Are We Really Losing the Global Education Game

We often hear concern within our media that the U.S. as a nation is losing its educational edge. The pundits fear that we will cease to be competitive and our mighty economy will stumble. Are our college graduates all doomed to live in their parents basements until the ripe age of 40 or are the pundits full of crap? After all when is the last time you heard a business argue that they are moving their factory to Mexico because of the great public education system. As Catholic educators should it concern us that the talk of globalization is often framed in the context of "competition" rather and the context of increased "cooperation". Which framework is more helpful in solving what are now global issues? As members of the first international organization (the Church) where is our voice in the growing debate?

ASCD recently published a book by Michigan State professor Yong Zhao titled "Catching Up or Leading the Way". The book moves beyond international tests (TIMSS and PISA) or achievement and looks at the outcomes and reform efforts in each country. Having been raised in China and educated in both the United States and China Zhao's perspective is definitely worth a look. Zhao points out that China is racing to reform their educational system to be more like the United States while we are (at least in terms of NCLB and the recent work of the Department of Education) reforming our system to be more like the traditional Chinese system. In general the traditional system in China contains an emphasis on drill and kill activities and rote memorization. Culturally the college entrance exam in China is the ticket to social mobility with the benefits of citizenship often only applied to those who hold college degrees. This myopic focus on one test comes to shape the entire culture. Saturdays are no longer reserved for family and activities but rather math camps and grammar rodeos fill the weekends. The outcome is as predicted: high test scores but low ability. Recently Premier Wen called a national conference lamenting the Chinese system's inability to produce creative thinkers. The majority of patents in the world in the area of invention and new technology are still awarded disproportionately to Americans. This does not bode well for China who longs to become more than just the world's factory and inexpensive labor pool.

American education certainly celebrates the wide spectrum of human ability. Ask any high school principal what their evenings are filled with? It's not grammar rodeos and math camps but rather the wide-array of co-curricular activities that are part of the American high school experience. We know football, basketball, music and band can often steal the show and perhaps garner too much attention. Look at your football budget compared to your science department budget. Zhao argues this balance allows on one end a truly American focus on the importance of the individual but also argues the confidence achieved in one area flows into others. This courage to do your best and to push the envelope is what often defines America and it has served us well.

So China is racing to become more like the West in terms of education while our national reform efforts seem to sap the joy out of any school. Teacher-proof scripted lessons and weeks of preparing for the annual graphite dance on the bubble sheets may raise our TIMSS score but at what long term cost?

Below are three links that are worth a look. One is Zhao delivering a summary of his work. The other is a link on how Asian students are flocking to Liberal Arts schools in the U.S. in pursuit of learning critical thinking and problem solving skills. The third is a slide share presentation that summarizes the book.

Link to Zhao's presentation

Link to Article on Asian students and Liberal Arts Education

Link to slide share summary of the book.

Catchingup

View more presentations from charlie roy.

I'm not one to be content with average performance and I don't mean to push off accountability efforts with this post. But until we frame school reform around an agreement about what knowledge and skills our graduates really need our efforts will be empty. I'd argue producing young men and women who think critically, live humanely, lead effectively, and can operate in a paradigm of global cooperation (not competition) would be an excellent start. A thorough grounding in Catholic moral and social teaching would be a nice base as well.

Teaching the Lower Track

For years our school has split our curriculum into three different tracks. We've called these tracks by various names and have adjusted the terminology from time to time. Currently we have three tracks: modified, regular, and honors. Students are placed into these tracks through scores on the placement / entrance exam. As of late I've begun to worry about the students in the low track.

Does tracking beyond honors and regular actually increase student learning? I see two sides to the situation. We are about to embark on a massive curriculum revamp as part of a switch to a trimester and 1:1 computing model. The debate around modified courses is about to began.

To give the context we track in four areas: math, science, social studies, and english. On one hand the observation is made that our staff at the modified level is not specifically trained to teach with different methods for students of lower academic ability. In a school of 850 each class has about 20 students tracked into the modified lane. A large percentage of these students have IEPs for various reasons but many do not. These students spend the entire day together moving from class to class with the exception of a few electives. Concern has been raised that by grouping our lower scoring students together for four years they continually reinforce to each other low expectations. Some argue that if we placed these students into regular classes they could manage to make it through if teachers were willing to differentiate their instruction to address the learning needs of these students. This group believes students would be better served by being placed in the regular lane.

On the other hand a number of our staff are opposed to eliminating the modified track with the concern that by placing these students into the regular lain the curriculum would be watered down. That teachers would be forced to teach to the needs of the lowest students. This group believes adamantly that eliminating tracking at this level would have a profound negative impact on the school as a whole.

