South Orangetown Central School District

“ON DEVELOPING HUMAN CAPITAL”
I recently served on a panel to share how schools are developing human capital. The event’s sponsors had good intentions in trying to link the work of schools with that of business. Yet, the unintended implication that children and adolescents represent chattel in an economic engine that is being fueled by schools was disconcerting. Though, considering the design of the current school reform movement, I was not surprised.

There is a renewed utilitarian perspective on the purpose for school. U.S. and New York State policymakers call for College and Career Readiness. Their argument is based on a need for international competitiveness. While pragmatism is typically healthy, the recent approach is both ironic and counterproductive.

Many educators are concerned that we are narrowing our curriculum and educational priorities to prepare students for assessments while other countries, such as Finland and China, are making advances via the emulation of those elements of U.S. education that foster creativity and innovation. States, such as New York, are abandoning a model that created a generation of entrepreneurs and inventors who led the world in patents and Nobel prizes.

The new reform agenda has produced the following:

• teacher and student-test cheating scandals;

• an “award-winning” school in Texas – discovered to have dropped science, history, and the arts to achieve high scores on the state test;

• school districts that drop their arts and extracurricular programs due to limited resources or a need for more time to prepare students for tests;

• untested professional accountability systems – based on student exam results – that are likely to further narrow the scope of instruction to “make the grade”;

• New York math and reading exams for seven and eight year olds will exceed four hours per test. Tests are being planned for other subjects.

These represent a stark departure from an educational experience that should spark joy in learning, not anxiety. Such changes are occurring with no evidence that they will work.

Of course there is a need to develop skills and knowledge that will be required for future jobs. We are in the midst of a major information technology revolution; but is the education establishment setting a course to provide students with the right learning experiences to truly enable them to help advance our society during these transformative times? Does our focus on testing and accountability allow for a curriculum that fosters creative and innovative learning? What will we lose by narrowing learning experiences?

We must develop creative and critical thinking in our students to spark the next IT idea, healthcare intervention, transportation innovation, or clean energy solution. The U.S. economy needs creative knowledge products to compete in an interdependent global marketplace.

Such creators and creations are not developed in test-driven institutions in which the objectives are to sort and select those who are “college and career ready”. School must be much more than the development of human capital.

Earlier this month, the Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded to a trio of American astronomers who have discovered through the tracking of distant supernovae that the universe is expanding at a faster rate than previously believed.  This is not unlike the amount of curriculum content that New York and other states are expecting our students to learn.  Since the 1950’s there has been a continual expansion of content requirements within each curriculum and across all content areas, yet the amount of time that we spend in school has remained essentially the same. 

In spite of this discrepancy, our students have kept pace with teachers helping them to discern what is essential and what might be tested.  This coincides with the fact that more students than ever are attending school and for a longer period of time.  Prior to the 1960’s students of diverse backgrounds, English language learners, and students living in poverty, in spite of what some people might remember, did not populate the halls of the American high school to the extent to which they do today. Even with a homogenous student body, the graduation rate was only around 50%.  A small percentage of these graduates went on to college with less than a quarter of them graduating with a degree.

Today, we hear that our students need to be “college and career ready” so that America can be globally competitive.  This readiness must happen in spite of the fact that the organizational architecture of the public school has not changed, the curriculum continues to expand, and the population that attends school presents more challenges than ever before.  Of course, there will be more tests in this era of accountability that will take a different form and be based on national Common Core Standards.

In South Orangetown, we have an aligned curriculum and use assessment, not merely as a tool to determine grades, but as a mechanism to determine how well students have learned content or acquired skills.  With that information, we adjust our lessons accordingly, although this often becomes difficult to do when teachers feel pressured to cover the content of a rapidly expanding curriculum.

We have accepted the reality that not all curriculum content can be “covered” well.  Yes, it can be disseminated, but there is a good chance that it will be forgotten shortly after the assessment as the brain tends to dump data that it no longer considers useful or for which there has been neither meaningful engagement nor emotional connections.  The brain is efficient, unlike those who mandate additions to the curriculum.

To help embed learning by making it more meaningful, district instructors have been encouraged to employ approaches that require students to use information or skills that we teach or to which we provide access to think both critically and creatively to solve problems.  In some cases, we present a problem and ask them to find solutions – a task that will undoubtedly be asked of them as they venture to college or in a career.

Gone are the days when American workers are paid well to perform routine tasks that require little independent thinking.  Machines, robots, computers, and cheap offshore labor have provided leaders of the free market with greater opportunities for profit without paying high wages and benefits to American workers.  This reality has changed our world and economy.

Recently, parents contacted me indicating that their child would learn better in an instructional environment in which there were direct transactions between the teacher and his students – a straightforward dissemination of information – and the students and the teacher – demonstration of content retention on a test.   In the experiences and mental models of these parents and many adults of previous generations, this is how school is supposed to work.  In such a model, there is control, predictability, certainty, and a clear cause and effect. 

