Sometimes things just come together – It’s time to recognize that there is a difference between doing things right and doing the right thing.

For a while now, I’ve been working on a paper dealing with the relationship between the 40+ years of work in New Jersey on the development and refinement of curriculum standards, the related investment/development of large-scale assessments and the persistently flat (with very few exceptions) NAEP scores over that same span years. The data seem very clear and the conclusions obvious. If we want to significantly increase student achievement for all kids, we haven’t found the correct formula.

I began this project as a result of my reflections on the time I spent serving in the NJ Department of Education and the place of that work in the ongoing continuing discussions about education reform.

During this same time, I found myself drawn to the story of Newark. Much like following thumbnails on You Tube, one book led to another… each adding another dimension to the story, none painting pictures of success. I realized there was a connection between what I was reading and the work on my paper; however, identifying that connection was proving maddeningly elusive.

Recently, however, in just one week along came Ms Laura Waters analysis of the Abbott decisions and, from another source, a link to an interview with Russell Ackoff, conducted before his death in 2009. As a regular reader of this site, I needed no introduction to Ms Waters. Ackoff, however, was a new name. A little research revealed that he had a long, varied and distinguished career, including a time from 1986 until his death as professor emeritus of the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania.

In Ackoff’s interview he noted that, while we frequently used the terms synonymously, there was a growing recognition that there is a difference between efficiency and effectiveness and that Peter Drucker had captured this by saying that there’s a difference between ‘doing things right’ and doing ‘the right thing’.

Ackoff expands by suggesting that doing things right is about efficiency but doing the right thing is about effectiveness. He makes a strong case for the connection between wisdom and doing/identifying the right things. He notes further that when we try to do things right about the wrong thing, we actually make things worse… such attempts at improvement actually take us further from both the recognition and accomplishment of the “right thing”.

There it was.

While at the Department of Education, I was proud to work with many good people who worked very hard to do testing right. Yet at no time did we consider the possibility that we were trying to do testing right without considering seriously whether or not it was the right thing. Ten years later, there is increasing (but nonetheless largely ignored) evidence that it was not the right thing. Accompanying this evidence, is the increasing voice of those pointing out the failure of this direction on both the ‘doing things right’ and the ‘right thing’ test.

Assume for sake of discussion that Ackoff was correct when he noted that we learn more from our mistakes than by doing things right. This places us in great shape. We’ve got more than a few mistakes from which to learn. One take-away seems to be that we can continue to try to do things right or we can invest significant human capital in the exploration and identification of the right thing.

What seems abundantly clear is this… continuing to invest more time, energy, resources in trying to improve ‘doing things right’ with Abbott, the 40 year cycle of revised standards and assessments, the state take-over of school districts and municipalities, etc., is going to get us more of what we’ve got. It’s time to consider that we have identified the wrong thing and our attempts to do things right are actually taking us further away from any lasting solutions and from the right thing.

Recommended reading for the “Newark story”

Inside Newark, Decline, Rebellion, and the Search for Transformation, Robert Curvin

Between the World and Me, Ta-Nehisi Coates

The Prize, Who Owns America’s Schools, Dale Russakoff

Where’s the Bozone Layer When You Need It?

OK, so I tried just adding a comment to a recent posting by one of my favorite boggers, Jan Resseger.

In reporting and commenting on a decision by the Ohio State Board of Education, “Wisdom Prevails, for Once, as Board Members Set State Math Test Cut Scores”, Jan once again demonstrated the skills and insights that characterize her reporting. But I felt I had to do something to deal with the frustration raging in my belly. It didn’t work. So here goes.

Moving on…The post in question deals with an ongoing controversy in Ohio (not the only state, by the way) over the establishment of cut scores for the state’s new large-scale assessments.

For a quick and dirty refresher, the cut scores are the arbitrary scores set to establish the assignment of the various performance levels used for reporting of student learning. These scores are set by the state (usually by the boards of education) and frequently completed in collaboration with a committee of statistical experts.   Sometimes, these cut scores are recommended prior to the review of the actual test questions and the perceived degree of diffculty… Are we beginning to see the need for Bozone protection here?

While the discussion regarding the validity, accuracy and usefulness of these arbitrary scores has accompanied the wide-spread use of large-scale, state-wide assessments, only recently has the discussion openly included the reality that such scores might be, and apparently are, used to support politically motivated actions.

