Damian Cooper's out to reform education, and our board has come up with yet another a new assessment document as a response. The article of the day that he co-wrote with Ken O'Connor and Nanci Wakeman, is "Redefining Fair."
The article suggests that there are four challenges to improving assessment practices:
1. There's no political will to change.
It seems to me that changes happen in education pretty much every year. We're often in long meetings learning the new rules of grading or new jargon to take back to the classroom. A ton of cash goes into changing the system regularly. New is always better in my board. I can't imagine where they got this idea that there's no will to change. I wish they'd let us get settled into one thing before pulling the rug out again.
2. There's little accountability to ensure that teachers have all the skills necessary to help students.
Okay, I'll give them this one. Some teachers work their butts off to be the best they can be, and others do as little as possible - just like in every other profession. I have a solution I'll get to in a different post, though. Accountability is tricky. But have these three found a way to reveal their own accountability with long-term studies that clearly indicate their theories work? Not that I can find. Anywhere.
3. Teachers cling to outdated beliefs about fairness that lead to inappropriate assessment.
This type of wording, "cling to outdated beliefs," is a red flag for me. It suggests that whatever is already being done is outdated. If teachers find their methods effective, it might actually make them continue using them which, in this context, is considered "clinging." The connotation of the language used reveals a clear bias against the traditional regardless of its effectiveness.
4. Teachers don't communicate with "tertiary education systems" (colleges/universities), so they hold on to outdated beliefs.
I don't know any teachers who don't know what's going on in their field at the next level. I can't imagine how anyone could teach 12U courses without having a clear idea what's necessary for students to know in university, or teach a tech course without knowing what kids need to know to succeed in the field. When I designed the philosophy courses at my school, the first place I went is to both the local universities where I asked profs what they think should be in the course. Where do they get their information?
Their solutions to all these problems? No percentage grades; no mathematical calculation of grades at all. Marks must be holistically determined and a reflection only of the final product, NOT a reflection of effort or attendance. If they only hand in one of six assignments, and it's excellent, then their mark should reflect that excellence - not the fact that they didn't do everything asked of them. They shouldn't get zeros or failing grades for plagiarism, cheating, or refusing to complete assignments.
They provide a pilot analogy to explain their reasoning. If you're learning to fly a plane, you don't just get one chance to do it and then fail if you have a bumpy landing on your first try. You have to do it over and over hundreds of times before you're evaluated. So, by their logic, nothing should really count except the final work in the course. Schools should prepare students for the outside world, not be the outside world.
This analogy falls apart all over the place.
First of all, the final work in a course rarely shows proficiency in the entire course. For example, I'll have 4-5 units, and in each unit there's usually a project and a test. If they just do the last unit's project, it won't measure their knowledge of the rest of the units. And the final exam just shows their ability to memorize for a night - not their ability to sit and think and use the concepts with excellence because they only have 90 minutes. They need to show me what they've learned throughout our time together.
Secondly, I give many many practice attempts at learning before I evaluate with the unit project and test. The attempts at work happen every day with modelling of work, homework attempts, questions in class, and quizzes that don't count or count for very little, just for a start. These things are the practice runs, and the projects and tests are the final evaluation. He's making all the major assignments into practice runs not recognizing all the practice that necessarily leads up to them.
Finally, more than course content, students need practice with time management, work ethic, and taking responsibility. If we don't insist they practice these skills in high school - and give rewards and punishments for their efforts, then they won't be ready for the final test of coping in university or at their first job. I had an old student, who was often late to his first class, come back to visit. His teacher typically just told him to try to be on time next time. He told me he was late the first day on the job, and his boss said, "Don't let it happen again." The second day, he bought a coffee for his boss because he was late again - something he learned to do with his first period teacher. His boss said, "Turn around and don't come back." The kid was flabbergasted.
