If Virtual Schools Came First

Immersed in the world of virtual schools as I am, I encounter many educators from the bricks & mortar world who seem to start every sentence with “yeah, but…” Here in Minnesota, “yeah, but…” is an antonym for “you betcha.” The yeah-butters see the logic of virtual schools and the benefits they can provide (and are providing) to a wide range of student populations. However, our system is so ingrained that it’s hard for them to envision a system that fully embraces online learning.

Many such conversations got me to thinking, what if virtual schools came first? What if, by some weird quirk of history and technology, we had a whole system of virtual schools well established, and then someone came along and said, “Hey! Let’s build a system of bricks & mortar schools so kids can all come together face-to-face to learn!” The change agents would extol the benefits of students and teachers actually working together in the same room, sharing equipment, talking to each other in real time, and so on.

Because there are always those who resist change, what would the yeah-butters say in this historical fantasy?

“Yeah, but we’d have to build huge buildings in nearly every neighborhood or town! The cost would be outrageous!”

“Yeah, but we’d have to find ways to transport all those kids! We’d need large vehicles specially designed for 30, 40, 50 kids! Imagine the pollution, the safety issues. The cost would be outrageous!”

“Yeah, but then we’d be putting 500, 600, 2500 kids all in the same building for 7 hours each day! (Are you nuts!?) I can’t even imagine what kinds of management and behavior issues that would cause. And teachers would have to deal with all that? No thanks.”

“Yeah, but how would they teach!? All those kids, all those learning styles, all in the same room? I don’t think so. Teachers aren’t trained for that.”

“Yeah, but then we’d have to feed them at least lunch and maybe breakfast, too! So these buildings have to have kitchens and cafeterias and the staff to cook and serve, not to mention the quantity of food we’d need to provide the kids with the same healthy meals they’re getting at home now. Aren’t schools supposed to focus on education, not catering?”

“Yeah, but then all the teachers and students would have to be from the local area! We couldn’t use the best teachers available worldwide! Students wouldn’t be able to work so easily with all their friends from other parts of the world! That would be terribly isolating, especially in small towns.”

“Yeah, but then parents would never see their kids! It would be like the schools were a daycare provider.”

“Yeah, but everyone would have to be on the same schedule! We’d have to have start times and end times, and neither students nor teachers would have the flexibility they have now to work or volunteer or whatever.”

“Yeah, but everyone would have to follow the same calendar! Families couldn’t take vacations wherever and whenever they wanted, and everyone would be trying to go on vacation at the same time.”

Then there’d be the political arguments:

“Yeah, but that’s taking socialized education way too far!”

“Yeah, but you’re talking about the government taking kids away from their parents for most of the day! (Communist!)”

As this historical fantasy continued, schools would no doubt try to maintain as many of their virtual school habits as possible because that’s how the system – from teacher training to funding to pedagogies – was designed. Maybe the kids would be all sitting at computers in a classroom while the teacher sat at their own desk using all the usual virtual school tools. No doubt teachers would struggle with f2f interactions because it wasn’t the job they were trained to do. Some students would immediately take to the new environment, while others wouldn’t be able to participate in the faster-paced classroom discussions (as compared to asynchronous online discussions).

Back here in the real world, the yeah-butters and the traditional system conspire to force virtual schools into the same old mold that created our bricks & mortar schools. From funding laws to calendars to teacher-centered instruction, most virtual schools today are not – indeed, cannot – take advantage of all the chronological, geographical and pedagogical flexibility that our modern tools can provide. But we’re making progress. Blended models are already the norm in higher education and the K-12 system is well on its way. Ultimately, the legitimate concerns of the yeah-butters and the vision and enthusiasm of the you-betchas will result in more flexible system that maximizes the benefits of both worlds and thus better serves the students. All students.

To that, we can all say, “You betcha!”

GLBTQ Studies – More than sex, HIV and bullying

Ask most school administrators or teachers where in the curriculum they discuss glbtq issues and, if their school is fairly progressive, they’ll likely answer that their health class and their anti-bullying efforts include some information for and about glbtq youth. In not-so-progressive schools, the answer would more likely be a swift kick out the door.

