What makes a school work?

Everybody in this country went to school for at least some period of time, and because they all have experience with the school system, everybody feels qualified to critique teachers and schools. It is generally not the case that all people who have school experience are experts on curriculum design. However, this assertion does not feel as ridiculous as others made on the same premise might feel. For example, having been a patient in the hospital does not make one an expert on medical administration, nor on medicine itself. Likewise, simply because one has experienced being charged with a crime and tried in the court system does not make one a legal expert. While these may seem like extreme comparisons, the fact remains that having experience with one side of a process does not make one an expert on all matters relating to the aforementioned process. So, why, in the current climate of our country, is it acceptable for politicians to set guidelines for curriculum design and the measurement of school progress?

Our current system uses student performance on standardized tests to measure the effectiveness of a school. Schools can be labeled as “failing” simply because students do not make an appropriate increase in test scores that is determined by their state government. Any educator will tell you that test scores are simply not an adequate measurement of school performance. In a 2001 article for the Phi Delta Kappan,  Eisner correctly states that “what test scores predict best are other test scores.” So why are we so worried about how students will perform on later tests? The fact of the matter is really that we shouldn’t be focused on this area. “The function of schooling is not to enable students to do better in school. The function of schooling is to enable students to do better in life.” (Eisner, 2001).

Several movements have been started in inner city, urban neighborhoods (e.g., Harlem) that attempt to improve education for the students in these areas. One example, Central Park East Secondary School (CPESS), was founded in 1985 by Deb Meier and based on the work of Ted Sizer. In this school, they removed traditional grading and graduation expectations and instead implemented a graduation portfolio system in which a committee reviews evidence of work accomplished and knowledge acquired through the curriculum. The school environment was that of cooperation between students, faculty and administration and the staff were able to make curricular and pacing decisions based on student needs and interest. A set of five questions of inquiry, called the Habits of Mind was used to guide learning. This model was successful and has data to back it up. For example, in 1995, the school boasted a dropout rate of less than 5%, compared with a citywide completion rate of 50%. However, since that time and several changes in administration later, the changes caused by high stakes reform pressure have ultimately had a significantly negative effect on the school.

So, what changed? The school is now driven administratively and the culture shifted away from that which Meier originally intended. The students are no longer guided by the “Habits of Mind” and the staff no longer enjoys the freedom they were previously given. I would argue that the biggest change is the fact that the school is no longer student centered. In a graduation speech addressed to the Kenyon College class of 2005, David Foster Wallace asserts that the goal of education should be to teach students what to think about and how to think about it. I would tend to agree with him. This can only be accomplished by encouraging students to be tenacious and thoughtfully engaged in their work. In order to be successful later in life, students will need to be self-motivated learners who are critically engaged in their work withink curriculum. The Common Core State Standards are a step in the right direction, as they encourage the development of critical thinking and reasoning skills in all subject areas. However, the characteristics of quality education cannot necessarily be measured empirically. Politicians will not be able to obtain statistics related to student engagement and the development of critical thinking skills. This is okay, because really, as Eisner suggests, one cannot appropriately compare test scores across communities with so many uncontrollable historical variables (e.g., student home background, teaching methods, etc.) contributing to them. We, as a country, will have to become okay with listening to our educators as experts and metaphorically chuck the inappropriate progress monitoring tools out the window.

Sources

Meier, D. 2002. Chapter 3. The Power of their Ideas: Lessons for America from a Small School in Harlem. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

Eisner, E. 2001. What does it mean to say a school is doing well? Phi Delta Kappan 82(5): 367-72.

http://www.corestandards.org

http://www.i-learnt.com/Thinking_Habits_Mind.html

http://www.essentialschools.org/resources/521

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/15/education/education-secretary-overstated-failing-schools-under-no-child-left-behind-study-says.html

Morality in Education

                  When first mentioned, the concept of moral education causes many in the education field to shudder, grimace and begin to slowly back away from the conversation. This is simply due to the fact that for many, the concept of morality is too closely linked to religion. We, as a profession, are conditioned to avoid anything that could possibly be construed as religious instruction in the public schools. The possible consequences for schools and school employees who dare to broach the subject include a whole host of lawsuits from parents on all sides of the spectrum, resulting in a significant cost to the district, as well as national public scrutiny. A simple Google search for “religious education in public schools” reveals 60,700 results in approximately 0.32 seconds. It is only natural that we would have such an immediate negative reaction to this subject. However, whether we realize it or not, schools are immersed in moral education and could not survive if they did not engage in some form of this topic. However, we often trade the possibly inflammatory term of moral education, with more benign nomenclature such as “behavior support systems”, “behavior interventions” or “character education.”