If we let slack attitudes go without any kind of significant punishment, then kids will fail in "real life." This kid managed to learn well enough for the next job, but nowadays, there often isn't a next job. They have to get it right the first time. Sure high-school is their practice run, but you don't get limitless tries at being a pilot, and you sure as hell don't show up late and just give a half-assed attempt to fly the plane or you could all die. We want them leaving our building prepared to show up on time, get all their work done on time, and do their best. That's not going to happen if we give them limitless chances to show up and do some work.
I'm just thankful that our board's new policies aren't anywhere near this insane. The biggest change will be having to stop deducting late marks. (I'll get to that in the next post.)
Of all Damian Cooper's book, only one has one review, a 1/5, and it says,
A review of O'Connor's book, A Repair Kit For Growing, speaks volumes. It was written by Bob Wood, a seasoned educator,
ETA - Also check out Paul Bennett's post on this. It was implemented back in 2011 in his board.
The article suggests that there are four challenges to improving assessment practices:
1. There's no political will to change.
It seems to me that changes happen in education pretty much every year. We're often in long meetings learning the new rules of grading or new jargon to take back to the classroom. A ton of cash goes into changing the system regularly. New is always better in my board. I can't imagine where they got this idea that there's no will to change. I wish they'd let us get settled into one thing before pulling the rug out again.
2. There's little accountability to ensure that teachers have all the skills necessary to help students.
Okay, I'll give them this one. Some teachers work their butts off to be the best they can be, and others do as little as possible - just like in every other profession. I have a solution I'll get to in a different post, though. Accountability is tricky. But have these three found a way to reveal their own accountability with long-term studies that clearly indicate their theories work? Not that I can find. Anywhere.
3. Teachers cling to outdated beliefs about fairness that lead to inappropriate assessment.
This type of wording, "cling to outdated beliefs," is a red flag for me. It suggests that whatever is already being done is outdated. If teachers find their methods effective, it might actually make them continue using them which, in this context, is considered "clinging." The connotation of the language used reveals a clear bias against the traditional regardless of its effectiveness.
4. Teachers don't communicate with "tertiary education systems" (colleges/universities), so they hold on to outdated beliefs.
I don't know any teachers who don't know what's going on in their field at the next level. I can't imagine how anyone could teach 12U courses without having a clear idea what's necessary for students to know in university, or teach a tech course without knowing what kids need to know to succeed in the field. When I designed the philosophy courses at my school, the first place I went is to both the local universities where I asked profs what they think should be in the course. Where do they get their information?
Their solutions to all these problems? No percentage grades; no mathematical calculation of grades at all. Marks must be holistically determined and a reflection only of the final product, NOT a reflection of effort or attendance. If they only hand in one of six assignments, and it's excellent, then their mark should reflect that excellence - not the fact that they didn't do everything asked of them. They shouldn't get zeros or failing grades for plagiarism, cheating, or refusing to complete assignments.
They provide a pilot analogy to explain their reasoning. If you're learning to fly a plane, you don't just get one chance to do it and then fail if you have a bumpy landing on your first try. You have to do it over and over hundreds of times before you're evaluated. So, by their logic, nothing should really count except the final work in the course. Schools should prepare students for the outside world, not be the outside world.
This analogy falls apart all over the place.
First of all, the final work in a course rarely shows proficiency in the entire course. For example, I'll have 4-5 units, and in each unit there's usually a project and a test. If they just do the last unit's project, it won't measure their knowledge of the rest of the units. And the final exam just shows their ability to memorize for a night - not their ability to sit and think and use the concepts with excellence because they only have 90 minutes. They need to show me what they've learned throughout our time together.
Secondly, I give many many practice attempts at learning before I evaluate with the unit project and test. The attempts at work happen every day with modelling of work, homework attempts, questions in class, and quizzes that don't count or count for very little, just for a start. These things are the practice runs, and the projects and tests are the final evaluation. He's making all the major assignments into practice runs not recognizing all the practice that necessarily leads up to them.