My personal feelings are mixed. I'm curious as to our students thoughts. As soon as school kicks back up in the fall I plan to collect some student opinions on the matter. I can see some merit to the views of both camps. I'm curious as to how other Catholic high schools address these issue. Perhaps we are in the minority by tracking perhaps were not. Maybe it would be better to place these students in regular classes but assign them to a special study hall and delay the foreign language elective for a couple of years. I'm sure a number of schools have addressed these issues and have come up with a solution.

Some make the argument that Freshmen and Sophomore year should be untracked and admittance to the AP / Honors lane be determined only by academic performance during the Freshmen and Sophomore year.

Please take the survey link here and share your practices and ideas. Link Here

Reflecting on Year One of Technology Integration

During the past school year we implemented a plan to give all of our instructors Apple Macbooks. We also greatly increased the strength and bandwidth of our wireless network. Our newly formed director of instructional technology took on the challenging task of teaching and implementing technology goals for the 2008-2009 school year. Below I reflect on what worked, what didn't, and what we learned in the process. Our hope is others can learn from our efforts or give us some great guidance as we move forward. This post is inspired by Scott McLeod's latest post on urging school leaders to take seriously their obligations to advance technology integration through Leadership Day 2009.

1. Upgrading the wireless: Well it worked and it worked well. We went from a network that often slugged around at paces so slow checking email was a chore. The upgrade for the building all told cost around $30,000 for a high school of 800. I'd tell you are square footage but I don't know it. What we learned: design with the ability to add access points to handle 1:1 depth. Having a great network guy and team player helped enormously. After all its always about the people in the end.

2. To filter or not filter? Once the network was up and blazing what to do about filtering. We take a rather open approach at PND and aren't concerned with blocking social network sites, youtube and the like. After all why block what can be used for educational purposes. The "fear" card is too often overplayed and shouldn't be. Live a little. Of course we block the porn and other soul ruining sites, gambling etc. What we learned: blocking educational tools is a waste of time and more importantly creative talent. We encourage teachers to use facebook for their class nor personal communication with students. Here are some examples. Link to art page, school facebook account.

3. Choosing appropriate goals: Obviously giving teachers a laptop comes with the expectation that they will be used. What we often find is fear can get in the way. We also know that the worst way to do technology development with staff is to make them all sit in a room or lab at the same time. The problem is everyone is at a different level. Some teachers can easily create websites, blogs, and use social networking. Others struggle to create a powerpoint. With this in mind we created the position of Director of Instructional Technology to work individually with teachers throughout the year on their two identified goals. Teachers were given a number of options. Overall I would say this worked well. Not very well for some faults on my end. What we learned: I presumed all the staff would be pretty much a self starter in making their appointments and times. Those 5% of the wayward souls often need some more direct over sight. It will be provided next year. A year end survey of staff helped account for progress. I also made the mistake of assigning our Director of Instructional Technology to teaching too many sections not leaving enough time to work with the teachers. A great wiki was started about tech shortcuts and all and building PLNs with a number of staff was incredibly valuable. Once again it is about the people and our director did a great job in a challenging and new role.

This coming school year we are gearing up to prepare our staff for teaching and working in a 1:1 environment. Much work must be done between now and then but we are looking forward to the whole process.

Those Parking Spaces Close to the Building

I've been thinking lately about our Catholic mission and some of our fundraising practices. With the economy dipping and all of us fearing late tuition payments and falling enrollments the importance of annual appeals and third source fund raisers becomes even more critical.

One common practice is to auction off certain naming rights or privileges. We frequently auction off annual naming rights for our gymnasium and of course the two parking spaces closest to the front doors. I don't know why but as of late these practices seem to bother me. Maybe it's because I recently finished E.F. Schumacher's "Small if Beautiful: Economics as If People Mattered" (It's a fabulous read and I highly recommend it) Maybe it is just the effects of a long Lent. I wonder though what message it sends when the first impression we often make to our visitors is here are the parking spaces for the rich children or here is the gym named for the local business. We claim our mission is to make the world a better place - where the Gospel message radiates the love of Christ through our own lives to those around us. I wonder how this practice helps accomplish the mission.

Philanthropy is great and I don't mean to discourage our community members from supporting our mission with their donations. We all know these families could just as easily spend these dollars elsewhere. Obviously we are thankful for all the gifts we receive. We need their support but I sometimes wonder where the line needs to be drawn. What if we put a sign over the closest parking space that said "Reserved for the Least Among Us." It would be interesting to see who takes the space at the next sold out basketball game. I suppose in some ways this type of giving and public naming might encourage others to give - a type of positive peer pressure.

We are gearing up for a building campaign and these issues will become critical over the next three to four years of our school's existence. I suppose it is to dreamy to imagine the science wing donated to the anonymous giver or the "we give because we care" performing arts center.

I realize I am a total hypocrite as I recently purchased at my local grade school's auction the first rows for my sons' upcoming first communion. The price was only $48 but then again that number rings a little too close to 30 pieces of silver. I've been assured it isn't simony to sit in the front row but then again somehow I feel like one of those money changers Jesus came chasing after.