I do not wish to criticize the excellent and difficult work done to get the needs of glbtq youth represented in those schools where such needs are indeed represented. It has taken many years and much dedication by lots of people to get just this far. Furthermore, the focus of these efforts on health and safety makes perfect sense considering Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. However, there is much more to understanding the people, issues, and cultures of the glbtq population.

With Kelly Huegel, author of GLBTQ: The Survival Guide for Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender and Questioning Youth, I wrote the GLBTQ Studies for GLBTQ Online High School. Researching and writing this course was a great learning experience for me, and I was struck by just how invisible the glbtq community is in the typical high school curriculum. [This course is now available for both teachers and students nationwide. For teachers, Hamline University in St. Paul is providing graduate credits from their education department. Register now at http://www.glbtqonlinehighschool.com/glbtq-studies)%5D

If we understand the glbtq population as a minority culture that always has been and always will be part of the human experience, we can focus on identities rather than behaviors. In doing so, we can increase understanding, reduce fear, and ultimately improve the atmosphere in schools and the workplace for all glbtq people.

So where should glbtq issues be included in the curriculum? Everywhere.

English class: High school literature classes often discuss the married lives of writers like Shakespeare and the affairs of William Faulkner. Such discussions are designed to create a better understanding of what motivates and influences the literature. An even more direct connection between literature and the authors who create it would be the relationship between Gertrude Stein and her lesbian partner. Studying Stein’s “Autobiography of Alice B. Toklas,” recently identified by Time magazine as one of the most important memoirs of the 20^th century, would certainly require the discussion of GLBTQ issues. There are countless such examples throughout the literary world.

Science class: At this point in our knowledge development, science doesn’t provide clear answers about how or why different sexual identities or gender identities develop. We only know that it’s likely a complex interaction between genes, hormones and the environment. The study of biology, chemistry and environmental science can all be enhanced by the inclusion of GLBTQ issues, right down to a discussion of the fetal development of intersex (hermaphroditic) variations to the age-old question, “Is it a boy or a girl?”

Math class: Many math teachers recognize that including notable mathematicians is one way to engage students in what is too often a dry topic. How about a mathematician that became a war hero? Alan Turing came up with the concept of a computer (The Turing Machine) and was responsible for cracking the Enigma code, a mathematical accomplishment that was a key to defeating the Nazis. He was also chemically castrated for the crime of homosexual behavior. His public and private lives ruined by the punishments for his “crime,” Turing committed suicide in 1954. Only recently did the Queen of England pardon him and honor him for his contributions, and 2012 has been declared Alan Turing Year.

Social studies: Too easy. I’ll just mention a few topics: Privacy rights and the Fourth Amendment. The role of government in private lives. Kinsey Reports. Lavender Scare and McCarthyism. The Stonewall riots. Equal protection under the law and the Fourteenth Amendment. Marriage equality, Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell and other modern issues. And that’s just the last century.

Many people insist that it is critical that all glbtq people “come out” to reduce the social invisibility of the glbtq community. Much research has shown that the more people are aware of all of the glbtq people around them, the more comfortable and accepting they become. Besides coming out, including topics such as those above in the school curriculum can provide another way to reduce social invisibility. Unfortunately, most teachers are victims of the same system that kept glbtq issues invisible for so long. Most simply don’t have the content background they need, and even the most dedicated have difficulty finding appropriate materials. (Hint, hint: GLBTQ Studies for Teachers, register now at http://www.glbtqonlinehighschool.com/glbtq-studies)

Of course, some people are concerned that including GLBTQ issues in schools would “normalize” variations in sexuality and gender identities. That’s probably true. And since glbtq people have always been part of our communities, what’s wrong with that?

Bad students – from the student’s perspective

While I’m conducting a quality review of a failing urban school, a teacher catches my eye. “You really have to visit my class and see what I have to put up with every day,” she says. “These kids are awful!” When my schedule allows, I oblige. I’ve played this game before, but maybe, just maybe, this time will be different.

Nope.

