kitchen table math, the sequel: nonconsumers and the schools

Tuesday, May 13, 2008

nonconsumers and the schools

The Crimson Avenger has another terrific post up about the permanent struggle to reform the public schools.

It seems to me that the education reform work of the past few decades has all focused on combat strategies. We “attack”, so to speak, by instituting new requirements – standards, assessments, etc. – and by pushing for new models of public schooling (charters).

But what we’ve seen is that our pushes have all been blunted, subverted, and ultimately used to reinforce the status quo. Set academic standards, and what was meant to be a baseline floor becomes a ceiling. Require assessments, and the cut scores are set so low that almost every school looks like a high performer. Insist on charters, and then allow the state department of education to act as the authorizing body, ensuring that nothing markedly different gets through. (And then reduce the funding those charters get just to make it interesting.)

[snip]

What if we stopped trying to fight? What if we realized that we can’t reform a monopoly from the outside, and that there’s no incentive to do it from the inside? What if we tried a different approach?

What if we shifted our focus to a war of attrition?

Imagine what would happen if we stopped trying to reform the system, and instead just said, “Clearly, we have different ideas about education. So we’re dropping out. If there are parents who want what you offer, that’s fine. I don’t, so I’m sending my kid elsewhere – which means you won’t be seeing the money he represents any more.”

I personally have reached the conclusion that the system can't be reformed. I say "personally" because I'm not sure I'm right, though I think I probably am. The schools aren't going to change. Individual schools, yes. But the system? No. I don't see it happening.

I had this revelation as the result of an email exchange with a longtime veteran of the schools here. She made me see the reality of what Crimson is saying: when parents have "won" -- when the programs parents put weeks, months, and years of their lives into making happen finally happened -- they weren't what parents had worked for.

They were something else.

Exhibit A: foreign language instruction in the grade school. A group of parents here spent 8 years lobbying for foreign language instruction in K-5.

The administration, backed by the school board, blocked them all the way.

Ultimately, though, the parents prevailed, and foreign language instruction was "implemented" in grades 4-5.

What did that mean?

That meant French and Spanish were both taught to all kids: French one semester, Spanish the next. Or vice versa. Your child couldn't take just one language and develop proficiency. He had to take one language for half the school year and then drop that language and start taking a whole other language the next semester, pretty much guaranteeing he would retain neither.

Also, the school didn't teach spoken French or Spanish. There were no language labs, no language CDs, no use of the school laptops to help kids acquire a native accent before the window closed at puberty a year or two later.

The school didn't teach very much in the way of French or Spanish vocabulary or grammer, either (this wasn't the teachers' fault). Instead, the school taught "the culture." Songs, cooking projects, things of that nature.

That was the beginning, and the district has been chipping away at the program ever since. This year they may be down to just one day of foreign language culture instruction a week.

Now the town is asked to vote in an 8% tax increase which will go, in part, to funding "enhancements" to the program.

Meanwhile there probably isn't a parent in town who does not want real foreign language instruction offered in K-3, but the school isn't going to be teaching foreign language in the early grades. It's out of the question.

Well, it's not quite out of the question. The superintendent says she wants to offer Chinese. A regular 21st century language, Chinese.

That's not going to happen.

The Avenger is right. The public can't win, and whenever the public does win, the win ends up being a loss. Another one.

That's why I was blown away when I read this prediction at the new Fordham blog, Flypaper:

[B]y 2019, half of all high school classes will be taught online.

How Disruptive Innovation Will Change the Way the World Learns

from the article in Education Week:
Clayton M. Christensen, the book’s lead author and a business professor at Harvard University, is well respected in the business world for his best-sellers The Innovator’s Dilemma, published in 1997, and The Innovator’s Solution, published in 2003.

Those books analyze why leading companies in various industries—computers, electronics, retail, and others—were knocked off by upstarts that were better able to take advantage of innovations based on new technology and changing conditions.

School organizations are similarly vulnerable, Mr. Christensen contends.
“The schools as they are now structured cannot do it,” he said in an interview, referring to adapting successfully to coming computer-based innovations. “Even the best managers in the world, if they were heads of departments in schools and the administrators of schools, could not do it.”

Under Mr. Christensen’s analytical model, the tables typically turn in an industry even when the dominant companies are well aware of a disruptive innovation and try to use it to transform themselves.

[snip]

With the advent of new technologies, companies usually resort to “cramming down” the innovations onto their existing systems, an approach that generates only incremental improvement, he says.

Upstart organizations—though they cannot at first compete head to head with the leaders—find markets for innovative products and services among “nonconsuming” groups who are are priced out of the main market or are seen as peripheral by the leaders. The nonconsuming groups embrace the innovations, which gradually improve until they are better than the top products—and sweep to dominance, according to the book.

[snip]

Like the leaders in other industries, the education establishment has crammed down technology onto its existing architecture, which is dominated by the “monolithic” processes of textbook creation and adoption, teaching practices and training, and standardized assessment—which, despite some efforts at individualization, by and large treat students the same, the book says.

But new providers are stepping forward to serve students that mainline education does not serve, or serve well, the authors write. Those students, which the book describes as K-12 education’s version of “nonconsumers,” include those lacking access to Advanced Placement courses, needing alternatives to standard classroom instruction, homebound or home-schooled students, those needing to make up course credits to graduate—and even prekindergarten children.

[snip]

Those providers will gradually improve their tools to offer instruction that is more student-centered, in part by breaking courses into modules that can be recombined specifically for each student, the authors predict.

Such providers’ approaches, the authors argue, will also become more affordable, and they will start attracting more and more students from regular schools.

Mr. Christensen and his co-authors apply an S-shaped curve, accepted in the business-research literature as a mathematical model of disruptive change in industry, to data from 2000 to 2007 to predict that by 2019, online learning will account for 50 percent of high school course enrollments.

The prediction is based on current projections of the supply of qualified teachers and of the costs of traditional and computer-based learning. “As long as that ratio stays the same, we’ll see that happen,” Mr. Christensen said. “Who knows if it is 2019, 2017, or 2020, but sometime around there, it should hit 50 percent.”

[snip]

He underscored that the book does not aim to frighten school leaders, but to urge them to treat the approaching changes as an opportunity rather than a threat.

“If they will set up heavyweight teams and create the new architecture for the curriculum in a new space—so they have a school within a school, or a different school underneath the umbrella of the district—at that level the school can truly transform itself,” he said.

Online Education Cast as 'Disruptive Innovation'
by Andrew Totter
Education Week
Vol. 27, Issue 36, Pages 1,12-13

I find Christensen's argument utterly compelling.

nonconsumers

Look at the pitch for K12:

James is reading over 130 wpm and is only a second grader.

Sophie’s brain seems to have undergone somewhat of a mental explosion.

I hope you go to bed each and every night knowing what a HUGE difference your work makes for some of these precious children.
Both girls are superior cognitive gifted. The private school taught to the middle. Now, both children are able to work at their own pace.
No more phone calls from the school to tell me how Bruce “didn’t get anything done today.” No more wasted days where Bruce just killed time at the school.
She was getting C’s and D’s at her public school and was being bullied. She entered last year, two years behind. In one year she completed two math courses 100%.

The other day my son said, “You know mom, three years ago I thought I was dead fish on the wayside of the beach and now I feel like I am an eagle in the sky looking down and know I can soar.

That's a whole lot of nonconsumers ripe for the plucking.

And check out Bror's Blog: Middle School Changes Afoot in the Brick and Mortar World.

Brick and mortar world.

Sounds creepy. Makes me feel like enrolling my kid in the wholesome high-tech online learning world where I can keep an eye on him.

I'm serious. The K12 pitch works for me. Really works. This is some of the most effective advertising I've ever seen, possibly because I am, relatively speaking, a nonconsumer who's just been alerted to a whole new world of possible fun consumption. A nonconsumer being captured by a disruptive innovator.

Here's the high school pitch. It works, too. Sign me up!

Of course, part of what makes this material so effective is the fact that it's a pitch at all.


don't try this at home

Let's watch what happens as a nonconsumer begins the process of becoming a consumer:

find your path

vs.

"If students need distributed practice, parents can find worksheets online."


Oh, and here's Bror.

108 comments:

Allison said...

Did any of you read Neal Stephenson's The Diamond Age?

concernedCTparent said...

Educational Facilities within the Context of a Changing 21st Century America

http://www.edfacilities.org/pubs/Ed_Facilities_in_21st_Century.pdf

Kenneth R. Stevenson
University of South Carolina
2006

"The future will build on this emerging technology and take us to new heights in terms of integration of learning -- with computers, with telecommunications, with virtual reality, and with the community as a whole (Lackney 2001). For example, picture a teenager, let’s call her Savannah, waking up on October 15, 2055. She washes down her nutritional, but artificially engineered, breakfast bar with synthesized orange juice, and heads for her learning capsule. The capsule, located in family’s communication center off the den, is a fully self-contained learning center. Through state-of-the-art telecommunication interfaces, she has access to the best teachers in the nation and, in some cases, the world. Using her wonderfully sophisticated and powerful computer of the day, one about the size of your wallet and voice activated, Savannah literally can and does conduct virtual science experiments -- such as dissections that have every appearance and even the odor of reality. Later, she electronically connects with her French language partner, a student in Paris. She helps him with his English enunciations, while he helps her with French verb conjugations."

Of course, there's more to Stevenson's scenario than that brief introduction and it's really worth reading.

concernedCTparent said...

Here's more...

"And, what really pleases Savannah’s parents is that the capsule and the learning materials are absolutely free. In the mid-2030s the federal and state governments finally realized that funding physical places called schools and staffing them with “highly qualified” teachers on site was no longer feasible financially. They quickly agreed that virtual schools were the answer and that, by providing every student in the country with a learning capsule and “virtual” access to state-of-the-art materials and content experts, the public costs of education would be reduced substantially. So, Savannah and her parents “check out” the capsule during her years of schooling. And, the educational entity periodically updates its operating systems and electronic interfaces. The only things Savannah’s parents have to pay for now are co-curricular activities, such as the drama class that Savannah takes on Tuesdays at her former school."

Anonymous said...

"Did any of you read Neal Stephenson's The Diamond Age?"

Yes.

Um ... I feel that I'm supposed to run with this, but I have no idea in which direction you are expecting me to go :-)

-Mark Roulo

Anonymous said...

Sorry, I didn't have one specific direction, but it's hard to hear people talking about what a panacea the future of Virtual Teaching will be without thinking about that story, and the unintended consequences. I've always wondered if the book was actually prophetic in this way, or if it was too far afield to come to pass.

In the Diamond Age, it requires nanotechnology everywhere to achieve the Primer capable of teaching the girl everything she needs to know. And still, a single individual with massive resources at his disposal "wrote" the content, dependent on a universe equipped with more AI and networking than we'll have in 10 years. The outcome of the "experiment" wasn't exactly what anyone predicted...

hearing someone talk about disruptive technologies in education makes me think about the cultural disruptions in the Diamond Age. It's hard not to imagine that perhaps that's not really the way we'd like to go, necessarily.

I believe in disruptive technologies in many fields, but I don't believe that virtual teaching solves anything. The glossing over of HOW one would achieve the "individualization of content" facilitated by "subject matter experts" (without all of an underlying nanotech and AI structure in your world) seems a bit much to me.

I looked at k12.com's content some tonight. I'm deeply unimpressed. How is this really any different than SMART boards with excellent marketing departments?

Anonymous said...

I agree with the virtual teacher scepticism. I don't think of the tech as something that replaces teachers or teaching by people.

I think of technology as a way to narrow standard deviation by automating agressive, constant, and immediate formative assessment. This, as part of a feedback loop and communication tools, empowers online teachers by leveraging this knowledge into customized lessons and coaching.