So here’s the Cliff Notes version of the debate covered by Jan in her post. The state of Ohio had terminated its contract with PARCC and hired the American Institute of Research (AIR) to develop and administer this year’s test. According to Patrick O’Donnell, the education reporter for the Plain Dealer:

“Preliminary test scores on Ohio’s new Geometry and Integrated Math II exams… show that the tests were such a mismatch with student ability that fewer than one out of every four students who took them met state benchmarks.  The state had predicted that 59 percent of high schoolers would score as ‘Proficient’ or above on the Geometry exam, but only 24 percent did.  Similarly, 56 percent were projected to score as ‘Proficient’ or above on the Integrated Math II exam and only 21 percent did.”

So what did the state do when faced with the prospect that significant numbers of students might have their graduation requirements compromised by the scores?

As Jan points out…

Too often the people setting the scores in the test-and-punish ethos that has dominated our society are anxious to “protect the quality of the diploma” and guarantee “college-and-career-ready.” There hasn’t been so much worry about the quality of the schooling experience itself.

So, of course, they argued about the need to “maintain high standards”, emphasized that such scores are good “to motivate students to work harder”, and argued for the need to avoid caving to the “trophies for all” mentality that has apparently sapped the moral character and industriousness from out youth. The Ohio Department of Education officials argued that the performance of students was not accurately reflected in the test results (apparently ignoring for a moment their role in establishing the cut scores used to determine passing rates) and that the cut scores should be raised. They asked the state board members to raise the scores so that 52 percent of students would be rated Proficient or above on the Geometry test and 35 percent Proficient or above on Integrated Math II… apparently there was rationale for the magic of 52% as opposed to, say, 49%. I would expect to see this discussion about the ‘magical’ 52% on the John Oliver Show some time real soon now. Perhaps making the case for an even thicker Bozone Layer.

Jan and I rarely disagree; however, in looking for a bright spot in all of this, she refers to the recommendation and the board’s acceptance of it as a display of common sense. I, on the other hand, see it as a continuation of the lunacy that had driven the development and implementation of the standards/assessment solution to education improvement. Talk about the difference between doing things right and doing the right thing.

Of course, trying to fix the obvious problems with the Ohio assessment and cut scores issues is an attempt at doing things right. It’s also a great example of how trying to do the wrong thing right just makes things “wronger”!

Let me conclude this little rant with a few questions … (1) If you were going to attempt to solve a critically important issue such as what should our kids be able to do as a result of spending 13+ years in school, who would you put in the room? Let me guess. It might not be state and/or national politicians and politically appointed members of the US Education Department… at least not without an significant increase in the Bozone layer to protect our kids, our educators, our families, and our future from the harmful effects of these ill-informed reformers. (2) How did we, as educators, allow the discussion of improving the learning experiences for our kids get so far afield? (3) Isn’t it past time to start thinking of ways that we can begin to act as if learning really matters?

As Ken Robinson points out, the ability of these “reform” folks to develop such creative names as No Child Left Behind, Race to the Top, and, now, Every Students Succeeds demonstrates with doubt that, while they may know little about teaching and learning, they certainly understand irony (and I think that may be an ELA standard). It time to activate the Bozone Layer!

 “Cut the red wire…. But first…”  …

For those off who might have missed it or have memories as faulty as mine, this quote comes a MASH episode in which BJ and Hawkeye are trying to defuse a bomb.  Hawkeyes is following the directions that BJ is reading to him from a manual.  Just as he , following BJ’s instructions, cuts the red wire, BJ calmly mentions… “but first…”  The evolution of the piece that follows reminded me of that exchange… it represents a “but first”.

This started as the second of a three part series exploring the three types of learning that Clark Aldrich describes in his book, Unschooling Rules: 55 Ways To Unlearn What We Know About Schools And Rediscover Education.

In the first post, I explored what Aldrich refers to as the need for us to focus on helping kids “learn how to be”. In this piece I wanted to explore his concept of learning how to learn.