I sit, I watch, I listen. When the opportunity allows, I talk with the kids, but this class isn’t giving me that chance. Nearly all of the students are totally unengaged in the lesson. The teacher is sitting at her desk with her paper under the document camera. The projected image reveals the way she is squeezing her work into a worksheet already crowded with numerous math problems. She is solving one problem while explaining what she is doing to an inattentive audience. The kids are whispering, passing a few notes, tossing pencils to each other. A few of the students are actually trying to pay attention to the teacher. There is no violence, harassment or other severe behaviors. They are just passing their time. The teacher gives me a sideways glance as if to say, “See, I told you they were impossible to teach!”

I see it differently. I’m watching a painfully dull lesson that has little or no relevance to the students. The teacher is doing nearly of the talking and usually answering her own questions after a few milliseconds pause. At her best, she focuses on three students who are actually paying attention and ignores the fact that everyone else in the room is totally unengaged. Some of the students have already finished the entire worksheet, while others are totally lost. The teacher never told them what they were supposed to be learning or why. She is presenting a math problem utterly without context. The worksheet provides insufficient room for the student to demonstrate their thinking, try multiple approaches, or otherwise engage with the content. No matter – the teacher has explicitly told them to do it her way and no other way. Her reasoning is clear: “Because I’m the teacher and I said so.” I’m actually amazed at how well the students are behaving. I’m sure I’d be much worse if I had to sit through that every day. Day after day. Hour after hour.

I catch up with one of the students at lunch in the cafeteria. I tell him that it’s my job to gather perspectives, and that there are no wrong answers to my questions. Even though he’s obviously pleased to be asked for his opinion about the class I saw, I’m a total stranger. He needs to test me. “Man, that is some dull, stupid shit,” he says. He looks at me questioningly, wondering how I’m going to react to his profanity. I smile at him, close my notebook, put down my pen, and lean in a little closer. Less official, less threatening, more confidential. He gets the message – it’s his world, not mine that I’m interested in. Any remaining inhibitions are gone, and he really gets going. I love this part of the job.

In his own words and in his own way, and with the contributions of a growing number of friends who have gathered around, he confirms that what I observed in class was typical, not only of that teacher but of most of the teachers in the building. He likes most of the teachers well enough, so doesn’t give them too much trouble, but he knows that he and his friends aren’t learning much. Because the content seems so irrelevant, the lack of learning doesn’t worry him. He doesn’t use the language of education, or even adult language, but he knows exactly what is going on. Teacher-centered instruction totally without context. Ineffective use of technology, poor lesson planning, and total lack of differentiation for students of different abilities or learning styles.

Afterwards, I catch up on my notes and brace myself for the next class, hoping for better. On my way, I pass by the teacher from the morning. “Thanks for being there!” she says. “Now you know what it’s like!”

Indeed I do.

“Thanks for inviting me,” I reply.

The Occupy Education Movement Part II: The Accomplices

Last week I wrote about the overwhelming influence of just a few large textbook companies on our school system to the detriment of high quality, progressive education, and our need to take back our education system. I don’t really blame textbook companies. Like all major companies, they have a job to do, and that’s to make money. The job of schools, however, is to educate children. So why do we let the textbook companies control what we teach and how we teach it? Sadly, we don’t let them. We help them.

Authentic learning, that learning that happens outside of school, on an as-needed basis, on the job or for a hobby, generally doesn’t happen with a teacher, a presentation and a textbook. These days, many of us learn whatever it is we want to know by searching reliable sources on the Internet, watching a YouTube how-to video, or chatting via Skype or Facebook with someone who, if they don’t know it already, are willing to work with us to figure it out. That’s the most natural, enjoyable, easiest learning there is, and it results in the best retention. We identify a need to learn the content, we find the tools and resources we need to learn it, we learn it, and then we immediately apply it to our identified need.

There’s an old adage that teachers teach the way they were taught. Because anybody over the age of about 35 completed their K-12 schooling before most schools had computers, before PDA’s, and long before the iPhone, it’s reasonable to believe that most teachers, administrators and the college professors that train them were not taught using technology to research, analyze and synthesize ideas in unique, rigorous, collaborative investigations aligned to standards.

It’s equally reasonable to believe that most, but not all, of those who become teachers were probably successful and comfortable in that teacher-centered world. It was likely their comfort and success in that model that drew them into teaching in the first place, and after 20 years or so as successful students in that model, they are unlikely to teach significantly differently than they themselves were taught.