This instructional model no longer works in a world in which there has been an explosion of information with immediate access to it.  This instructional model no longer works in an information age in which knowledge workers are required to solve problems, create alternatives, understand the complexity of systems, and perform a host of critical thinking processes while technology transforms our society and workplace at an unprecedented rate. 

If we want our children to be prepared for a complex future that will likely be packed with more information than ever in our rapidly expanding universe, then we need to require them to become independent thinkers who will have the skills and capacity to manage vast volumes of information with critical and creative thinking.  This will require an acceptance and understanding that there is too much information for anyone to absorb and retain, and even if one had the capacity to do so, what good would it be if there was no independent ability to use it in a productive way? 

The Governor Weighs in on Teacher Assessment
Over the last week, there have been media reports related to teacher evaluation and student assessments. Following the work of experienced educators who were asked for their input on the development of a model to evaluate teachers and principals, on the weekend just before the Board of Regents were to meet to consider the strengths and weaknesses of the proposal, Governor Cuomo recommended that New York State test scores be allowed to count for double the amount that had been originally proposed by the State Education Department and the Regents Task Force that was working to refine the plan.

The revised model for teacher evaluation requires that teachers be rated on a 100% scoring system that uses New York State assessments for as much as 40% of the score. The remaining 60% will be determined by a teacher evaluation rubric with leveled criteria that is based on a newly developed set of teaching standards. The original plan assigned 20% of the teacher’s evaluation score to be based on the State assessment. Local districts would have had the option of choosing from a State-approved menu of assessments that may have been more in line with the kinds of learning experiences that were occurring in the local district. Because of the Governor’s recommendation, the weight of one state assessment has now been doubled.

If the New York State assessments accurately capture rigorous student learning over the course of a year and we have a sufficient number of assessments for all of the content and skills that are taught throughout the K-12 system, then the doubling might make sense. However, if there are questions about both the accuracy of the assessments and the limited scope of grading tools for other disciplines, then this new system to evaluate teachers is troublesome.

Depth of Knowledge and Assessment Design
It is often stated that we need more rigorous learning in schools. Rigor goes beyond quantity. While practice is important in the development of skills, in some instances repetition, especially when errors are being “practiced”, can be deleterious to learning.

If rigor and depth of knowledge go beyond how much is taught and extend to quality, how do we know it when we see it? How do we assess for it? How do we ensure that our learning experiences provide for it in a developmentally appropriate way?

In designing appropriate assessments, the evaluator must first decide the knowledge levels that we expect students to demonstrate. On the recall level, it may be easy to assess by asking students to define, calculate, repeat, recognize, label, list, draw, or recite. While such basic “recall” learning is fundamental to higher levels of learning, too often, these areas may be over-assessed, even by the State.

A second and deeper level of knowledge addresses the acquisition of skills and understanding of concepts that build upon recall. The learners are asked to demonstrate knowledge by classifying, estimating, relating, comparing, organizing, summarizing, inferring, identifying patterns, and other similar tasks. Comprehension and application can be also assessed and perhaps through the kinds of assessments that the state will administer.

It becomes more difficult to assess students when we move to a third level that asks students to demonstrate their thinking. Can they develop a logical argument? Can they develop a scientific model regarding a complex situation? Can they apply concepts to new contexts or to solve non-routine problems? These kinds of thinking tasks require more sophisticated assessments that take more time and more complex instruments or processes.

Higher Standards
If that is all that our State or even our local schools and teachers expect from students then perhaps the new model is sufficient. However, if we want our students to go even deeper to a level of understanding where they will extend their thinking by analyzing, creating, designing, and synthesizing from multiple sources – the kinds of innovation that are essential for preparing them for a complex future – then the efficient and standardized assessment system that the State believes will effectively assess its teachers may be insufficient for also ensuring that our students are brought to this deepest level.

When assessment is complex, time-consuming, and in need of contexts other than testing rooms, one can assume that the cost factor increases, making it more difficult to standardize and administer across a state. However, if the assessment is reduced to assess recall, skills, and basic conceptual knowledge – superficial levels of understanding – then it may accomplish the task of gathering information on teachers teaching to these lower levels and students being prepared for such assessments.

Assessment Priorities
If the State truly wants a rigorous learning experience that challenges students to think both strategically and in extended ways, assessment will have to take forms other than a simple paper and pencil test in May. We may actually have to trust that teachers will provide our students with such rigorous learning experiences that they will assess in context. We may also have to accept that not all of these experiences are easily measured in such a way that the State will be able to grade teachers.

It is hoped that the Board of Regents and Governor Cuomo have enough knowledge and expertise about the kinds of assessment experiences upon which 40% of a teacher’s evaluation will be based to assure us that there will be no dilution of learning across New York State. It is also hoped that the State does not want to grade our teachers more than it wants to ensure that our students are challenged to think more deeply.