You're not replacing teachers, you're creating an environment where they don't recreate the wheel every year and they aren't teaching in a padded room with children delivered in arbitrary ridiculous groupings with 4 year spreads in ability.

Anonymous said...

Just had a thought, a conundrum even. This process began long ago with the advent of the soccer mom didn't it?

My daughter is the consumate soccer mom; soccer, lacrosse, dance, piano, you name it. Aren't the soccer mom and dad evidence of decisions to augment public school?

The conundrum? How come only in non-academic endeavors?

They must place value on those activities and know that PS xyz does not provide it. Could it be that they place value on the academics and assume PS xyz is delivering same?

I recently gave the Singapore Math 5A placement exam to a fifth grade class. This is at the end of the year, just prior to their MCAS state testing (Massachusetts). Most kids gave up by question 3 (of 20). We had a near riot with kids whining about giving them something so hard. For those who may not be familiar with these tests, they're used to see if a student is ready to START that level of work!

We just completed MCAS math with those same kids and the consensus (from the non-rioting smiling faces) was that the test was "really easy", sighhhhhh.

There is a radically different value proposition in play with Singapore Math. Maybe parents need to see examples like this to change their value perceptions.

The Crimson Avenger said...

I love the idea of online/virtual schooling, but some of the ideas floating around ignore basic realities of life. One example is the fact that in many households, both parents work - so where is this virtual schooling to take place? It won't be in the home - you can't leave your child alone all day, particularly at younger ages.

The other issue is that these scenarios assume intrinsic and universal self-motivation on the parts of children - that their innate desire to learn will overcome their innate tendency to goof off :-)

concernedCTparent said...

There is a radically different value proposition in play with Singapore Math. Maybe parents need to see examples like this to change their value perceptions.

When people tell me they don't understand why I'm unhappy with Everyday Math I suggest they have their child do the Singapore Math placement assessment. I tell them it's free and they have nothing to lose, right? Only the brave ones ever do because the results leave a parent feeling very exposed and vulnerable in almost every case.

I'm probably what you consider a soccer mom. We do the soccer, ballet, basketball, baseball thing. But my children also do the academic stuff like Kumon, math club, science center, chess club, and book club. So for us it's not only non-academic.

All this supplementing wasn't enough because of lack of content during the school day. It came to the point that I was supplementing my child's education so much, she was running out of time to be a kid. School was not using her time efficiently or wisely and she wasn't being challenged. That's just not fair.

Our solution was to secede. I worked on trying to change things in our enviably top-performing district until I realized things weren't going to change anytime soon. Not in time for my children anyway. So, I'm homeschooling a fifth grader and very soon I'll be homeschooling the younger two as well.

That doesn't mean it was my first choice though. I wanted my local public school to work. I even explored the charters and private schools around here. I am a reluctant homeschooler (at least I started out that way). Now that I've experienced the difference, I can't say when I'll trust my local public school with my children's education again, if ever.

It all started with a free Singapore Math assessment.

concernedCTparent said...

I recently gave the Singapore Math 5A placement exam to a fifth grade class. This is at the end of the year, just prior to their MCAS state testing (Massachusetts). Most kids gave up by question 3 (of 20). We had a near riot with kids whining about giving them something so hard.

Do their parents know? If that were my fifth grader I would sure want to. Of course, that would probably incite a riot with parents. That's a GOOD thing though.

Parents need that type of jolt to realize that things must change. Without that type of information, they have no weapons in the arsenal. When it comes to dealing with school bureaucracy, parents need every tool at their disposal.

Anonymous said...

Crimson Avenger:

Remember I'm talking about cherry picking. Kids aren't paying for this, parents are. I'm pretty sure that the payer will keep both the payee and the kids honest. The kids I would target are still in school. My kind of parent would be one that:

a)Recognizes their child needs something different.
b)Is willing to trade off soccer for math.
c)Will supervise the activity they are paying for.

If you don't have a parent that will make that happen, you probably don't have a parent willing to pay extra anyway!

concernedCTparent said...

She made me see the reality of what Crimson is saying: when parents have "won" -- when the programs parents put weeks, months, and years of their lives into making happen finally happened -- they weren't what parents had worked for.

They were something else.


YES. Parents inherently know something is amiss with whole language and we end up with balanced literacy. Parents inherently know there is something amiss with Everyday Math, TERC, Connected Math and we end up with balanced math (throw in some fact practice and maybe a computer scaffolding program).

What parents want is something else. They do what they do and we pay for it.

SteveH said...

So, teachers aren't necessary? Well, they're not doing themselves any favors by being facilitators. But this isn't really true in our schools. Teachers teach. The problem is that some do it poorly, the curriculum is bad, they use full-inclusion, and the expectations are low.

I was not impressed by the k12.com site. The sample lesson on plate tectonics was just static screens that were worse than reading a book. We have individualized self-learning right now. It's called a library.

I also looked at their sample lesson on slope for their algebra class. This is pre-algebra and it is very poor. The lesson is silly compared to my son's Glencoe Pre-Algebra book. Anyone can buy a book and sit down and learn. (or maybe not)

So, what's the advangage? What's the change? What is the path, or what would drive this change to individualized instruction?

I consider that the biggest conflict in K-8 is between full-inclusion group learning and individual educational opportunities. Years ago I was talking to one of our school committee members about issues of full-inclusion and she said that it was their dream to create a system that would provide an IEP for each student.

Wow! Using polically correct LD ideas to help kids of all levels. The problem is that they would have to give up (or modify greatly) their assumption of full-inclusion group learning. Individual academic goals would have to take precedence over social goals.

I saw an attempt at this in a nearby charter school. They had full-inclusion for all of the non-core courses, but for things like math and reading, kids were grouped by ability. It was an attempt to mix both academic goals and social goals. It's a nice idea, but I wasn't impressed by their implementation. This was about grouping, not good curricula and teaching.

In our schools, there is more flexibility when kids get to grades 6 - 8. My son jumped a year in math and another child jumped two years. He is taking an on-line geometry course while he is in 7th grade. However, I can't imagine that the school would allow individualized curricula in the early grades (or mass individualization in the later grades), not unless the parents yell and scream. Actually, many have. Their kids are now in private schools. Mine was too, for a while.


The IEP angle is an interesting one if a school model could be developed that met enough social interaction goals. I just don't see how that would happen.


"He underscored that the book does not aim to frighten school leaders, but to urge them to treat the approaching changes as an opportunity rather than a threat."

Right. So they can proactively control the process. Once again, the result would not be what parents want. The school might buy into a product that is just plain bad. Still no choice. You can just go faster through a bad curriculum.

I can't imagine that the public school monopoly would allow for individualized educational assumptions. This is their turf. If a school went to an IEP approach, would they allow parents to choose (from Kindergarten) a Core Knowledge curriculum for their child? Not likely.

I always thought of self-learning as a poor choice by definition. It might be better than some teachers, but that's a different issue. I have yet to see an on-line or interactive course that I liked.

My son likes the social aspects of school, and I'm willing to deal with certain inefficiencies in the process. I don't see education as a race, but schools have to deal realistically with the issues of curricula, ability grouping, and expectations. They struggle to do what's right, but they completely ignore the solution of parental school choice even though they know that this would be better for many kids. They believe that their monolithic solution is better than the individual educational solution driven by parental choice.

Anonymous said...

But how does a school determine an IEP for each child? How do they instruct based on it? Look, we BARELY have an economy of scale now, with teachers reinventing the wheel in their lesson plans every day, every week, etc. There's no way that they can scale to individualized instruction--unless they just mean "individualized student work" and the teacher is merely the facilitator--not a TEACHER at all, not instructing at all.

That's not a model I want. That model only works for those who already know what they don't know.

We still don't even have assessment tools or decent curricula, and we apparently don't know how to quantify what a good teacher does or knows pedagogically either. That means the teacher doesn't know what the child does know, or where the gaps are, and we still don't know what quality materials look like for teaching to a given student, and we don't know how to assess the teacher independent of the student.

We're a long way off from building an engineering process here...whether virtual or not.

SteveH said...

"But how does a school determine an IEP for each child?"

It doesn't. The parents do, but I won't hold my breath.


"We're a long way off from building an engineering process here...whether virtual or not."

I'm ready to decide, even if the school isn't. I just have to worry about my own son. There doesn't have to be one collective solution, just a bunch of individual ones. There has to be a process that provides real choices and then let the parents decide.

Anonymous said...

--There has to be a process that provides real choices and then let the parents decide.


But what if that is what we have?

The parents, most of them, are happy enough with their schools. You aren't? There are a zillion private schools, charter schools, magnet schools, etc. Most are mediocre. Maybe that's what the parents want. That doesn't work for you? You homeschool. Again, I'm seeing a lot of choices on the table. I am doubting that even a small contingent of parents wants what I want. If I'm right, what more choices should I be given?

SteveH said...

"You homeschool."

I think you're getting me mixed up with someone else. My son started in public school, went to a private school for grades 2 - 5, and is now back in our public school. Quite a while back, I went into a long explanation of our reasons. It's not about perfection. It's about choices.


"Again, I'm seeing a lot of choices on the table."

I don't. Not at all. For many parents, there are NO choices. Paying $15,000+++ for private school is not a choice. Homeschooling is not a choice for many parents. Our state has a moratorium on charter schools. When it did allow charter schools, the charter had to be something completely different than what the public schools provide.

I think there can be a lot more choices, whether it's within the existing public school system, with charter schools, or with vouchers. I'm not looking for perfection. I want to see some real choices.

Many parents are not happy one bit. That's why the public school hierarchy is so intent on limiting charter school choice. The Advanced Math and Science Academy Charter School in Marlborough, MA had to fight like crazy to get its charter. On their home page, they say:


"Underlying the curriculum is a fundamental belief that children, given the right opportunities, can master concepts more advanced than those currently taught in most public schools.

We believe that teaching children to apply diligence in a rigorous academic setting is the best way to prepare them for success in the world. We hold all children to high standards and we provide a combination of academic levels and student support services to teach a heterogeneous student population."

They actually use the words "rigorous academic" on their home page!


Parents might seem like they are happy, but many are not at all. But it's not a happy or not happy proposition. It's a choice A versus choice B proposition. Given a slightly better choice, they would be gone in an instant.

Anonymous said...

Sorry, it was a rhetorical device that failed. if one doesn't like the publics, one goes to the privates. if one doesn't like them, one homeschools.

You say where you are there aren't publics and privates and charters etc. there are only expensive privates, lousy publics. But you decided not to move. So you decided it was good enough.

I do NOT believe any more that "Given a slightly better choice "parents" would be gone in an instant."

You decided they weren't worth the effort. And if you decided that, why should I believe the "average" parent feels differently?

But I don't see any data to support that some big cohort of parents would be gone in an instant. They don't even agree on what they want. Here, we have over 3 DOZEN magnet schools in our district, and only 1 of them purports to be academically rigorous. The others have lots of kids at them.

Anonymous said...

I used to work for Digital Equipment Corporation. When I started there it was a $300M company that was making small computers and selling them into markets that IBM disdained. When I left 11 years later it was a $13B company that was having its lunch eaten by the PC. We had a CEO who couldn't see why anyone would ever want to have a computer at home.

My point is that innovation should never be pursued for some higher purpose. You do it to make money. If the stars are aligned you'll make buckets full of money and the higher purpose will evolve on its own. Digital broke the IBM stranglehold on computing only to have its own market eaten.

I would only think to do this to make money, not to 'fix' public education. Sure I want to stress them out but not to fix them. I want to eat their lunch. If it changes their behavior that's a substantial benny but in the mean time I'll be in the Bahammas writing books and sippin' Pina Coladas

concernedCTparent said...