In classic do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do fashion, examples abound of professors giving long lectures on constructivism, authentic assessment, and project-based learning. I know that I personally have snickered at the ironies of such a practice on many occasions, particularly in graduate school and professional development workshops. (This is not to say all lecturing is bad – it’s still fine as an introduction. The question is about what you then DO with the new information.)

Without background in these methods, without high quality modeling by master teachers and college professors, and given the many outrageous pressures on teachers’ time in our school system, teachers have little incentive to do things any way other than the traditional way. It’s easy to teach from a textbook. It’s easy for many teachers to stand and talk for 45 minutes. It’s easy to stay comfortable and in control, knowing the answers to all the questions students might ask because they rarely depart from the anticipated script. It’s what students expect. It’s what parents expect. But it’s exactly why our schools are failing so many of our students. We have trapped them and ourselves in an old model that does not work in our current world.

Last week I promised I would try to overcome the valid criticisms of the Occupy Movement in my own version, Occupy Education, by actually offering specific goals and techniques. Last week, Goal 1 was that you stop using your textbooks.

Occupy Education Movement, Goal II:  Truly excellent, creative, progressive, and engaging teaching is extremely difficult work. In the real world, day after day, unit after unit, not every day can be filled with exciting, fascinating stimulating learning. So pick one unit. Or if you’re an administrator, have your teachers focus on just one unit. If possible, have a couple teachers work together on a unit for March or April. Make this one unit an over-the-top, dream-inspired, creative, extravaganza of a student-centered experience with minimal or no use of the textbook or teacher talk. Just one unit. Just once. Give yourself permission to do something really special. Let me know how it goes.

A Happy Thanksgiving to those who celebrate it!

Next week: “Bad students” – from the students’ perspective

The Occupy Education Movement Part I: Textbooks

The current “Occupy” movement of sit-ins and protests, even with its vague goals and lack of leadership, seems to have struck a chord with many Americans and others around the world who are tired of large corporations and wealthy individuals exerting what the protesters see as undue influence on their lives and the economy. Occupy Wall Street has become Occupy Main Street in from Los Angeles to London and many other major cities around the world. It got me thinking: maybe it’s time for an “Occupy Education” movement.

Large corporations and wealthy individuals exerting undue influence in education? In public schools funded by our tax dollars? Really?

The purchased curriculum in nearly all of our nation’s schools comes from one of three companies – down from five just a few short years ago. The Big 3 of textbook publishing, Pearson, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt and McGraw Hill make up over 80 percent of the K-12 publishing market in the U.S. All of these companies are multi-billion dollar entities. Pearson, for example, in 2010 achieved nearly $2.7 billion in sales in their education business alone, and another $900 million in their consumer (Penguin Books) and business (FT Group) arms. Although they are based in London, 60 percent of their business is here in the U.S., meaning that schools in the U.S. spent approximately 1.6 billion dollars on Pearson products in 2010. (Data from Pearson’s 2010 annual report). Most of that was taxpayer dollars from public schools paying upwards of $100 per book for a high school text with an ever-decreasing shelf life.

The point is not to pick on Pearson – they’re just one of several, and they’re just doing what big businesses do. They expand, grow, and make more money wherever they can get it. So what’s the problem? There are several, and this week I’ll focus on just one.

Textbooks – be they paper or electronic – promote and maintain a false picture of the development of knowledge and understanding in today’s world. They hearken back to the day when new knowledge could only be obtained from Encyclopedia Britannica, school textbooks or a teacher. By today’s standards, new information was uncovered so slowly that an 8-year-old textbook was not a problem. There were so few sources, relative to today’s world, that learners had little choice but to take their teachers’ and textbooks’ words as near gospel – even when the textbooks or the teachers were wrong. (See the classic “Lies My Teacher Told Me” by James W. Loewen.)