Finally, more than course content, students need practice with time management, work ethic, and taking responsibility. If we don't insist they practice these skills in high school - and give rewards and punishments for their efforts, then they won't be ready for the final test of coping in university or at their first job. I had an old student, who was often late to his first class, come back to visit. His teacher typically just told him to try to be on time next time. He told me he was late the first day on the job, and his boss said, "Don't let it happen again." The second day, he bought a coffee for his boss because he was late again - something he learned to do with his first period teacher. His boss said, "Turn around and don't come back." The kid was flabbergasted.
If we let slack attitudes go without any kind of significant punishment, then kids will fail in "real life." This kid managed to learn well enough for the next job, but nowadays, there often isn't a next job. They have to get it right the first time. Sure high-school is their practice run, but you don't get limitless tries at being a pilot, and you sure as hell don't show up late and just give a half-assed attempt to fly the plane or you could all die. We want them leaving our building prepared to show up on time, get all their work done on time, and do their best. That's not going to happen if we give them limitless chances to show up and do some work.
I'm just thankful that our board's new policies aren't anywhere near this insane. The biggest change will be having to stop deducting late marks. (I'll get to that in the next post.)
Of all Damian Cooper's book, only one has one review, a 1/5, and it says,
"No more salesmen posing as educators. Any teacher worth his salt already knows that the name of the game is learning--marks are just an afterthought. We don't need another $116 book preaching us such trite thoughts."His partner, Nanci Wakeman, hasn't written anything on her own, but she got an average of 1/5 on RateMyTeacher with comments like,
"Seemed pretty miserable, standing outside the office scowling and yelling at students for wearing hats. Very uninvolved in the school and extremely unfriendly," and, "I had an awful experience with her. I wasn't at fault but she jumped to conclusions and was very rude and tasteless. I personally don't like her at all!"I guess maybe it's better that she's helping to write critiques of education rather than teaching. But it really makes me wonder why we're following these two and Ken O'Connor so closely - ensuring we do whatever they suggest.
A review of O'Connor's book, A Repair Kit For Growing, speaks volumes. It was written by Bob Wood, a seasoned educator,
"I find this book to be simplistic and in a way dangerous. Mr. O’Connor has proposed fixes that instead of repairing public schools will, if adhered to, add more problems to an already broken society. In the state of Michigan he has cashed in on the state by convincing Republican lawmakers to use it for changing grading procedures around the state. Consequently, many districts have been designated to adjust their grading policies to follow the fixes. Mr. O’Conner is a member of the consortium hired to create a computer-grading program that has been purchased by many of the districts following his program. Mr. O’Connor is making a lot of money re-writing grading policies around the state of Michigan, despite not having been in the classroom since 1996, never having taught in the United States, and completing his own studies without ever earning his doctorate."The review continues to explain some serious concerns with his principles:
"This book offers fifteen major changes to the American grading system that he says will make grades more meaningful. Instead these changes undermine basic life lessons and the accountability necessary to learn responsible habits that result in success in later life.....If a child cheats…do not fail him. Give him another chance to do the work so that you can measure his real academic progress. And if he cheats again – do the same. How can this possibly be a guideline for healthy behavior and future success?....According to Mr. O’Connor absences should not count in grade evaluations...being late doesn’t matter...cheating isn’t relevant to learning. How can a student who is being evaluated by the above criteria learn accountability in the classroom, in the workplace, in life?... O’Connor encourages students to be less accountable, less reliable, less honest, and lazy. Even so he awards them with an open-ended invitation, to turn in your school work when you get around to it. In the meantime, he has convinced the State of Michigan to give him an awful lot of money to circulate his theories throughout the state."Are they really concerned about the education of our students and children, or are they master manipulators out for the cash that comes with the territory when you prey on people's greatest fears - that their kids won't make it? And won't it be popular for the public when all their kids' marks go up like crazy because nothing they don't do can count! Maybe they're brilliant after all!
ETA - Also check out Paul Bennett's post on this. It was implemented back in 2011 in his board.
No comments:
Post a Comment