquired, quickly abandoned. …First, though, wake up to what our schools really are: laboratories of experimentation on young minds, drill centers for the habits and attitudes that corporate society demands. Mandatory education serves children only incidentally; its real purpose is to turn them into servants.” (p xxii)

And so goes the rest of this treatise on the evils of compulsory schooling as compared to the benefits of free-form or open-source education. The essay lacks foundational research and supporting data.  Despite a 30-year career as a classroom teacher, very little anecdotal evidence is shared. (It seems to me from the tone of the book, that teacher Gatto was miserable in his job for the majority of that time! That in itself might have an influence on classroom and school culture.) What back-up evidence that is cited consists of those big successes that most of us are familiar with, Einstein, Gates, Buffett, who dropped out of the mainstream educational system and went on to build successful lives.

This issue of these randomized successes outside of the main stream was the focus of a book by Malcolm Gladwell entitled “Outliers.” According to Gladwell, these main stream anomalies resulted not from the failure of the education system, but rather as the result of a combination of environmental factors and “unexpected logic” that resulted in a perfect storm of opportunity that individuals were able to take advantage of. I found Gladwell’s discussion of these outside-the-normal-experience successes much more plausible and convincing than Gatto’s call for “the transformation of schooling from a twelve-year jail sentence into freedom to learn” by way of  free-form open-source learning.

In examining Gatto’s  comparison as quoted above, I would argue that those elements that he wants the parents of our children to take responsibility for, creating leaders and adventurers who think critically about real-life issues and are able to engage in individual reflection based on an intrinsic motivation for continuous improvement and life-long learning, are exactly the elements that we as educators need to integrate into our instructional programming.  I don’t know if most parents would be up to the task that Gatto describes.

“Consider what society would look like if 65 million trapped school children learning to be consumers were suddenly set to actively imagining themselves in independent livelihoods, adding value to the rest of the community; imagining themselves as producers instead of bored consumers. Wouldn’t we soon be overrun with buffets, Venters, Wassermans, Danica Patricks and Diablo Codys [referenced success stories]? Isn’t that exactly what America needs at this sorry, sterile juncture in our history, not more well-schooled zombies on whose backs only a few can ride?”

What Gatto presents is an argument for educational systems change. I think he goes too far in his call for the elimination of public education in the US.  John [Gatto}, have you ever heard the saying “throwing the baby out with the bathwater”?

My ratings of these two books:

            Weapons of Mass Instruction by John Gatto       

                                                            4 out of 5 FROWNY faces

            Outliers by Malcolm Glidewell      

                                                            4 out of 5 SMILEY faces

I “borrowed ” the following information blast from the Missouri Western Regional Professional Development Center website. Dr. Sherry Copeland is the Director at Missouri Western RPDC. Thanks Sherry!!!!

For some, the Race to the Top grant has been a source of confusion and resentment.  The RPDC will try to offer insight into components of the grant in small doses.

The state recognizes the need for bolstering certain fields in our schools associated with science, technology, economics, and mathematics (STEM) in order for our students to compete in a global society when they leave our systems.  The Race to the Top grant states that schools must provide “…STEM opportunities for all students so that every student will pursue postsecondary opportunities before leaving secondary school”.   Specifically the grant states, “Beginning with the graduating class of 2012, every graduating high school student will have the opportunity to complete one college-level course and at least one field career experience, in addition to taking the courses required to graduate. Beginning with the graduating class of 2014, every Missouri high school must provide opportunities for students to earn dual high school and postsecondary credit equivalent to at least two years (60 credit hours) of postsecondary education”.   The exact wording can be found on page 101 of the Race to the Top Grant.  What this means for high schools is students who are graduating in 2014 must have the opportunity to accumulate 60 hours of post-secondary credit, or an associate’s degree, by the time they graduate.

Schools are going to have to be creative in deciding how to best meet this mandate.  Consideration of teachers’ degrees and certifications, technology, and student needs are just some of the issues that districts will have to address.

If you have not had the opportunity to review the grant, you can access the document by clicking the icon below.Please take the time to read the grant. Reading just the Executive Summary does not allow access to the details of plan implementation. As the old saying goes “the devil is in the details”!