I know lots of parents. Maybe they're not average, I have no idea. Whatever the case, they aren't happy with the public schools in our district. They moved here because they were supposed to be among the best, they pay very high taxes to support the schools, they volunteer their time and talent and yet they remain unsatisfied. Nevertheless, they don't see a good alternative.

I suppose they can move somewhere else, but what formula do you use to assure that the next public school will be any better than the last? We have some magnets around these parts, but they are ALL underperforming and your child would have to bussed for a good many miles. That's assuming they can even get in (random lottery with no academic cutoffs). Most parents cannot imagine homeschooling, still consider it fringe, and cannot justify paying exorbitant taxes and still having to purchase books and such.

They can go private for about 25K a year which means 75K a year when you have 3 children as I do... multiply that by thirteen years of school per child and see how fun that sounds. Of course, there are some other choices but they aren't very good.

So you settle, you pay the big bucks, or you homeschool. Most of the people I know find it easier to settle. They either can't or won't choose the other options.

I DO think the average parent (at least the ones I've come across) believe it's worth the effort, but what are they supposed to do? They move to the best district they can afford only to be disappointed. Not only is it easier to make amends and pay a tutor, it's just about the only option. In our parts, the public school system is the monopoly and they have absolutely no incentive to do things differently. Why should they? They get paid either way.

Anonymous said...

--they remain unsatisfied.

Nevertheless, they don't see a good alternative.

What would a GOOD ALTERNATIVE look like to all of them?

I don't buy that they think the SAME answer is a good alternative. I am fairly certain that the people on this thread don't even agree. That's my point. How do you create something that works when n one agrees on what "Works" means?

I see a lot of parents who make educational decisions for non-educational reasons. They make them for commuting reasons, simplicity of putting all kids in the same school, good afterschool resources, as well as for philsophical reasons--where they remove their children because the school wasn't XXX enough. When those are the reasons for people making the choices they make, how do you convince them that an improved academic solution trumps that?

Paul makes an excellent point: start a business to make money. Disruptive innovation is still just about making money--finding a business model, executing on it and making money. Not about saving the world, not about fixing society, changing society, etc. you can't employ disruptive innovation in order to break the backs of the status quo unless you're going to do that by trying to make money.

On another bit of that thought, one reason why private schools aren't cheaper and don't scale is because private schools value their cachet. Their network is valuable because it IS small--giving everyone that experiences waters down their brand. Ferrari doesn't want to make 1 million cars. So what does a Honda Civic education look like?

concernedCTparent said...

While parents may not agree on what IS a good education, I think they tend to have an intuitive feel for what isn't. Social studies instead of history, for example. Haphazard math education that doesn't stress mastery for another. Language arts without the foundations of grammar is a real bugger too. Project based learning that is pointless tends to get parents grumbling.

As for private schools, I refuse to pay for cachet when that means Everyday Math and balanced literacy. I can get that for free, thank you. I've found that too many private schools have fallen for the same ed school fodder as everyone else. I'd much rather do a better job of it myself when I'm capable and pay a tutor when I'm not.

concernedCTparent said...

Disruptive innovation is still just about making money--finding a business model, executing on it and making money. Not about saving the world, not about fixing society, changing society, etc. you can't employ disruptive innovation in order to break the backs of the status quo unless you're going to do that by trying to make money.

I think that's fantastic, but as a parent that's not my goal. My goal is for my children to receive the best possible education I can provide for them. That is my priority.

My disruptive innovation is removing three children from the district that they will not receive funding for. They also will not benefit from their performance on standardized exams to raise the school average. Finally, the mere fact that I have pulled my children out to homeschool in a high-performing district is a thorn in their side -- they don't like people asking me why because it makes them look bad. While I'm not making money on this venture (I pay high taxes, I have to pay for everything myself, I cannot take on as much work as I would otherwise), it's worth the cost if it is even mildly annoying.

I still dream about saving the world and fixing the broken system, I'm just starting small...with my own children.

Anonymous said...

My wife knits and sometimes she creates unimaginable tangles of yarn from uncooperative skeins. I'm the knot untangeler. She kind of wails on the whole thing until she calls me in.

My strategy is to just go at one tiny little part of the mess at a time. Usually I have no clue if I'm going in the right direction. I just keep plugging away as she hovers and taps her nails. If I keep at it long enough the thing comes undone.

The twin ironies of patience,her with the knitting and not the knots and me with the knots and not the knitting makes me smile. Must be a Dr Seuss in there somewhere.

Anonymous said...

My mother is a knitter. Luckily, Ihave escaped the addiction. Paul, I have an even better idea for how to make money than a new school idea: Knitter's Anonymous, a 12 step program for knitters!

--While parents may not agree on what IS a good education, I think they tend to have an intuitive feel for what isn't.

Right, but that's not enough. It's not enough to reject something. You must positively support something. If you want a system that works for your child, you need to create something in that vacuum.

The k12.com website appeals to those who, for whatever reason, are saying "They don't want their public school". But are they adding any value? From the samples I saw, they are providing AWFUL curriculum materials in the process, but now you can feel like you're not in the public school...does that help one's child? Or have they just found a way to make money without improving the value?

Right now, most parochial schools where I live charge about $300 a month, and they are mediocre. That's the price point that makes people put their kids in there--better than the public school on some axis, for a reasonable price. Would they prefer "less mediocre" at the same price point? Sure--but on what axis? Some want better religious instruction. Some want better sports. Some want a smaller school; some want a bigger one. Some want less bullying. Some want better academics. Where are the nonconsumers in this?

concernedCTparent said...

I think most parents do create something in that vacuum. At least, they do their best to create value. They supplement, they enrich, they help with homework, they pay for tutors, etc. Some people are willing to do more, others less, but I believe the majority of parents do what they can.

Canned homeschool curriculum are an easier alternative but I didn't find one that I felt was rigorous enough. I agree, I didn't feel it added value which for me, was the whole point of the homeschooling secession. I've handpicked each component of my child's education and it certainly wasn't willy-nilly or effortless. We do the best we can.

Nonconsumers come in many flavors. You've got parents protesting the math in schools around the country. To some extent they are nonconsumer, or at least they're trying to be. You've got parents who challenge the silly projects assigned to their children. You've got parents who send their children to charters or magnet schools.

Those who opt for private shool are nonconsumers insomuch as that they've chosen to opt out of the public school system despite having to pay for it through taxation.

Homeschoolers are clearly nonconsumers. However, homeshooling is not for the feint of heart. Not only is there a financial and time commitment that some are not prepared or willing to make, it's not always an easy thing to do. Some states and districts are more hostile environments than others and you have to be ready to defend your decision with friends, relatives and complete strangers.

As long as schools continue to do what they do, parents will do what they can.

SteveH said...

"But you decided not to move. So you decided it was good enough."

We did move our son for four years, but I never said going or staying "was good enough".


"You decided they weren't worth the effort."

"Effort"? I didn't say that. I could say that the private school wasn't worth the money, but that wouldn't be quite it either.

"But I don't see any data to support that some big cohort of parents would be gone in an instant."

Maybe not in your area, but the public schools in our state are scared to death of charter schools. Parents have a strong dislike for sending kids any distance to go to school, but given a reasonable choice in our town, they would be gone. And, given more choice within the existing public school, they will grab it.

Anonymous said...

My mistake. I misinterpreted. You said that currently, after trying various private schools, you've chosen public school, even given the inefficiencies.

But I'll try one more time: this sounds like you saying: the private school wasn't a good fit; moving again wasn't a good fit; and while the public school isn't a good fit, and somehow, more choices would be a better fit, because somehow, those choices would be better than these other ones that don't match up to your criteria.

My question is: what is this elusive set of criteria that would make something a good fit? Can you write it down?

SteveH said...

"How do you create something that works when n one agrees on what 'Works' means?"

Parents don't expect to find a school that meets their ideal. They look at choices and decide which one "works" for them. The more choices there are, the more likely they will find one.

I think a lot of parents aren't used to educational choice. They don't know what to look for. They really haven't thought about it. But choice is always better than no choice. It doesn't guarantee that the choices will be good, but it does provide a process for change that includes parents in the loop.

SteveH said...

"My question is: what is this elusive set of criteria that would make something a good fit? Can you write it down?"

I could (in general terms), but our decision was based on trade-offs. The day that we decided to bring our son back to the public school was the same day I ran into a friend in town who had just decided to send her kids to the private school my son came from. Neither of us were perfectly happy.

The goal is not to define and find my perfect school. I'm just looking for something that is closer to what I believe is a proper education. I have also mentioned before that if this was just about my own son, there would be no problem. I know how to fix the problems and laugh all of the way to the SAT bank, so to speak.

I look at the stinking lousy K-8 math curricula and the intransigence of the schools and I try to find ways not to force my views on others, but to give parents a choice to vote with their feet. This seems to be the only way to force any change.

Anonymous said...

---But choice is always better than no choice. It doesn't guarantee that the choices will be good, but it does provide a process for change that includes parents in the loop.

Your own statements belie this. You keep saying your decision was based on trade offs, that despite the choices you had, you didn't find which one "worked" for you--as you claim parents would somehow manage to do if given even more choices--and when I phrased you as having picked one that worked for you, you told me I was wrong.


The claim that "more choice is better" sounds great, but I don't think you can look at this so short sightedly. There have been some dramatic unintended consequences by the notion that "more choice is better". It seems clear to me that "school choice" using charter schools has done nothing to break the the Public School monster's back. Instead, it created demands for more funding which, instead of starving the monster, led him to be FED EVEN MORE. He's stronger now than before. School choice hasn't been shown to improve anything across the board academically, either, so it's even weakened the argument that such schools are actually better than the status quo. All we've managed to do is say "this entitlement needs to be expanded to serve every microcosm's needs", which again, is NOT the role of government in ANY other sector.

The "but the process includes parents in the loop" sounds an awful lot like what Catherine's experienced. Sure, they're in the loop. and they still can't change the structure.

VickyS said...

I've got to agree with Steve. More choice is better. Steve's choices are limited: expensive private vs. standard district school. But Allison and I are lucky to live in a state that is extremely charter school friendly. Sure, not all of them work. Sure, not all of them will fit my child. But you may find one for your child, and I may find another for mine.

It is not the goal of the charter school movement to break the back of the public (district) schools (although I, for one, would shed no tears were this to happen). The goal is to provide choice for parents. In Minnesota, we can choose from umpteen different charter options. Music school, Core Knowledge schools, Classical Education schools, IB programs, Hmong-centric, Math & Science magnets--you name it, we have it. Moreover, our charter schools have a lot of independence. I'm guessing parents like Steve would give their right arm for such a panoply of choices.

Is it working for us? Is achievement rising? In some schools, yes; in others, no. The marketplace will decide the fate of charter schools, because they have to fight for every child. There are no attendance areas like their are for district schools. There is no "given" population. This is the closest thing we have to a free market in education and I'm grateful for it.

My sons have been in Waldorf schools, district schools, private schools and charter schools. Each of these served a need for at least one of them for a time. I realize how lucky we are to have these options and how I wish people in other states could have the same.

One thing I know for sure is that the charter school my son is currently attending works for him, and he could never access this program in a typical district school. He is in school MTW, and at home Th/F. It is a combination of on-site and virtual learning. Sure works for him! He is so done with school by Wed... and he doesn't have to go back until the following Mon...but he has all sorts of work to do at home on Th and Fri which he loves. He's a 6th grader but they've placed him in mostly 7th grade classes. If they are reading a book that's too sad for him (he's extra sensitive) the teachers accommodate. They do the state testing, yes, but they don't spend the two months preceding it preparing for it.