Now that anyone with so much as a smartphone can find up-to-date information on any topic from any number of sources, alternative and more authentic learning methods have become a reality. It’s easy to find primary sources and multiple perspectives, and cross-check information on any topic in as much time as it takes to make a book cover out of a paper bag. Project-based and problem-based learning, authentic assessments, and rich, interdisciplinary research, previously reserved for graduate students, can now be done at any grade level without textbooks. This kind of learning emphasizes critical thinking far beyond a textbook’s nifty little t-chart showing two different perspectives on the Viet Nam War. It could also potentially save school systems, and therefore taxpayers, billions of dollars each year.

Ay! There’s the rub! Publishing companies have a strong interest in not promoting these kinds of authentic learning experiences. Their entire multi-billion dollar business model is based on a worldview where knowledge is only found in books that they produce. They don’t want you to know that the Internet, used properly, contains information that is more up-to-date, more thorough, and more balanced than anything they could ever produce. They don’t want you to know that you as an educator just don’t need them anymore.

The worldwide “Occupy” movements are understandably and accurately criticized for lacking clear goals, and I wish not to replicate that particular mistake. So, let me be as clear as I can be:

Occupy Education Movement, Goal 1: Stop Using Textbooks. Today. Students hate them. Teachers become dependent on them. They’re outdated, outmoded, and a waste of money.

Next week: Occupy Education Part II: The Accomplices

Why I’m a School Governance-Model Agnostic

There are times when reading the newspapers, both mainstream and education publication such as Education Week, that one might easily conclude that some people think that the governance and funding model of a school is critical to its success. To that, I say “hogwash.” Governance and funding model arguments are for politicians, unions and school reformers with political agendas. Those who truly focus on student learning have other things to think about.

If the job of schools was for adults to manage themselves, then the way in which they do so might be important. However, schools do not exist for their own gratification. They are not jobs programs for adults, stepping stones for board members to get to higher office, or political footballs to be tossed around and manipulated for the gain of ambitious politicians. Yes, schools are often used in all those capacities, but any tool or organization can be misused. Lest we forget, the job of schools is to help students learn. Period.

In the debate about public, private, and public charter schools, the only question we would really need to answer is, “which type of school is most effective at helping students learn?” Untold millions of dollars have been spent researching this question. Ph.D.’s have been earned, professorships attained, and entire careers defined by trying – and failing – to answer this question. While some studies fall in one camp or another, the literature as a whole is inconclusive. That’s because it’s the wrong question.

When we look at the literature on the factors that impact student learning, the quality of the teacher is consistently number one. If we can agree on that, then the question becomes, “which type of school results in the highest quality teaching?” Of course, research is inconclusive for the same reason: this is, once again, the wrong question. Rarely does the makeup of the school board or the funding source control the quality of the teacher in the classroom.

I have had the good fortune to work with a very large number and variety of schools. I estimate that in one capacity or another, I have worked with over 200 schools, and personnel from many, many more. I have seen great teachers who were unlicensed, teachers in private schools, and I have seen horrible, nearly criminally bad teaching from licensed teachers in public schools. I have also seen private schools that use curriculum that promotes scientific ignorance and instruction that deliberately tries to squelch critical thinking skills. At the suggestion they teach multiple perspectives and analysis, one administrator in such a school actually responded in horror, “But if we teach that way, we’re going to teach students to think for themselves!” I have also seen excellent public school teachers, committed beyond reason, consistently dedicated to improving their craft. I only hope they don’t burn out in a few short years.

Private schools can be expensive, high quality boarding schools teaching the so-called upper echelons of society, or they can be tiny, poorly funded church schools in the middle of nowhere. Public schools can be huge, well-funded suburban schools with every imaginable elective course and activity to motivate students or they can be dilapidated urban schools with ceiling tiles falling down and years-old water damage on the floors filled with burned out, seemingly barely breathing teachers. I’ve visited schools that fit each of these descriptions.

When politicians, reformers or researchers ask those misguided questions about which type of school is better for students, they are assuming that the governance and funding model is an important factor that significantly impacts student achievement. It is not. The fact is that the governance model has not been shown to be such a dominant factor, and thus we can always expect a “no significant difference” result in any such research.

There are few truths in education that I hold to, but one of those is that every school, without exception, has at least one excellent teacher and at least one terrible teacher. This is true regardless of governance and funding model. We should be spending our time and money not on alternate governance models, but on teaching and learning practices that truly have the potential to help students learn.