Tom Liam Lynch :: New Literacies, New Literatures

Michael Horn recently wrote about the value of for-profit educational companies in improving education.  His lead-in sets the stage:

If President Obama wants to achieve his goal of returning the United States to its former place atop all countries in higher education attainment by 2020, he is going to need the help of for-profit universities like the University of Phoenix, Kaplan, Corinthian and DeVry, as his own Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, said recently.

He goes on to argue that those in education who would exclude for-profit companies from informing education reform are missing something. Yes, he says, there are good and “bad actors” in the for-profit sector; the same is true in the non-profit sector.  (I agree completely.)  He then cautions the reader that we must take the opportunity to learn from these organizations about what it means to teach and to learn innovatively.  (I agree again. Proponents of Pure Public Schooling like Alfie Kohn or the recently 180′d Diane Ravitch might well get uncomfortable the moment we allow schools and businesses to get too close…)

One main point Horn makes is that online learning opportunities “allow [students] to learn anytime and anywhere, many of these students would have no alternative to gain a formal education given the demands of work and family.”  He says this in response to critics who say that online learning is a poor substitute for the “real” kind of learning that happens in schools.

Horn’s defense is a problematic line of thought, I think.  It lauds the convenience of taking courses online without even so much as winking at other very crucial questions: especially the quality of the courses online.  Convenience for convenience’s sake is hardly a hardy argument for education reform.  What good is being able to take courses anywhere, anytime, if the course quality is shite?

This is not to say that all online courses are of poor quality.  Far from it.  It is to say, however, that to defend for-profit online educational companies on the grounds that are convenient–without equal attention to the quality of content that is conveniently accessed– is a weak defense indeed.  Convenience without quality is not compelling.

Horn could, for example, have discussed how some for-profit companies go to great lengths to ensure rigorous content.  Or, how some companies craft questions that challenge learners to go well beyond the simple multiple-choice blotting that naysayers claim makes up non-brick-and-mortar schooling.  Doing so, Horn could have then launched into a highly defensible tirade about the shaky quality of many “real thing” curricula.  How many teachers, he might have asked, fail to assess their students’ learning with a frequency that even comes close to online courses, which are constantly giving formative assessments?  Or, how many schools have purchased out-of-the-box curricula that denies teachers the opportunity to design curriculum and forces entire classrooms of students to move in step?

These questions aren’t asked.  It was a missed opportunity.  I myself can’t buy in to the idea that for-profit educational companies are good because they are convenient for students.  It is itself an all too convenient argument that avoids a crucial discussion we ought to be having: Are students getting quality courses at their convenience?

Powered by ScribeFire.

The New York State Board of Regents has proposed that they improve schools in the state by lifting the cap on charter schools.  They also suggest a serious effort to tie teacher pay to achievement. 

It’s not unfair to liken these proposals to a dance–a choreographed one set to the tune of the USDOE’s Race to the Top parameters.  Edweek notes,

The proposal seeks to lift the cap on the number of charter schools, now set at 200. State officials note New York could get the most “points” toward the competitive federal grants if the cap was doubled to 400 charter schools.

The proposal would revise state standardized tests so they more closely track student performance on national tests, and offer a uniform curriculum and tests in the arts, economics and multimedia computer technology.

The plan would link a teacher’s job evaluation to student performance under improved tests and as part of a variety of factors. It would also improve teacher training by colleges and mentors.

I get very nervous with the use of test scores as a weighty measure of educational effectiveness.  That having been said, I do think the work of charter schools deserves more credit than teaching unionists often give.  Though I have seen some eerily scripted charter schools, I’ve also seen some eerily scripted public school programs (“You will teach this mini-lesson to your level two blue readers at 11:25″).  At the same time, I find the idealists’ cry that schooling must be a public service hard to swallow when our classrooms look like so many of them do. 

Do I think we should privatize education? Not completely.  Do I think public schools can learn from private schools and charters?  Absolutely.   

Is this what it comes down to: more time in school = better learning?  No, it isn’t.  Though supporters of longer school days and years would like to argue the prior, it is more accurate to say this: more time in school (preparing for exams) = better learning (preparing for exams).

I’m not saying I don’t favor longer school days and years.  I might be very much in favor of it.  What I am not in favor of is the way in which learning has been equated with test scores.  It is most troublesome when I read an article like this one in Ed Week, in which

The first national database of schools that have added learning time to their schedules, which was set for release this week, suggests that the extra time might play a role in boosting middle and high school achievement.

The National Center on Time & Learning, which assembled and analyzed the database, found a moderate association between increased time and how well students did on their states’ standardized English and mathematics tests compared with their peers in nearby schools on regular schedules.

On the one hand, aren’t the success of exams like the ones discussed here predicated on their uniqueness.  Isn’t teaching directly to the test the kind of thing that makes the measurement of such assessments bogus?  On the other hand, is this what learning has neatly become: filling in bubbles and scoring high on tests?

The article calls attention to charter schools in particular, whose success with student achievement is being well documented (Harlem Children Zone was in the spotlight on 60 minutes just last night).  But, if the context of success is limited to learning out-of-context, what good is it?  Edublogger Richard Bryne writes the following about the 60 Minute segment:

One part of the segment that I didn’t agree with was the focus at the end on trying to figure out which one thing is making [founder Geoffery] Canada’s school successful in closing achievement gaps. As they said in the segment, “trying to boil it down to pill form.” If people are serious about closing achievement gaps and want to use Canada’s model, they’ll need to adopt all of his strategies, not just the “boiled down” version. The full segment is embedded below.

I’m inclined to agree.  At the same time, test scores have such weighty status because the education world isn’t presenting any other quasi-convincing form of measurement. Talk about a tough pill to swallow.

The Times reported on recent flair ups between public school advocates and charter school supporters.  Jenifer Medina writes:

Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg has made charter schools one of his third-term priorities, and that means that in New York, battles and resentment over space — already a way of life — will become even more common. He and his schools chancellor, Joel I. Klein, have allowed nearly two-thirds of the city’s 99 charter schools to move into public school buildings, officials expect two dozen charter schools to open next fall, and the mayor has said he will push the Legislature to allow him to add 100 more in the next four years.

It’s fairly well known how charter-friendly NYC is.  What I find problematic about Medina’s article is the way she sets the stage.  She describes a librarian who took pains to redecorate and renovate her own library for her public school students.  Then, her principal agreed to give the library space to a charter school in the building. 

This isn’t a fair anecdote to introduce a discussion on charter schools.  It might begin a conversation about shoddy leadership–a principal who doesn’t involve invested members of staff in decision-making–but has little to do with the greater tension between charters and publics.