For someone like Steve to find choices like this, he'd have to move across state lines. That's just not possible. Parents like Steve have their hands tied b/c they do not have adequate choices. It's not about finding "the" perfect school. It's about finding a good fit, and it's about competition. School choice forces competition, which forces schools to differentiate to attract students, thereby further enhancing the options.

Viva la charters!

Anonymous said...

--It is not the goal of the charter school movement to break the back of the public (district) schools

It was the goal of this original post in this thread, wasn't it? Perhaps the reason we keep going in circles is because I'm having a different conversation than all of you.

I thought we were talking about the value of opting out vs. fighting head on, the value of disruptive innovation at breaking the school system in place. What it would take to change things, or what opting out does. Maybe you're talking about something else.

The charters haven't actually supported the opting out. It hasn't weakened the district schools, it hasn't been a disruptive innovation. As far as we can tell by the major studies done, the system hasn't produced statistically significant better schools or better learned students.

If the point wasn't that, then what was it again? To create an entitlement for everyone to get their own little niche school? Because that is what I hear you, Steve and Vicky, saying. That you want tax dollars for a zillion different niche schools, regardless of outputs, and even you haven't decided which one would be the ones you'd support.

The fact that no one on this thread would list what they were looking for in a school keeps me confused. Of course we'll never create an "ideal school", but if you don't have an ideal, then what are you measuring your progress against? How do you know when you've moved toward the "better school" if you don't define the criteria?

Anonymous said...

A perfect school is too big for me to wrap my head around. Let me take a wack at a perfect teaching environment (structure).

a. Every lesson is targeted to a select cohort that is 'ready' for that lesson (it's in the kid's ZPD)

b. Every broadcast component of the lesson is professionally prepared.

c. Every lesson is followed by narrowcast practice and coaching with a teacher who is a content expert.

d. Coaching and practice takes place in the learning cohort you received the lesson with.

e. Each lesson/practice/coaching session is followed by a formative assessment.

f. Each formative assessment is used to determine what cohort a child is placed in tomorrow.

g. Kid's move through the curricula at their personal learning 'rate'.

h. Kid's don't get a pass on a concept deemed to be prerequisite to subsequent topics/concepts, i.e. mastery is the expectation.

i. There are no grade level or other non academically based groupings, i.e. the only criteria to be in a cohort is that you are 'ready' for the upcoming lesson (ready means you have mastery of a sufficient number of dots to be able to connect them to the lesson).

I submit, for your debate, that this is possible to do with the technology available to us today. It was most certainly not possible 'yesterday' and 'yesterday' is when the current school structure evolved.

My conjecture is that the dinosaur would never have been displaced by the mammal without outside interference.

Catherine Johnson said...

For what it's worth, I tend to think of virtual schooling as a crock.....BUT that doesn't change the fact that I find the K12 pitch extremely alluring.

I've got part of a second post written about this.

While parents may not agree on what IS a good education, I think they tend to have an intuitive feel for what isn't.

ABSOLUTELY!

hmmm.... Now that I've committed to "absolutely," I have to qualify that. (a qualified absolute)

I routinely find that parents talking about current events is what education is about. I've had parents complain to me that a social studies teacher was teaching too much about the past.

I'm not sure parents have a feel for coherence --- in other words, for the value of a survey course as opposed to an Oprah Book Club course.

hmm....thinking more...I've definitely seen parents reject constructivist math time and again. Without knowing anything about the math wars, your basic citizen will say TERC is poppycock.

With history & literature, I'd wager that a lot of parents would object to a thematic approach to history, but not to literature.

btw, the reason NY has the good history standards it does is that Christopher Lasch & Diane Ravitch, among others, fought back "thematic" standards.

History is supposed to be taught as a narrative in NY state.

Catherine Johnson said...

I don't think of the tech as something that replaces teachers or teaching by people.

Absolutely.

I do think you'd find nonconsumers who'd pay for inexpensive online teaching over ineffective classroom teaching.

Me, for example.

Whether or not "good" online teaching is better than a bad human teacher; that, I don't know.

It would be better for a motivated student, I think.

Catherine Johnson said...

We have individualized self-learning right now. It's called a library.

No NO NO!!!!

Not true!

No kid can go into a library and figure out which books to use to teach himself plate tectonics --- even to teach himself plate tectonics badly!

Believe me, I've been doing it for 3 years. It's hard. (And I have all my years writing nonfiction journalism to tell me how to pull it off -- it's still hard.)

Catherine Johnson said...

If you guys have time, take a look at ALEKS one of these days. I've used it. Don't know exactly what I think of it -- Paul especially should look at it

It always feels a little stripped down to me but the embedded formative assessment & repetition works.

Catherine Johnson said...

All this supplementing wasn't enough because of lack of content during the school day. It came to the point that I was supplementing my child's education so much, she was running out of time to be a kid. School was not using her time efficiently or wisely and she wasn't being challenged. That's just not fair.

Our solution was to secede.


Same here.

My district is going to procede with constructivist reform, fully supported by the school board.

The group of disaffected parents probably isn't large enough to elect a board member -- and even if we did elect a board member that would be just one person.

Talking to parents yesterday I realized how much people think about besides academics. The kids' social lives are very intense, with feuds and snubbing and all of that. Apparently we have a fairly significant "mean girl" problem (this is what other parents tell me).

As you can imagine, parents of girls who are being snubbed by other girls aren't thinking about academics so much. They're upset about their kids being hurt by other kids, and they're angry with the parents of those kids.

One mom told me there are people in town she still doesn't speak to because of situations like these.

So...most parents don't know too much about education and don't want to; they're paying a fortune in taxes for schools to handle the job.

They do think about their kids emotional well-being.

And they have jobs, etc.

There aren't that many of us as "hyperfocused" on academics as I am.

Catherine Johnson said...

The charters haven't actually supported the opting out. It hasn't weakened the district schools, it hasn't been a disruptive innovation.

Is this true?

I have a memory of Doug, who lives in CO, saying that public schools there are now actively recruiting parents.

I'll have to get my polling data posted.

There's been a massive decline in public opinion of the schools (of public schools, I mean). This is part of the mortgage crisis, in fact. People like me are bankrupting themselves to pay for "high-performing" suburban schools.

Now charter schools have a better reputation amongst the college educated and, I believe, the Hispanic population. (Ed Next has the article.)

Charter schools & NCLB both undermine the cultural legitimacy of public schools.

Catherine Johnson said...

I always thought of self-learning as a poor choice by definition. It might be better than some teachers, but that's a different issue. I have yet to see an on-line or interactive course that I liked.

I guess I think self-teaching is pretty good for adults. I do it all the time.

For kids I want direct instruction, lots of formative assessment, and a coherent curriculum!

Catherine Johnson said...

How is this really any different than SMART boards with excellent marketing departments?

I'll tell you how.

Your kid isn't being given a B or a C on his high school transcript.

In a high-performing public school you have SMART Boards and your kid gets graded on the fact that he didn't manage to learn Earth Science from a SMART Board..

Then, when your kid applies to college, the admissions officer thinks, "Where's the beef?" This kid has it all, went to a rich white school, and he's got a B in Earth Science?

NEXT.

Catherine Johnson said...

I'm not kidding about that. A nominally high-performing suburban school is a handicap for two reasons: it raises expectations for the student (admissions people think he should be stellar) and it gives him lower grades than he would have earned in a non high performing school.

Disruptive innovation?

Try grade inflation.

Something I'd pay for.

Anonymous said...

I've not wanted to pump a product here, preferring to keep the discussion a little more theoretical. Sometimes, talking about a product or website or online school (k12.com) obscures the underlying conceptual base or drives the thread into a rat hole. The Model T surely sucks as a car today but it sure started something, eh?

Having said that... ALEKS

I happen to be running a pilot program with ALEKS today. It rocks! But, my district will never be able to integrate it into a structure that could really leverage it into a new way of instructing.

Here's what it is not. A teacher!
It's far too algorithmic and does not explain any 'whys'.

Here's what it is. It's all about how, practice and measurement. Every interaction is captured and it has an 'intelligent' engine that figures out a ZPD for each kid in the system.

A teacher can get a report that shows what a child is ready for 'next' based on this knowledge. You can also get a report that tells you where a student is (objectively, like 65% mastered) for every single one of your state standards.

I would never use it for 'teaching' but I would absolutely use it as part of the feedback loop I keep talking about. My district uses it in computer labs (for this pilot) as a remediation tool. This was driven in part by simple logistics but it has lead to this perception that you just plunk kids in front of it, staff the room with a babysitter, and let it run like roboteach.

I think this is a total misuse of it but this is what happens when you drive off road with a Ferrari. Great car, but it needs a track to really perform.

Catherine Johnson said...

My daughter is the consumate soccer mom; soccer, lacrosse, dance, piano, you name it. Aren't the soccer mom and dad evidence of decisions to augment public school?

The conundrum? How come only in non-academic endeavors?


HAH!

Why do we only augment in non-academic endeavors?

Because when we augment in academic matters the assistant superintendent for curriculum summons the president of the PTSA to his office, tells her parents and teachers are calling to complain that you are undermining Math TRAILBLAZERS & they are shutting the course down & forbidding parents to teach any academic courses in the future.

Two years later the PTSA formally hands over control of the afterschool program to the district on grounds that the district can't afford insurance to cover parent-teachers.

Catherine Johnson said...

Or try this one.

The fundraising organization works and slaves to get a writing program put together that will involve actual writers living in the community.

The district agrees, and takes control of the program.

The fundraising group supplies a list of local writers.

The district puts together a program that excludes:

a) the college professor who has a specialty in teaching NYU students to write history papers (holder of Distinguished Teaching Award from UCLA)
b) the bestselling science writer who taught writing to gifted students for Johns Hopkins CTY (holder of teaching award from University of Iowa)
c) the Pulitzer Prizewinner whose wife is currently homeschooling their two children

There's a reason why we augment non-academics.

It's called turf protection.

Catherine Johnson said...

Try this one on for size.

Your football team loses most games.

In your town you have two parents who played college football.

Coach asks them to help and they do. Team improves immediately.

Director of athletics bans them from practice and the field during game.

Grounds?

They haven't filled out the forms.

The dads say, Great. We'll fill out the forms.

Director of athletics says, Don't bother. I'm not approving you anyway.

Team loses Homecoming game the next week.

Coach is upset, players are upset, parents of players are upset.

Tough.

What's mine is mine.

Catherine Johnson said...

Paul - You've GOT to take a look at the Keller method.

I am SO backed up -- I've been trying to get a post up about the law professor in Australia who used the Keller method in one of his classes for 2 years now.

His students did far better than anyone else & the school hated the change so much the professor had to drop it.

Catherine Johnson said...

I took two courses on the Keller Method in college, one at Wellesley & one at Dartmouth. They were fantastic; I still remember the things I learned in those courses. (One was statistics -- I have never forgotten the core concepts.)

The Keller method, like programmed instruction, is one of those approaches that worked but wasn't adopted.

I guess I'm not so sure that self teaching is a bad thing. Not when you're talking about programmed instruction. Programmed instruction isn't really self-teaching.

My first job out of college was writing programmed instruction manuals for drug salesmen.

Mostly TYPING programmed instruction manuals for drug salesmen.

The main writer was a graduate of the Writer's Workshop at Iowa.

Anonymous said...

--Charter schools & NCLB both undermine the cultural legitimacy of public schools.

Where I live, a charter school threaded the needle to be a Muslim school backed by a front for a terrorist org and still get public funding. And you think the cultural legitimacy of the normal public schools is in question? In general, many of the charter schools have been co opted. If you need SPED, you're still in the district--so what happens if you're at that charter? You're still in the system, receiving the same interventions.

re: NCLB: REALLY? NCLB has been maligned, distorted, and otherwise treated as "the problem" everywhere I look, by teachers who don't know what it says, by admins who might know, and by parents who definitely don't know. They think it's forcing schools to "waste more time on teaching to the test" and they think that's a bad thing.

