Why I support AB212 And Say No To Using Student Standardized Test Scores to Evaluate Teachers

What if we were to evaluate the performance of police officers based upon the crime rates of the neighborhoods they patrol? Or if we rated firemen on the number of fires in their station’s jurisdiction? How about if we calculated the effectiveness of doctors and nurses based on the health of their patients? Sound crazy? But that is exactly what we are doing when we tie a student’s test score to a teacher’s evaluation. In all of these examples, there are variables of which the practitioner has very little if no control over.

Recently the Nevada Education Association hosted a Teacher Assessment and Evaluation Town Hall meeting, in which teachers had the opportunity to weigh in on the controversial topic of using student test scores to evaluate teachers. In attendance was Assemblyman Ozzy Fumo who is sponsoring a bill this legislative session to prohibit the use of pupil achievement data in teacher evaluations and removes the requirement that pupil achievement data must account for at least 40% of a teacher’s evaluation. In this post I will outline why I agree with Assemblyman Fumo’s AB212, and believe that student test data should never be used in evaluating teachers.

In an attempt to improve American education, reformers have targeted teaching quality as the single most impactful variable affecting student learning. That by holding teachers accountable, and weeding out the weak and ineffectual teachers, American education will improve. Stanford University economist, Eric A. Hanushek estimated that top performing teachers helped students gain more than a year’s worth of learning, and those students taught by an underperforming teacher only grew by half a year. We obviously want the best performing teachers teaching our students, but the question becomes, how do we empirically know who the best teachers are? In an influential 2009 report, the TNTP found that 99% of teachers in 12 districts were ranked satisfactory on evaluations and that tenured teachers were almost never fired. The report called into question the validity of traditional administrator observations of teacher performance and raised the valid question, how can 99% of teachers be ranked satisfactorily when student’s achievement data suggests that students were not making significant educational progress? As a result, policymakers sought a more objective way to evaluate teachers, one that would be free from the personal bias that may taint traditional approaches. Using student achievement data to evaluate teachers seems like a reasonable approach, good teachers teach well, their students learn the material, and then take a test to measure mastery of a subject. Good teachers can be separated from bad teachers based on their student’s scores. Except as all classroom teachers know, there are a number of variables that may influence how a student performs on a standardized test. Some examples of variables outside the teacher’s control include students with special needs, students whose native language is not English, students from economically disadvantaged households and neighborhoods, parental abuse, gangs, drug and alcohol use, food and shelter insecurity, student lethargy and many others. In 1966 James Samuel Coleman, a sociologist, theorist, and empirical researcher published the Equality of Educational Opportunity Report, or Coleman report. This report concluded that “socioeconomic status, home life, and peer culture had a greater impact on student learning than did curriculum and instruction.” According to Stanford University Education Professor, Edward Haertel, “out-of-school elements account for 60 percent of the variance in student scores while the influence of teachers was responsible for around 9%.” Yet, the Nevada legislature wants to use these test scores to account for 40% of teacher evaluations. Based on the research, this is fundamentally unfair to our teachers.    

     

The National Education Association contends that teacher evaluations today operate on a rewards-and-punishment system that aims to measure the effectiveness of teachers, categorize and rank them, then reward those at the top and fire those at the bottom. As a current classroom teacher, I see other problems with using student test data to assess teacher performance. The most egregious use of test data to evaluate teachers is when the test data comes from a student you never taught. In the upper grades, only about 15-30 % of teachers instruct in subjects that are directly evaluated by standardized tests. For the rest of the teachers, they receive a rating based on how well students did across the campus regardless of whether that student was a pupil or not. In other words, 40% of a teacher’s evaluation could be based on students they don’t even know. In addition, the data produced by the test is not usually available to the teacher until the next year, by that time the students have all moved on. Teachers would much rather use a standardized test as a formative assessment, or assessment for learning rather than an assessment of learning. Furthermore, assessments of teachers using standardized tests will restrict the curriculum to only those topics that are “tested” significantly narrowing what teachers teach and children learn. Standardized tests are inherently limited, and cannot measure everything that makes education meaningful. I can’t tell you how many times I have heard teachers lament that they would love to do a hands-on project with their students, but they don’t have the time, they have to get through all of the testable material first. This should be of great concern as we try to transform the old Nevada economy based on service to the new Nevada economy. Students need to master the skills and dispositions that will make Nevada a technological and innovative leader, skills such as communication, collaboration, critical thinking and creativity, these “soft” skills are more important than ever but are being pushed out of the curriculum due to the emphasis on testable knowledge.      