But as I was outlining my thoughts, I realized that I was focusing more on some pre-questions that I had to explore before my mind would let me get to Aldrich’s thinking on the topic. More specifically, I kept getting interrupted by questions that moved beyond Aldrich, or maybe they actually come before Aldrich. The questions that wouldn’t stop pestering me and that I want explore here are: “Where are we right now? How the hell did we get here and, most importantly, what is keeping us here?”

So… now it’s going to be two  3-part series. This first series  will deal with the three questions… one at a time and then I’ll be returning to Aldrich to explore the learn how to learn and learn how to do learning types.

So, first of all, where is “here” … 

“Here” is just about where these   guys wanted us to be.

Committee of Ten,  courtesy Sudbury School

In 1892 they were asked to develop a model for what content should be taught and how both the content and the school day should be organized. Only problem is that it didn’t change after two world wars, after the Great Depression, after several recessions, after the industrial revolution, after the invention of the automobile, the computer, the internet, the cell phone, etc., etc., etc.

If you were designing what and the way kids should learn in 2016, would you ask these guys? Well, we sorta did! And here is where we are.

In many ways, for kids and teachers it’s surprisingly like the turn of the century… the 20th Century! So for me it’s kind of safe to say that…

• “Here” is trying to do the wrong thing better – i.e., schooling designed by 10 guys in 1892.

While there is a growing sense that we can do schooling better if we can combine the 1892 curriculum with a reframed focus of soft skills and dispositions, in my mind this is still trying to do the wrong thing ‘righter’. Why? Because for right now “here” in far too many instances is a continuing focus on loading up the school day with the content knowledge that has been defined by business folks and politicians and that can be measured most easily and efficiently – i.e., large scale state assessments.

In a recent post Will  Richardson Richardson shared a quote from Russel Ackoff…

“There is no longer the slightest justification for introducing children to the idea that human thought is a collection of fragmented “disciplines” and making that idea the center-pin of the educational experience for students in their schools. As a historical curio, this idea might make for an amusing aside in a general discussion of the evolution of human thought, but as a notion that is productive and useful for developing minds it is, at the very least, counterproductive. Children grow up seeing the world as a whole. Their greatest challenge — one that continues to be the central task of every person throughout life — is to form a worldview that makes sense out of the multitude of their experiences. Indeed, human sanity depends on the integrated nature of a person’s worldview; fragmented psyches are generally considered ill-adapted to the needs of adult survival” (Kindle 950).

• “Here” is continuing to ignore Ackoff’s observation and ignoring the wealth of materials available at our finger tips to help us design and provide engaging learning experiences and continuing to limit the location of learning by content domains, time and geography.

As Will Richardson shares in another recent post

(Is it beginning to look like maybe I should just suggest everyone read Will Richardson and stop writing myself?)

It’s not hard to see that our focus in schools isn’t on learning as much as it’s on making sure kids become learned about the “best-guess” curriculum we put in front of them. Similarly, it’s hard to argue that that approach is getting them ready for the 90%-10% world of self-determined learning that we all know they’re going to live in.

 Here’s truth: We now have access to more uniquely relevant and interesting resources for any given child to learn from and with than any organizationally selected curriculum could possibly offer.

Which is why the school curriculum should now be an act of creation instead of a highly scripted package of content for completion.

• “Here” is maintaining the organization of content, school day structure, and time to the model recommended by the Committee of Ten over 100 years ago.

• “Here” is a place where collaboration is revered as an idea and less frequently practiced. Want to check it out… as several teachers to explain the grading system used by the teachers whose rooms are located on either side of theirs or ask your own kids how many different grading systems they have each year. Too frequently, our school cultures foster and reinforce an “independent contractor” mentality.

• “Here” is also a place where the expectations for teachers and kids…all kids… have changed dramatically.

• Here is a time when too many students leave school unprepared to define, direct, and successfully meet their own learning needs; when too many students lack experience in collaborating with others from communities beyond their own to meet common goals; and, when too many students lack the confidence to know that they can be their own learning agent… able to plan their learning, organize resources and set learning targets.

Want to add a few more “here” statement?

Conclusion…Our system is not giving students what they need to function in the world they are experiencing and our schools and classrooms are too frequently organized to get exactly the results they are getting.

To me, this begs a few big questions…

1.  What do we/should we mean by education?
2. What do we want our kids to know, be able to do and be like when they leave school?
3.  How have you answered these questions in your school?
4. Would you share some of your answers with us?