To read the Carnivals of Education, to read Eduwonkette, etc. NCLB hasn't gained any cultural legitimacy, even if occasionally, it's led districts to admit there are populations not being served by their current methods.

And instead, it's led to increased federal funding for Title I, increased demand for growing these bureacracies, and it's still losing the battle to stop from being watered down every day anyway.

Catherine Johnson said...

Kids don't get a pass on a concept deemed to be prerequisite to subsequent topics/concepts, i.e. mastery is the expectation.

I've just skimmed this thread since in theory I'm revising my horse chapter, but I think, Paul, you may have just reinvented the Keller method.

IT WORKS.

SteveH said...

"It is not the goal of the charter school movement to break the back of the public (district) schools"

No. It's to provide choices for parents and kids.


"Perhaps the reason we keep going in circles is because I'm having a different conversation than all of you."

I noticed that, but I can't understand what your concern is. You almost sound like our anti-choice public schools. You seem to be defining some sort of pass/fail on choice based on some ideal in education that you claim can't be found. I've heard this argument from those in education. They do whatever they want for whatever reasons, but others have to show research and proof for changes. No. Parents should be able to select any silly (or not) education they want.


"... the value of opting out vs. fighting head on..."

That's the secondary benefit of choice. Two birds with one stone. You go to a better (maybe not great) school, and you force the public schools to take parents seriously. Charter schools (parental choice with the money following the child) might not be perfect, but do you have another realistic approach to forcing change? This is a sincere question.


"To create an entitlement for everyone to get their own little niche school? Because that is what I hear you, Steve and Vicky, saying. That you want tax dollars for a zillion different niche schools, regardless of outputs, and even you haven't decided which one would be the ones you'd support. "

Perhaps this is getting closer to the real issue. Your use of the word "entitlement". As a parent, I am "entitled" to decide on the educational assumptions and expectations for my child. Your reference to "tax dollars" implies that you want others to decide. I don't care if other parents want to send their kids to an "Auntie Mame"-type of school where all of the boys and girls get naked and swim around the room like fish.

"Regardless of outputs"? Yup.

Of course, I care about outputs, but the basic question is who gets to decide?


"How do you know when you've moved toward the "better school" if you don't define the criteria?"

I'll know, but that's my personal criteria, and I can compare choice A versus choice B. With a little bit of practice, other parents will find it easy too.

Anonymous said...

I have come to the conclusion that "school choice" inside the public system doesn't work, yes. It just feeds the same beast, but pretends to offer alternatives. Instead, it has strengthened the problems: no societal notion of what schooling is for, a grossly overwhelming budget behemoth so big that it can't be cut back or throttled or stopped, a continuing undermining of the notion that objective academic standards matter.

Charter schools were supposed to be a disruptive innovation, even if you say that was merely a secondary goal. But they haven't been. Do I have another realistic approach to forcing change? I'd say concentrating on finding an actual disruptive innovation, because abolishing state schools is the only reasonable outcome, and right now, that's not realistic.

You are absolutely NOT entitled to use MY money to create your own personal educational expectations for YOUR child. I DO CARE if parents want to send their kids to Mame type schools--NOT ON MY DIME. Doing so just continues the fragmentation of society, continues to graduate children who won't be able to read or compute, and says there is no "Better or worse" in schooling--every one is different, and we can't make judgments. Why in the world should you get my money to create your own little propaganda machine that provides no academic value?

Anonymous said...

"The fact that no one on this thread would list what they were looking for in a school keeps me confused. "

you're not confused, allison;
your interlocutions in this thread
are a model of level-headed
clarity.

anyhow, they've decloaked:
paul wants to make a buck
(at my expense) and steve
wants to help him do it.
if shoving ever-increasing
amounts of public funds
at private capital happens
to continue grinding down
the people doing the actual work,
why, that wasn't their *intention*.
so it's okay.

v.

SteveH said...

Well, I'm glad we got to the core issue.

"I have come to the conclusion that "school choice" inside the public system doesn't work, yes."

I disagree.


"Doing so just continues the fragmentation of society,..."

Well, our public schools think that grouping by ability fragments society.


"... and says there is no "Better or worse" in schooling--every one is different,..."

No it doesn't. Results won't magically become unimportant for parents. In fact, the problem might be more on the other end; that results will become too important.


"... and we can't make judgments."

I trust that parents will make a better judgment (on average) than the government.


But you seem to be stuck. If your goal is to abolish state schools, and you want some other group (not parents) to decide on what is a good education, then what do you have? State schools? It sounds like you want the same structure, but with somebody else in charge.

SteveH said...

"...if shoving ever-increasing
amounts of public funds
at private capital happens
to continue grinding down
the people doing the actual work,..."

Always an interesting spin, but it's better than a direct flame.

SteveH said...

We have individualized self-learning right now. It's called a library. "No NO NO!!!!"

My comment was that the K12.com example was no better than going to the library and picking out a book. Actually, in the library, you at least have a choice of books. The point is that teachers in front of a class do make a difference.

Anonymous said...

Of course parents can decide what is a good education. They can do that WITH PRIVATE MONEY.

That's a far cry from parents deciding ANYTHING is a good education WITH PUBLIC TAX DOLLARS.

There are good reasons for the state creating a minimum compulsory education that they provide from a tax base, from its perspective. If those reasons were being met, then I would not disagree with the existence of a minimum education provided by the state, that adhered to strict standards. None of those good reasons are being met by the current instantiation, and so the current instantiation needs to be killed off.

So I'm not stuck, I'm looking for a disruptive innovation that helps support that. Because I can always create my own private school for my little niche. But that's not enough to get back my money from the current monster that is the public ed system.

Anonymous said...

--I trust that parents will make a better judgment (on average) than the government.

This argument makes sense if you follow through: the people should use their own money to do it. Everything possible should be done to cut the govt's financial interest in these schools.

So if you trust the people, then let them create private schools. Kill the beast by killing its funding.

I trust the govt is the worst provider, too. That's why feeding them money and giving them charter schools, which they are still in charge of, doesn't help solve the problem.

SteveH said...

Please don't YELL.

Now it sounds like you don't care what education is all about as long as parents do it with their own money. Of course, most people don't have that kind of money so this private school process will never reach a critical mass. I'm not even sure what the critical mass would be? Once it's killed and the money stays in peoples' pockets, what happens to the students who can't afford a private school?

Charter schools may not be the best solution, but they are much more politically feasible than vouchers or telling people to go off to a private school.

The Crimson Avenger said...

There are two issues related issues being discussed that should be made explicit, and those are being taxed for public education versus schools receiving those tax funds. One follows the other in either direction (although at different speeds).

If we reduced the number of kids attending public school, we would continue to be taxed at current rates for schooling, but only for a short time. If the kids don't show up for public school, those schools don't receive the money for those kids. As a result, government entities are going to find themselves with a surplus, which they will either spend on other things (infrastructure would be nice), or, since it's our money in the first place, give it back to us in the form of lower taxes.

If we would prefer to have government money to pay for education, in whatever form, we have to expect that the government will have a voice in the structure and standards of those institutions. If we instead have parents paying for it, I agree with Steveh that it can be in any form that the parents want.

Anonymous said...

In order for innovation to be disruptive, it must produce stress.

Charter schools divert a revenue stream to a 'subsidiary', ergo no stress, no change. Arguably, they reduce system stress via the creation of a parental safety valve.

Vouchers (choice)reduce revenue less than the corresponding production reduction (cute huh?). In effect they are a targeted voluntary tax, ergo no stress, no change.

This doesn't imply that either mechanism is bad for parents or produces bad teaching. If your perspective is a parent looking for alternatives these are positives. But if you are a change agent hoping for innovative disruption, I submit that these aren't!

Please don't jump the shark here and extrapolate this into a supposition that I don't like either of these things. On the margins they're a positive if they do nothing more than sustain debate and experimentation. I just don't think they have enough horsepower to make the farmers withold their wheat.

SteveH said...

"If we instead have parents paying for it, I agree with Steveh that it can be in any form that the parents want."

That's really not my point.

I don't see how you can get the government out of education. There has to be some transfer of money from those who have to those who don't. There will be strings attached to that money. I don't have a problem with that, but it does depend on the strings. There may be issues with how the strings are applied, but I wouldn't throw out the idea based on a few extreme cases. As you can see from my previous comments, I'm more in favor of fewer strings than more, but that doesn't mean that I wouldn't expect strings. Right now, our state educational administration has final approval over charter schools. That's a big string.

The question is what mechanism can force improvements in this system? Vouchers are still politically handicapped. I don't see publically-funded schools going away. Charters are the best bet, but I'm open to other suggestions.

Our state could lift the moratorium on charter schools tomorrow and encourage KIPP schools to come to our large cities. That's not a complete solution, but it's a process. Right now, there is no process.

SteveH said...

"Charter schools divert a revenue stream to a 'subsidiary', ergo no stress, no change."

But it creates a huge stress for the school losing the money. That stress will cause them to change. Our schools feel stress because 20-25% of our kids go to other schools. Our public schools are forced to downsize. This is one of the main reasons (I've talked with the superintendent) that the school is being more flexible and why my son was allowed to skip a grade to pre-algebra. It's also why the school had me teaching an after-school SSAT class. It's not perfect, but it's a start.

Anonymous said...

Steveh:

"Our schools feel stress because 20-25% of our kids go to other schools."

Wrong monster!

The schools, as in individual schools, are not the monster that needs disrupting. Follow the money. Divide U.S. public school funding by 3.2M U.S. teachers and you get about $150K per teacher. Expand your sights to the entire monster.

Something is eating up gobs of money and producing a product with a 25% failure rate. It's a whole lot bigger and hungrier than your local school.

Today's alternatives might be stressing schools by diverting funds but that's like kicking sand on the shoes of the Cyclops while he's in some shoe warehouse trying on another pair.

Anonymous said...

CrimsonAvenger, Steveh wasn't agreeing with you that if parents are paying, it can be in any form they want. That was what *I* was saying. He said he wanted to use public funds for any form the parents wanted--not the same thing, since parents aren't the only suckers paying in.

Steven, I yelled to stress a point that you seemed to not comprehend: that there is a difference between saying "parents should have choices when they use their own money" and "parents should have choices with other people's money". I don't see how you think my saying the latter means I don't trust parents; I don't see how my arguing for the former means I don't care what parents do. You erected straw men, saying first that I didn't think parents were to be trusted, then that I didn't care what they did. Neither were an accurate representation.

Paul's exactly right: the charter system doesn't stress the public school system. It might stress a particular school, but that won't kill the beast. The beast doesn't need your school, or your student. It will go on its merry way anyway. And that is why just as Catherine has come to the conclusion that you have to opt out and go to a private school, I've come to the same conclusion: that charter schools aren't a means of opting out. If they were ever really a threat, which they aren't, the ed schools solve that by getting their own graduates in as teachers, and the school districts can always change the rules to restrict curricula. The govt STILL has the money, so it still has all the marbles.

You said "charter schools...are much more politically feasible than..." but you didn't finish the sentence: more politically feasible FOR WHAT GOAL? When I look at what they've achieved in a place that is rich with them, , I see that they have been a politically feasible way to increase mediocre schooling at taxpayer expense, and have done nothing whatsoever to kill by war or starvation, the poisonous educational system we've currently got.

I was articulating this all "out loud" because I'd reached part of the same point Paul has: recognizing that charters and vouchers aren't innovative disruption.