      In a recent blog post, Bean (2010) addresses the topic of moral education. He asserts that “society no longer consistently teaches and enforces its own ethical codes…it is no surprise that it has fallen on public institutions to monitor people's behavior at a level it never did in the past.” Many students no longer have consistent role models for appropriate behavior at home, both in inner city, urban schools, as well as middle class, suburban populations. This is due to many factors outside of the realm of our current topic of discussion, but can largely be attributed to the decline of the middle class. This decline is contributing not only to a change in our national economy, but also in our society as a whole. Often, students spend far more time at school, inside a classroom, with their teacher than they do at home with their parents. Therefore, teachers are caregivers and, as such can have a dramatic influence on the lives of their students. We may not realize it, but we are teaching moral values by modeling them in our classroom and through our behavior policies that have become a necessity in schools.

      Because children often do not have a consistent, positive role model for interpersonal interactions, it falls on schools to teach these behaviors. If schools did not teach appropriate behaviors, in many populations, learning would not occur in the classroom. The state of Michigan recognizes the integral relationship between behavior and learning. It offers Michigan’s Integrated Behavior Learning and Support Initiative (MiBLSi), which is designed to support both behavioral instruction and reading instruction, to schools in the state who serve at-risk populations. “An integrated model not only views behavior and reading as components of the same support system, but these components also influence one another. Unless discipline issues are at a minimum, instruction will be interrupted and teaching time will be lost. Additionally, poor academic performance may lead to students engaging in problem behavior that results in escaping academic tasks.” (miblsi.cenmi.org) The components of the behavior program include tenements that students of the school must be “respectful, responsible and safe” and includes reward programs for students who are caught demonstrating behaviors that are consistent with at least one of the three categories. While the MiBLSi program is optional for schools, recent anti-bullying legislation in Michigan (PA 0241) requires that schools adopt anti-bullying polices and also encourages school boards to adopt “provisions to form bullying prevention task forces, programs, teen courts, and other initiatives involving school staff, pupils, school clubs or other student groups, administrators, volunteers, parents, law enforcement, community members, and other stakeholders” as part of those policies. Due to the recent onslaught and public awareness of bullying (see this page for a compilation of Huffington Post articles related to school bullying to get some sense of the prevalence), schools that choose not to adopt bullying prevention measures (read: behavior initiatives) will almost certainly come under fire during any investigation of bullying related incidents.

      It is obvious that schools must adopt some form of moral education, whether they choose to call it by that term or another. However, what topics should schools address in their moral education? Lickona suggests that, at the very minimum, schools must teach the concepts of respect and responsibility. She also contends that schools consider including models for moral decision-making and the use of moral discipline. Haydon, however, takes a much less direct approach by contending that “there can be many aims for moral education…yet there may be good, if not conclusive, reasons for pursuing all of these aims.” As discussed above, it behooves schools to at least teach moral responsibility and behaviors necessary for successful performance in school (i.e., respect, responsibility, honesty, etc.). Without addressing these ideals, students who do not see this behavior outside the school will not be successful in a learning environment. Resources for schools looking to incorporate moral education into the curriculum can be found here.

Educationally speaking, exclusion is not the opposite of inclusion

It is required by law that all students with disabilities receive a Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) in the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE). Some education and legal experts believe that this legislation means we must provide full inclusion into the regular education classroom for all students.  Proponents argue that full inclusion benefits all parties by increasing the visibility of students with disabilities and by offering students with disabilities access to the full curriculum. They contend that “children who can’t comprehend many of the essential elements of a lesson might still receive great benefit from their nondisabled peers, who serve as language and behavior models” and that “the biggest benefit will come when disabled students feel they ‘belong’ with the regular-education children, rather than being segregated in separate classes or separate schools” (Arnold and Dodge, Agne).  These arguments insinuate that anyone who is against full inclusion for all students is morally reprehensible and does not have the best interests of children at heart, when in fact the opposite is true.  Let us not forget the requirement of an “appropriate” education. Students with disabilities need an individualized education plan that is unique to their strengths and weaknesses, and this simply cannot be accomplished through a one sized fits all approach of full inclusion for every student.