Unlike Paul, though, I think that sustaining debate and experimentation has been a lose for our side. The more we fiddle, the more Rome burns. The more we experiment and produce only minor improvements, the more momentum and credibility we burn. The other side just has to wait until we've no financial, emotional or political capital left--and they can wait a long long time.

Anonymous said...

I just reread my previous post and it sounds too snarky so let me explain some more...

I work in a district that is under stress like you wouldn't believe. It's a failing district, cursed or blessed (depending on the shape of your wine glass) with abundant cheap housing. This makes us a magnet for a stressed high turnover population. I'll put anybody's stress up against our stress any day.

IT WILL NOT CHANGE. If it could it would have done so 15 years ago. Trust me it's not for lack of some terrific, hard working people and I include in that, people all the way to our Superintendent, Mayor, and School Committee. I'm not smart enough or naive enough to think I could do their job.

The problem is that we, and I'm sure many other districts, are locked into a structure that is not capable of changing its business model and the business model is the root problem.

What the hell is he talking about?

Well for starters we've got enormous infrastructure built for 20 or so kids per room (now pushing 30 per room). Can't change that. We've got job descriptions built into union contracts made of concrete. Can't change that. We've got a revenue stream that is guaranteed. Don't want to change that. We don't have any real competition. Have to be nuts to change that. We have a flat organizational structure. Can't change that without changing all the above. We've got a labor supply that is trained by the people who write the books in collaboration with the people who set the standards who staff the DOE turntable that throws off a superintendent now and then.

It's a very, very, mature system that runs like a comfortable old mill in the 19th century.

Charters and Vouchers can't do anything more than nibble around the edges of this thing. You need a whole new product to bust it, Like the car was to the horse and buggy. It needs to be demonstrably faster, or better, or cheaper to win the day.

Anonymous said...

This must be a raw nerve, eh?

One more and I promise I'll seek help from professionals....

A while back someone took a shot at me and I got the impression that it was because they thought I was attacking the 'public' in public education. This is not the case.

I'm not arguing for a private solution that blows away education as a publicly funded entity. I am arguing that a private solution might be the only catalyst that could reshape things. Frankly, I haven't even given a thought to what ultimately shakes out.

I'm just for picking at the knot until it unfolds itself. If the end game is public, fine.

Remember the old AT&T? They were the envy of every monopolist in the world. They got 'broken up' years ago (via gov'mint induced stress). I bet there are some readers here who don't remember when they were the only telephone company. Look at them now. They're pretty robust and their progeny have revenue streams as big as the original.

Stress is good!

concernedCTparent said...

Paul, what I don't understand is how your idea will place stress on the system if the children you target are in still "school".

Helping them be successful despite the toxic and/or unproductive school environment will only serve to mask the problem, will it not? While this is obviously a wonderful thing for the children, the school won't care a lick why the children are successful and will quickly lay claim to being the reason for said improvements.

Unless, of course, what you propose is an alternative to school itself, a private option at an affordable cost, that replaces school altogether. If enough people fled brick-and-mortar schools for something different that would certainly have impact. Afterall, what citizen wants to continue funding buildings that are empty?

Anonymous said...

concernedCTparent:

Attack the flanks.

On one side drain teachers out of the current system by paying for performance in an environment that lets them find a niche they love. You have 150K per teacher to play with before the model gets too expensive to compete. The current system is vulnerable on this flank, especially in math.

On the the other flank, shame. If what you do is very public and successful you will be repairing students at a fraction of the cost that created them. If enough news shows get onto that story the farmers will withold the wheat.

Taken together, and assuming it's successful, you have a model that people can use to flog the king.

Anonymous said...

It's critically important that the disruptive innovation NOT be a school. Remember you are going to sell to non-consumers (of school stuff). As soon as you give off a whiff of being a school the beast will rise up and eat you.

Go read the link to the Education Week article and you'll see a great example of Sony/RCA and the transistor radio. Sony didn't sell on RCA's turf.

Try this out. You want to be small and focused like a laser on one market niche. You could do something like market it as a math club that guarantees to get your grade 6 child on grade level, ready for grade 7 in one year.

Your target is the same parent who is spending a few grand every year on hockey, soccer, dance, or piano.

Selling something that didn't exist to people who didn't know they needed it is disruptive.

concernedCTparent said...

Telling parents to have their Everyday Math children take the grade level assessment for Singapore Math is disruptive too. In our district, it actually resulted in a math task force. While it's not a panacea, it's a start.

A minor attack on the flanks, perhaps. It's something though. You get enough of those movements going (your kind, my kind, somebody else's kind) and you flog the king. Maybe.

Carry on soldier. Carry on.

Anonymous said...

Tell me more about the task force.

I think shame is an underated emotion. I hadn't thought of this flank, to just shine light under the rock with competitive measurements.

Sweet!

concernedCTparent said...

I say maybe because in my district parents have a sense that something's not quite right. Because our district has a very good reputation, people move here for the schools, test scores are high, etc., they figure it must be their own child's deficiencies and not the school's. So what do they do? They hire a tutor, supplement at home, or add Kumon or Score or Sylvan to their child's already busy schedule.

They are the same parents who are spending the big bucks on hockey, soccer, dance or piano and now they are paying for their child's education despite the fact that they've chosen a public school so they wouldn't have to do that. But again, they don't complain too much because they fear it's their own child's weakness and that it's their responsibility to fix things. It doesn't occur to them that the deficiency originates with the school and not with their child.

They shouldn't have to fix things but they very quietly do. This gives the schools absolutely no incentive to change.

Anonymous said...

My experience has been that few parents are as informed as the KTM folks when it comes to the intricacies regarding the problems with public education.

Parents in my district were asking, "Why don't people want to send their kids to our schools?" during the board meetings to discuss school closures due to declining enrollment.

Another question they asked was, "How come so few parents showed up for these preliminary meetings?"

We have a group of parents trying to start a charter now but they haven't stated (decided?) the kind of program they will offer, just that it will be a math, science (technology?) and performing arts K-5. There has been no mention of a structured approach to instruction with a focus on academic rigor and mastery of skills and content, all necessary elements for a school I would have my child attend.

In the end these well intentioned folks will only duplicate what is offered in the public schools.

I would be thrilled to know I am wrong, but I just don't think the majority of parents perceive any problems with the public education offered. Additionally many parents seem to believe the schools are terribly underfunded.

Over 700 parents showed up at the school board meeting to protest that their neighborhood school was named to be closed. None of these folks were concerned until it got up close and personal. Many of these same people were happy to float the idea that we should raise taxes to keep the schools open.

After the board voted to close the 2 schools, the meetings went back to the usual 1 or 2 parents showing up - even when the board was voting to approve Everyday Math for the next 7 years.

They will continue to use EM here because our affluent community can afford tutoring. Private tutoring keeps the scores up and makes the district and EM look good.

When it comes to reforming the beast, the fellow who originally pointed out that the ed schools need to be blown up has a pretty good point.

Jo Anne C.

VickyS said...

Charter schools offer various means to a defined end. Ideally, the defined end (the outcome) is measured by a consistent set of standards that is applied equally to both charter and district schools.

In my city we do have charter schools whose outcomes, as measured by state tests, far exceed the outcomes of district schools.

I really don't see a private solution to the stranglehold district public schools have on the education of our populace while there are masses of kids whose families can't afford to attend private schools. To add insult to injury, these are often also the kids who lack the family structure to "supplement" the public education at home.

That's why we need KIPP and similar schools.

To starve the beast (to be truly disruptive) you need to cut off the finances. How to do that? I don't vote for school levies anymore. But it's not going to be anytime soon that we don't tax to fund public education.

In my city, when a kid leaves the district, it doesn't matter whether the kid goes to a private school or a charter school. In either case the district loses per pupil funding. My local district is desperate to get these kids back, and has made that explicit. Amazingly, though, the district is not desperate enough, I guess, to offer an alternative math curriculum, or improve discipline, or provide gifted ed, or do the other things that parents really want in order to attract them back.

I'll agree that charters aren't doing much more than chipping away at this monolith. It's not a disruptive innovation. However, what they can do to improve the educational environment of the individual children that attend these schools can be huge, and that's enough for me. Again, I could care less about the means. If they produce an end that is at least as good as a district school, I'm all for it.

My tax dollars are going to be collected and spent on public schools, period. Nothing I can do to change that. If I were bold enough to think that *my* idea of an ideal education is right for everyone, then maybe I would oppose charters and focus on getting *my* ideal into the district schools. But then tomorrow when I lose control you'll be in charge, and you'll have a different idea, and I won't agree...you get the point.

Allison, why even ask what each of us would like to see in our "ideal" school? We will all have different answers. Who decides which one of us is "correct"? Without choice, we're back to square one, where the school district or some other government agency decides on the nature and content of our state-run compusory public education. No thanks.

Charters let me express my vision of what my child needs, right now. I *don't* agree, at all, with what is being taught in the district schools. If I can't afford a private school, and I can't homeschool because I'm a single parent, what alternative do I have?

Assuming (and it's an assumption I would not mind having challenged) that my tax dollars will be used to support public education, you bet I'd rather be supporting a large garden of charter schools, many of which I wouldn't want to send my kid to, rather than some monolithic district school.

I'm not sure what it is that those on this thread arguing for a disruptive innovation have in mind. Does it involve de-funding public schools? How could that be accomplished, politically or practially? Does it involve no change in public funding, but rather a parallel system of private schools? How could this be made accessible to all?

SteveH said...

"Wrong monster!"

There are many ways to attack a monster. The goal is not to make the monster go away. As long as there is money flowing from one side to the other, the government will be involved. If not the government, then it will be some other monster. With choice, at least, parents will be in the loop.

Anonymous said...

"Selling something that didn't exist to people who didn't know they needed it is disruptive."

gee. i thought it was the status quo.

ever seen a television?

SteveH said...

"..that there is a difference between saying 'parents should have choices when they use their own money' and 'parents should have choices with other people's money'."

I understand, but I see a fine distinction here. You care about the quality of education ...

"Doing so just continues the fragmentation of society, continues to graduate children who won't be able to read or compute, and says there is no "Better or worse" in schooling--every one is different, and we can't make judgments."

... but you don't care if it's with their own money. Is this an education issue or a money issue? The affluent get what they want, but not the poor?


"It might stress a particular school, but that won't kill the beast."

You're looking for option 'C' (kill the beast), but I see no explanation about what this means or how it could work. Private schools aren't a solution because many can't afford them. When I sent my son to a private school, I paid $15,000++ a year, had to continue to pay 2/3rds of my property tax to the school system (with the cost per student going up), and I still got Everyday Math.

[Many on KTM have argued that choice (public or private) has little effect when most educators go through ed school. My position is that choice is better than no choice.]

What is the tipping point for this private school approach? How does that get rid of the beast? One might consider the real beast is the ed schools. Our public schools care very little about kids going off to private school, but kids going to a charter school hurts them in the pocketbook.

Perhaps I would agree with the "kill the beast" approach if I saw how it would work, even in theory.


"FOR WHAT GOAL?"

For a process that gives [all]parents control.

SteveH said...

"Afterall, what citizen wants to continue funding buildings that are empty?"

Twenty to twenty-five percent of our town's kids go to other schools. Many public school supporters throw this away with the comment that those parents just want an "elite" education. However, add to this migration the general reduction of school-age kids and you get what happened in our town last week.

A couple of people on the town council got into a huge amount of trouble by having the temerity to suggest that the middle school kids would get more opportunities if they were sent to a school in the next town, and that the town could save a lot of money. (Our high school kids already go to that town.) It will never happen. We will end up as a one-room school house before that happens. The beast will never die. It may get smaller (which I doubt), but what about those who can't get out?

SteveH said...

"On the the other flank, shame. If what you do is very public and successful you will be repairing students at a fraction of the cost that created them."

That's what KIPP schools do indirectly, but people in our state won't see the difference because there is a moratorium on charter schools. Rich kids going off to private schools don't have the same effect.

SteveH said...

"In the end these well intentioned folks will only duplicate what is offered in the public schools."

That's what can happen for any school, charter or private. It's quite discouraging.

Some think that the real beast is the ed schools. But that doesn't mean that choice is not a good idea. It just means that we have to encourage more choices. Out of the few charter schools in our state, a couple have great test scores. They have big numbers for their lotteries. Parents pay attention.

SteveH said...

"In either case the district loses per pupil funding."

The money we get from the state and federal government is very small. In fact, a few of the more affluent towns are at risk of losing all of their state funding. This raised the issue of not having to meet state requirements.

In any case, our schools don't worry much about losing kids to private schools. They hate charter schools, however. They see the line item cost in the budget. They argue that because we are a "High Performing" school, kids should not be allowed to go elsewhere.

"..or do the other things that parents really want in order to attract them back."

It's having some effect in our public schools, but they have a fundamental conflict in K-6; full-inclusion versus high expectations. They did replace CMP with proper math textbooks in 7th and 8th grades, but I think they feel constrained by the needs of a wide range of learners in the lower grades.

An interesting aspect of our town is that it has become a de-facto magnet for LD kids. People move to our town for that reason. There was even some talk a few years ago about "tuitioning-in" LD kids from other towns. This is a source of pride for many, but it does drive away parents looking for more emphasis on academics.

VickyS said...

Does a lot of the trouble flow from the compulsory nature of education? I'm certainly not the first to ask this question (see John Taylor Gatto for a start). I wonder how the system would respond if all education was optional. What a grand experiment that would be. Would we end up with even fewer well-educated kids, or would totally unexpected things happen? Consider the Dutch town that eliminated all traffic signals. Traffic safety improved. Go figure.

Problem is, any question about the compulsory nature of education is rhetorical. So, what does it really mean to secede from a publicly-funded compulsory education system? Homeschooling and private schools are just not accessible to enough people. Maybe I have blinders on, but I see only two options.

First, the private option: homeschooling and private schools have to be made more accessible. They would need to be financially accessible and logistically accessible. Who, what charity or NGO, is going to make this happen? Who is going to create a system of academically superior private schools that will offer Taneesha and Hong-du and Devlyn transportation back and forth from school, ESL instruction, special needs services, and charge their families only $50 or $100 a month?

Second, the public option: redirect public funds away from monolithic district schools to educational options (such as charter schools or vouchers) that allow individuals to "secede" (academically) within the publicly funded system. In addition to providing parents with academic choice, this introduces competition into a publicly funded system, thereby at least adding some modicum of accountability.

Of course we're not all going to agree with the focus any particular charter school. But you may not agree with the use of tax dollars to fund the war in Iraq, either, or to bail out homeowners who made stupid mortgage decisions, or whatever. I submit we can view the funding of charter schools as part of our social compact, even if we oppose the existence of some of them (like the one Allison objects too; and I object too! we shouldn't fund religious schools and we should have the rules/regs in place to shut them down...but this is not a good argument against charter schools in general).

A third option for action exists, of course: continue to fight for reform of the monolithic district schools (i.e., choice within the system), but this is not a secession idea; this is what Crimson Avenger was rejecting in proposing an end run around the system. This option may work on a small scale (e.g., you get your own kid advanced a grade in math, or you successfully kick Everyday Math out of your local elementary school) but goes nowhere from there.

SteveH said...

I think what bothers me the most is that things can be done right now to help individual kids. Our state could lift the moratorium on charter schools tomorrow and allow KIPP schools to come to our cities. This may not be perfect for everyone, but for those kids, it is.

Schools don't separate those who can or will from those who can't or won't. They look at education as statistics and I want to look at it as individuals. Give parents choice and they can start looking at education from an individual standpoint.

I guess I'm very pragmatic at this point. I don't see a systemic solution, so I look for any process (choice) that has any potential for change at any level.

concernedCTparent said...

That's exactly it, Steve. As parents, we can't wait for a systemic solution. Our children need things to be better now.

KIPP is a vast improvement over anything available in the neighborhoods they set up in. They do create a hullabaloo over at the teacher's union and mega-district offices, though. They are a threat to the monopoly because they prove it can be done.

We need KIPP and Green Dot schools in cities everywhere. Parents need good options for their children and we don't have time to wait for the system to figure out how to do it.

Ben Calvin said...

So, what does it really mean to secede from a publicly-funded compulsory education system? Homeschooling and private schools are just not accessible to enough people.

I think change will happen but it will be a long, long process. In California, we have two things that are exerting pressure on the margin: 1) decent state standards that highlight public schools deficiencies 2) relatively liberal rules on charter schools.

This has put pressure on schools, but has not yet resulted in wholesale changes. One recent development I can point to is the vote by teachers at Locke High School to turn the store over to Green Dot. This came from parents and teachers, and was of course vehemently opposed by the main-line teachers union. LA’s mayor is also figuring out that the teachers unions aren’t his friends.

Now does this process directly improve curriculum to international standards? No. I know a lot parents in my neighborhood who send their kids to a charter that is more progressive than the public schools. But at least there is some political space for these ideas to play out.

Jo Anne C said...

Our district is finally reacting to declining enrollment, not because of it specifically, but because more of it will occur if the folks attempting to start the charter school succeed and take additional students with them.

Administrators have proposed 2 magnet schools, one a technology based magnet program (with all the latest bells and whistles industry can offer) and another performing arts magnet. Both magnets are designed to compete directly for students the charter hopes to acquire from the current public student population.

These proposed magnet schools would never have been suggested were it not for the charter school folks applying pressure on the district to compete for students.

Neither the charter or the magnet schools will arrive in any time to help me with my son's needs.

Even though his private school tested his math ability at 6ht grade 9th month at the beginning of his 4th grade year, he has had to sit through learning addition and subtraction for a 4th year because I didn't approve of the honors math instructors focus on fuzzy problems with little instruction and punitive grades when he failed to grasp her less than stellar explanations on how to set up tables to collect data hash marks.

His private school did not want to allow him independent study using the Saxon text and Singapore challenging word problems we use at home quite successfully to accelerate him.

So, we will be home beginning in September using the CA Virtual Academy K-12 charter online school. My husband wants to get some of our tax investment out of the system. I figure I can supplement anything I don't like, and at least the lessons and program is set up and ready to go, quite and appealing thought. There is the added protection of being registered in a public school, a bonus given the recent attack on home schooling through the CA Courts.

I would love to see a KIPP or Green Dot set up shop in our district, or better yet a CoreKnowledge k-8 charter. That would be a dream come true.

SteveH said...

I think that KIPP and Green Dot schools are powerful because you're not talking about rich kids going off to elite schools. You're talking about people who supposedly form the base democratic support of public schools. I just rewatched the "Education Revolt in Watts" by Drew Carey and Reason.tv on YouTube. It's very powerful, but it also shows what we are up against.

Anonymous said...

'Public Education' is an example of hijacked language. We don't have public education. We have public funding of secret education.

I would venture to say that less than 1% of the population (teachers are about 1%) fully appreciates what happens behind the school house door.

The way we fund this endeavor is part of the Problem.

Anonymous said...

---Allison, why even ask what each of us would like to see in our "ideal" school? We will all have different answers. Who decides which one of us is "correct"?

This is a straw man. So because we might not all agree, you are suggesting that there are no standards that can be imposed, no objective metrics by which we can say what a better or worse education is.


If you really believe there's no "correct" answer, then Everyday Math is just as good, and you should stop fighting them.

-- Without choice, we're back to square one, where the school district or some other government agency decides on the nature and content of our state-run compusory public education. No thanks.


Charter school "choice" is not control. you still are in the district. The superintendent still has the purse strings, and can affect the hiring policies, the firting policies, the way your kids get into school, the way they are allowed to leave it for another, and what happens if you need an IEP for SPED or something else. Funny how on this thread, people think "gifted programs" are hogwash. Sure looks like a "choice", yet it's been co-opted. But that wouldn't happen with a charter? why not?

--Charters let me express my vision of what my child needs, right now.


Only if you RUN the charter school, and then you are still in the system. If you're going to start a charter, why couldn't you have done that with private money? If you're going to someone else's charter school, it's not your vision.


But I thought this thread wasn't about what parents need to do for their kids right now; it was about the bigger picture. One can abstract away from the immediate issue and look at the bigger forces in play and see unintended consequences. Over and over again, charter schools haven't lived up to much of anything. Sure, two of them in our area are better than nearly all of the publics. But the others aren't at all. some are the worst in the district. But hey, that's a choice!

Anonymous said...

----I'm not sure what it is that those on this thread arguing for a disruptive innovation have in mind.

So now I've come full circle: What I had in mind was the very first comment on this post: Read Neal Stephenson's The Diamond Age. He invents a disruptive innovation that provides an education of sorts, but most definitely isnt' a school.

VickyS said...

Charter school "choice" is not control. you still are in the district. The superintendent still has the purse strings, and can affect the hiring policies, the firting policies, the way your kids get into school, the way they are allowed to leave it for another, and what happens if you need an IEP for SPED or something else.

I'd like to see where you got that information, because I believe it is inaccurate. Charter schools are outside of any particular school district. They obtain their charters directly from the state, and need only have a sponsor which can be a nonprofit, a university, etc. District superindendents have nothing to do with them, unless, perhaps, a school district is the sponsor and even then I don't think that's the case. They have much more autonomy than you indicate here. Check out these FAQs about Minnesota charter schools.

So because we might not all agree, you are suggesting that there are no standards that can be imposed, no objective metrics by which we can say what a better or worse education is.

I think you've misunderstood me. Standards and objective metrics are already in place, in the form of state standards (which, of course, could be improved). These standards apply to charters. Objective metrics exist and are in use. What I said before is that the charter schools allow different means to be applied to a commonly defined end.

I have fought for improvement in the standards, the objective metrics, by filing comments on our state math standards, for example.

I have also fought for improvement in the means of meeting those standards, for example by trying to eliminate Everyday Math from our district's public school curriculum. Yes, my ideal public school would be free of fuzzy math, and also Writer's and Reader's workshop; it would have foreign language, art and music, etc. If there is no choice, then I will fight. But I'd rather "switch than fight" and so if I can find a charter school that expresses my ideal of the means of achieving the end, I will feel satisfied.

I'm still not understanding how the debate is advanced by answering the question, "What is your ideal school?" Do you think we would, or should, all agree? If we don't, which one of us decides whose vision is implemented in the public schools? I'm really not understanding where that is going.

Also, no one has ventured an answer to the question: who will fund a private system? And wouldn't we be just as beholden to the donors as we are currently to the government? This principle operates already, to some extent, at private schools that rely on big donors in addition to big tuition.

I'm also interested in hearing comments about how can we reach nonconsumers with disruptive interventions when they can only be additive (due to the compulsory nature of schooling, and the stranglehold these laws have on accreditation, etc.). We are still dependent on legislative permission (e.g., homeschool laws, virtual school laws, etc.) to "secede." How can we work outside a system that still (through force of law) requires us to participate in the system?

Anonymous said...

Allison is dead on when she comments that folks need to go back and read the original post. I would add that it's equally important to go to the links provided there.

A lot of people are aiming for 'solutions' that are perfect out of the gate. Innovation doesn't happen like that. For every successful inovation there are 15 that end up as road kill. You don't know which ones will be disruptive until they disrupt something.

So if you're saying "people will never pay for this" or "what will happen to 'my' preference", you've missed the point entirely.