    There are a wide variety of students with disabilities who are educated by our system and covered by an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) that is completed on an annual basis.  This includes students from high incidence populations, such as those with Learning Disabilities (LD), Speech and Language Impairment (SLI), Mild-Moderate Cognitive Impairment (MoCI) and Emotional Impairment (EI) as well as students from low incidence populations, such as those with Autism Impairment (AI), Severe Cognitive Impairment (SCI), Visual Impairment (VI), Hearing Impaired (HI) and also those who are Severely, Multiple Impaired (SXI).  There are several factors that are considered when developing an annual IEP and, consequently, when making choices regarding educational programming for these students. The IEP team must consider first and foremost five factors: 1) the communication needs of a student, 2) the need for assistive technology, 3) the English proficiency of a student, 4) the students’ visual skills and 5) behavioral supports. Then, they must consider which related services (e.g., Speech Therapy, Occupational Therapy, Teacher Consultant services, Social Work Services, etc.) and which educational programs (e.g., Resource Room or other programming) are needed to support the student’s ability to access the general education curriculum. Finally, the IEP team must consider to what extent the student will be included with students who are nondisabled.  When considering placement, case law recommends that schools consider not only the educational and non-educational benefit to the student with a disability, but also the possible negative effects on the other students in the fully-included classroom. Let us delve further into the muddy waters by walking through some placement decisions for students with a variety of disabilities.

    Student A is eligible for special education as a student with a Learning Disability in the area of math calculation. English is her first language. Her language comprehension and expression skills fall within normal limits for her age range, as do her visual and hearing acuity. She will benefit from Assistive Technology through the use of a graphing calculator in math class to compensate for her difficulties with performing basic calculations and allow her to keep pace with the class. She does not exhibit behaviors that interfere with her learning. She will also need Resource Room or Teacher Consultant support to provide intensive instruction in order to remediate those calculation skills. The educational benefits to placing Student A in the regular education classroom at full inclusion are numerous and there are no possible scenarios in which her presence would cause harm to the other students in the classroom. Her regular education teacher and special education teacher will need to work together on lessons in order to ensure that Student A receives adequate instruction to support her learning (see http://www.udlcenter.org/implementation/examples for suggestions regarding curriculum design and lesson planning in the spirit of inclusion). This may also involve extra training for the regular education teacher and extra time on both teachers’ parts, but this is not a reason to reject inclusion as an option. For Student A, full inclusion would be highly beneficial.

Let us now consider Student B, who is eligible for special education as a student with an Autism Impairment. English is his first language. However, due to the inherent language difficulties present with Autism, his receptive language is delayed and he does not use verbal speech to communicate. He will need the support of Assistive Technology in the form of a Voice Output Communication Device (VOCA) to communicate in school. He exhibits constant sensory seeking behaviors in the form of flapping his hands and rocking. He also demonstrates violent behaviors in situations where his sensory system is overwhelmed by too much noise, and has previously hit several teachers. Currently, he is performing 4 grade levels behind in reading, and is performing 3 grade levels behind in math. He will need the support of Speech and Language Therapy to address communication, Occupational Therapy to address sensory needs and intensive Resource Room support to provide remediation of reading skills, math skills and to support comprehension in the content areas.  Inclusion would benefit Student B by providing models for social skills and behavior; however, he will not receive much academic benefit due to the differences in his cognitive and language skills. Possible harm exists for other students in the school if Student B becomes over stimulated and demonstrates violent behaviors. It is likely that Student B will benefit from a more structured classroom environment with fewer students and highly trained staff to better support his behavior, academic and communication needs. When Student B becomes more proficient in his communication skills and decreases his violent behaviors, he may benefit from inclusion during non-academic times, such as gym, to support his social development.

    The above examples serve to illustrate that educational placement is not something to be taken lightly, but it is also not something that can be accomplished with one approach. Federal legislation requires that a Free and Appropriate Public Education be provided in the Least Restrictive Environment possible for the student. This means that each student must be approached individually and decisions can only be made on a case-by-case basis. To assert that all students can be educated appropriately through full inclusion in the regular classroom is not realistic. There are many recent news articles regarding both the positive and negative aspects of inclusion. Students with disabilities need individualized placement that is tailored to support their own unique strengths and weaknesses. This may be accomplished through full or partial inclusion, or by programming in a specialized classroom. It is just not possible to make one recommendation for all students.

Sources

Arnold and Dodge, Ange, ‘Is Full Inclusion of Disabled Students Desirable?’ from Taking sides: Clashing views on educational issues (11th ed.) J.W. Noll (ed.), pp. 242-255 (New York: Dushkin/McGraw-Hill). [13]

http://www.wikipedia.org

http://aim.cast.org/learn/historyarchive/backgroundpapers/promise_of_udl/what_l-i_d

http://nichcy.org/schoolage/iep/meetings/special-factors

http://csl.sog.unc.edu/node/977

http://www.udlcenter.org/implementation/examples

http://www.trivalleycentral.com/casa_grande_dispatch/area_news/autism-no-barrier-to-young-ballplayers/article_4263c85e-1df5-11e2-af9c-0019bb2963f4.html

http://www.care2.com/causes/inclusion-a-great-idea-that-doesnt-always-work.html