Disruption happens when some risk taker says, "hmmm I think there's a market for little computers that people could attach to their tv for playing games and maybe do some simple programming on." You don't take a proposal like that to IBM (in 1980), they'd laugh you out of the boardroom. Ten years later the bigwigs are smackin' their foreheads, "Remember that little dweeb, Bill Gates, hoooyah?"

The disruptive innovation creates a market where the (sleeping on the switch)existing market sees none. I can't think of a single market disruption that was ever caused by GE, IBM, General Motors, Ford, etc. except for their first.

There is a law of big organizations (I made this up because it needs a law) that says, "Don't innovate, procrastinate". That's what we are up against folks. Do you realize how big a $490B entity is? It's bigger than Wal Mart. That's your public school system. But it is much much worse than Wal Mart because it has 14,000 heads (districts) and 97,000 brains (schools). This is perhaps the most consensus driven behomoth on the planet.

For all you parents that want change right now, disruption won't be your ticket. It takes too long. Your needs are immediate. But that doesn't mean you should only advocate for today. What about tomorrow's kids?

To disrupt this hydra you can't start with perfect. Hydra has 490B big ones, we don't. You need to create a revenue stream outside his torrent. It has to produce a remarkably better result than hydra's and then you have to challenge him to a public duel and put it on the superbowl at half time. My kids against yours, straight up, against the clock. Better yet, my 6th graders against your 8th graders.

I did this once [without the superbowl part] and even with grade 8 ringers in the mix(they left their IEP students home), we beat their butts. Very effective.

Anonymous said...

The kernel of this nut is the very first step. How do you get some of Hydra's revenue stream? You don't! He may be big and cumbersome but he's not stupid.

You need to create a new stream and even if it's not a completely desirable stream (cherry picking) or sustainable (too limited to scale up) the object is to create what is essentially a voluntary tax. Find some people who have the means and motivation to augment academics like they do with sports, outside of Hydra's purview.

You don't need state approvals because you aren't making a school, just exercising your first amendment rights to chat with like minded people (for money). Now initially of course this won't be disruptive. But, if you can get that model to a critical mass, then have your super bowl thing, you might get there.

One danger to this is that the school system will try to take credit for any improvements made. They'll have data to show such things. To counter it you need to show the knee of the curve of improvement and correlate the knee to when you started with the child.

Anonymous said...

Here's how charter schools are financed.

I think you'll find it's a real mish mash when you look across states. It's true that mix of funding sources change. However, all this amounts to is shuffling deck chairs. The money just comes from a different part of the monster. You'll see that a lot of states fund charters via federal largesse. That means your local control just got reduced.

And here's the real question. Overall charter schools get substantially less money than the district schools. What things have they done in pedagogy, technology, infrastructure,etc. to justify a spending reduction?

SteveH said...

"If you really believe there's no "correct" answer, then Everyday Math is just as good, and you should stop fighting them."


There are two issues here; good versus bad math curricula, and choice.



EM is a poor math curriculum and I can tell you exactly why. Many disagree with this for a variety of reasons. If you are in charge, what do you do? You select a curriculum based on whatever thinking you might have and then expect others to prove that there is something better. This is almost impossible to do.


Second, much of education is based on assumptions and expectations. You might have a good curriculum, but don't like the slow speed of coverage. In our town, there are low and fuzzy expectations because we use full-inclusion and have a high LD population. Schools have to look at what's best for all kids.

So, even though I can tell you exactly why EM is bad, other parents might see education in other ways. Some weigh the social aspects of school higher than the academic aspects.


The current status quo is that schools decide on all of these assumptions. You have to take it or leave it. I'm saying that parents need to be part of the assumption and expectation making process. This might mean that some parents will (overall) prefer a school that uses EM. That doesn't bother me one bit if I can choose something different for my son.


There is no one correct solution when it comes to assumptions and expectations on an individual basis.

SteveH said...

"Read Neal Stephenson's The Diamond Age. He invents a disruptive innovation that provides an education of sorts, but most definitely isnt' a school."

But he says nothing about how the nation would get there. Besides, that's not the education I want for my son. That's the point.

SteveH said...

"You need to create a new stream and even if it's not a completely desirable stream (cherry picking) or sustainable (too limited to scale up) the object is to create what is essentially a voluntary tax."

OK. I'm all ears. Sincerely. What is this mechanism and how will it work? Private schools are a voluntary tax. Homeschooling is a voluntary tax. Is there a third form?

Both of these forms involve parental choice. My position is that you have to extend this choice (in whatever ways possible) to all parents. Choice is the key mechanism, not technology.

Anonymous said...

Steveh:

I posted this earlier, you must have missed it.

And no you don't have to extend whatever you come up with for a disruption to all parents. That would be a utopian disruption.

The disruption just causes stress. You can't anticipate where that will lead. If you try, you'll never take that first step.

Look to the computer industry as a case in point. When the PC came on the scene the big players were DEC,Data General, IBM, and maybe Sperry, and Honeywell could be on that list. The PC was enormously destructive to the status quo. When the dust settled on this disruption, the computer industry had basically moved from the east coast to the west coast. The PC slipped through IBM's fingers.

Nobody ever set that out as an objective. You couldn't have anticipated that this would be an outcome. I know where you're coming from as a parent. You want a quick solutio, but you are falling into the trap of letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.

My own belief is that there is no quick solution when dealing with a $490B competitor. You must eat away at him like a million termites. It takes a while but if you're a relentless termite, eventually you get to eat the fort.

Anonymous said...

What follows is the product of an elementary school education. It's speculation on my part but my instinct tells me that this was accomplished with heavy doses of direct instruction in one room schools without grade levels, federal money, state money, or even district money and a strong component of teaching in the student's zone of proximal development...

And, oh yes, no ed schools or consultants either.

Mount Vernon April 14th. 1789.

Sir,

I had the honor to receive your Official Communication, by the hand of Mr Secretary Thompson, about one o¹clock this day. Having concluded to obey the important & flattering call of my Country, and having been impressed with an idea of the expediency of my being with Congress at as early a period as possible; I propose to commence my journey on Thursday morning which will be the day after tomorrow.

I have the honor to be
with sentiments of esteem

Sir

Your most obedt. servt.
G. Washington


Get the idea?

Produce a 7th grader that can write like that and put her on the morning talk show circuit. You'll get lots of parental attention.

VickyS said...

So if you're saying "people will never pay for this" . . . you've missed the point entirely.

I honestly don't think so. What I'm trying to do is get a handle on two things that I believe need to be a part of the debate:

(1) Funding issues that arise because the consumers of educational services do not control enough capital, as a group, to pay for them; and
(2) A more basic problem that involves how heavily legally regulated this sytem is, and how this presents a unique obstacle to innovation.

Let's take fundng first.

My point (concerning funding) is not that people *will* never pay for a disruptive innovation (a question of market choice), it's that without public assistance, most people *cannot* pay for it.

If I'm reading this debate correctly, some (e.g., Paul) argue for public money in the form of vouchers or per-pupil amounts that can be freely spent wherever the family chooses. I see this a workable option. Others (Allison, if I'm correct) want to eschew public money altogether. This is the option I cannot fathom. What are even the broad outlines of a system that can educate all the country's children without using public money?

Now the legal barriers.

A number of examples of disruptive innovation have been given that include such things as computers and cars. But those innovations happened in free markets.

How does one factor in the compulsory nature of schooling? How does one factor in the real barrier of government control: the laws that require kids to attend schools as defined by the state?

When school is compulsory, do we really have a population that can be considered nonconsumers?

Thus, initially at least, disruptive innovation needs to occur alongside the system (extra, additive) or it needs to occur, paradoxically, within the system. It can't be attempted totally outside the system, because the system encompasses all school age children.

If presented as extra/additive, it sounds a lot like tutoring, after-schooling, supplementation. Been there, done that. Plus, if the kid is still concurrently in the system, the system takes credit for any gains.

If presented "within" the system, you still have to be vetted by the system. Your private school/online school, whatever needs to be accredited by the state in order to meet the state laws. How disruptive can you be when they hold the reins? And how would this be any different from a private school seeking the "best" curriculum?

What's left is the homeschool population. Do you target states with liberal homeschool laws, corral those students, and do a beta using your disruptive innovation idea? This to me seems the only practical alternative. Theoretically it could be done, I could see that.

(And as an aside, let's say your beta does produce 7th graders who can write like George Washington. I'm not really sure the country would take notice anyway. In fact, such kids, and programs even, probably exist. They get a big ho-hum from the educational establishment because obviously they won't work for underprivileged kids. But then you point to KIPP...and we go 'round and 'round. I think the powers that be are not swayed by rational evidence! They will only be swayed when their district buildings stand empty of kids who have had--and exercised--the opportunity to vote with their feet.)

In essence, I see the funding situation (i.e., consumers don't control enough capital to pay for the service) and the legal situation (state control of education) as being very much "to the point" in these discussions, because they significantly distort the market for this particular service.

It also helps explain why I, currently at least, think charter schools (along with vouchers) represent the most feasible option for system change. They can legally exist within the system, and they are publicly funded (neither the legal situation nor the funding situation is perfect, but there is potential). If truly unleashed (a big if) maybe they could stimulate systemic change. I admit I haven't read the full Fordham report on charter schools and I need to do that! But I know you all will set me straight if I've veered off course. Cheers.

Catherine Johnson said...

Does a lot of the trouble flow from the compulsory nature of education?

boy

I think about that more often than I'd like.

I have no clue how to approach the question but at this point I'm pretty strongly at odds with the "compulsory" part of compulsory education -- especially since in practice compulsory education is long on compulsory and short on education.

Catherine Johnson said...

In the past 2 years we've received probably 3 or even 4 hostile letters from the middle school telling us our child has exceeded his allotted number of allowed absences and commanding us to call the school and explain ourselves.

The last letter told us that if we didn't call the school, the school would call us.

I was looking forward to that.

Catherine Johnson said...

One letter said "research shows" school attendance is essential to high achievement.

Anonymous said...

Catherine:

Finally had time to go research PSI and the Keller Method. OMG, thought I was reading stuff I wrote, like some kind of backwards looking ghost.

The thing I've been fumbling around with in my more cogent moments is that our current delivery models evolved from a time when a) there was no alternative (technology was not there) and b) our population in any given school was far more homogeneous and stable.

In my last school we had a 38% turnover every year with a very high proportion of kids coming from out of state/country. I had classrooms with 4-5 year spread in capabilities. On a good day, when all the kids were in a working frame of mind, I was like a machine, non stop moving, coaching, planning, adjusting. Every table had something different going on. Teachers would come in my room and ask, "How the hell can you keep that up all day?"

You know what, I was doing the Keller method (badly)with no help. I think technology can be applied in the middle of all that chaos. Perhaps his was an idea before its time and the time is now.

I'd like to see a system where every kid goes at his/her pace with a customized lesson in a school without grade levels and every mistake is nailed instantly, before you've had time to go home and sleep on it.

SteveH said...

"I posted this earlier, you must have missed it."

Yes, I did miss that. I like the idea of parental choice, and private schools don't bother me, but I don't really see how "bucket 1" helps that much. It might complicate things. In any case, this is a huge change and I don't see how you're going to establish it in the first place. I'm sure that there would be restrictions on how the money in the buckets could be spent.

Charter schools come close to this model, if they are allowed to exist in the first place. Perhaps a separate bucket model would isolate and minimize the strings attached compared with the current charter school model, but I don't think so. Any bill that set this up would probably put the current educational forces in charge of the buckets.

I guess I don't see any way to avoid fighting the fight head on. In our state, that means working to lift the moratorium on charter schools. It means supporting new charter school applications. It means supporting unified state-wide bussing system for these schools.

SteveH said...

Speaking of disruptive innovation, this blog (and the one for Irvington) fit that category in many respects. Do you think we will ever reach a critical mass?