In addition, despite the fact that Standardized tests have been in use for quite some time, there has not been a significant increase in student achievement. With the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act in 2002 the US slipped from 18^th in the world in math on the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) to 31^st place in 2009. Similarly, there was a drop in science scores while reading scores remained the same. In May of 2011 the National Research Council report found no evidence that test-based incentive programs are working: “despite using them for several decades, policymakers and educators do not yet know how to use test-based incentives to consistently generate positive effects on achievement and to improve education.” Furthermore, a 2001 study published by the Brooking Institute found that 50-80% of test scores improvements over several years were temporary and “caused by fluctuations that had nothing to do with long-term changes in learning.” Never mind that the multi-billion dollar testing industry has made many costly scoring errors, unnecessarily resulting in increased stress for all stakeholders including students, teachers, and administrators.   

Teacher evaluations based on their student’s test score’s will result in the unintended consequence of teachers teaching to the test. Drill and kill test preparation will replace sound pedagogical approaches in this new high-stakes testing environment, especially if student performance on standardized tests is tied to compensation. Furthermore, teachers and administrators will be placed in an unenviable position where they may feel compelled to cheat to raise student test scores for fear of punitive actions taken against them. There have been numerous cheating scandals crossing six states and the District of Columbia as revealed by a 2011 USA Today investigation. In one of the most egregious examples of school cheating, 178 Atlanta public school teachers and administrators in 44 schools across the state were found to be involved in cheating on standardized tests, the stick and carrot approach is not appropriate for the education field and should not be tolerated.

These are but a few of the arguments why student test scores should not be used to evaluate teachers. I do believe that standardized tests should be used as formative assessments to guide practice and to help identify teachers who need assistance in the classroom. I do believe in teacher accountability, but we already have that with the Nevada Educators Performance Framework (NEPF) a fourteen-page rubric covering five standards of performance. The standards are as followed: new learning is connected to prior learning and experience, learning tasks have high cognitive demand for diverse learners, students engage in meaning-making through discourse and other strategies, students engage in metacognitive activity to increase understanding of and responsibility for their own learning, and assessment is integrated into instruction. Furthermore, teachers are evaluated based on their professional responsibilities. This is accomplished by an additional fourteen-page rubric (28 pages for anyone keeping track) looking at things like commitment to the school community, reflection on professional growth and practice, professional obligations, family engagement, and student perception. 

Clearly, the NEPF holds teachers to the highest levels of accountability and obviates the necessity of using questionable student achievement data as part of a carrot and stick approach to teacher evaluation. Oh and by the way, remember the police officers I mentioned at the beginning of this post, people who make life and death decisions on a daily basis, guess how long their performance review is… 1 page.            

   

      

Do student test scores provide solid basis to evaluate teachers? (n.d.). Retrieved February 27,

            2017, from https://ed.stanford.edu/news/do-student-test-scores-provide-solid-basis-

            evaluate-teachers

Editorial Projects in Education Research Center. (2015, September 3). Issues A-Z: Teacher

            Evaluation: An Issue Overview. Education Week. Retrieved Month Day, Year from

            http://www.edweek.org/ew/section/multimedia/teacher-performance-evaluation-issue-

overview.html/

Katz, D. d. (2016). Growth Models and Teacher Evaluation: What Teachers Need to Know and

            Do. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 52(1), 11-16. doi:10.1080/00228958.2016.1123039

NEPF Rubrics. (2012). Retrieved March 04, 2017, from

            http://www.doe.nv.gov/Educator_Effectiveness/Educator_Develop_Support/NEPF/Rubri

            cs/

Standardized Tests - ProCon.org. (n.d.). Retrieved February 25, 2017, from

            http://standardizedtests.procon.org/

Teacher Assessment and Evaluation: The NEA's Framework. (n.d.). Retrieved February 26,

            2017, from http://www.nea.org/home/41858.htm

Teacher Evaluation Should Not Rest on Student Test Scores (Revised 2016). (n.d.). Retrieved

            February 27, 2017, from http://www.fairtest.org/teacher-evaluation-fact-sheet

No Compromise on Educational Savings Accounts

In a recent blog post, Clark County Education Association Executive Director John Vellardita wrote that Two Agendas Can’t Coexist, where he outlines the necessity of compromise regarding the Educational School Account (ESA). Mr. Vellardita’s sees vouchers as inevitable, he writes “over the last few decades, the private sector has made a market presence in education. Its growth in the education market continues to see a rise in charter schools and vouchers (33 states have some form of a voucher). With the ascendency of the Trump administration, this trend will continue.” Mr. Vellardita suggests that since the voucher movement is growing in momentum, the CCEA might as well accept the unavoidable, and support the voucher program, he notes that “Choice’ will be at the heart of any resolution.” I reject this approach. This is the moment when we should have the political courage to take a stand on the issues we believe in, and stopping the corporate takeover of our public schools is the issue we need to rally behind, regardless of national trends and local politics.    

As a proud association member, I applaud most of CCEA’s legislative efforts. I believe that the Clark County School District should be compelled to pay teacher salary advancements regardless of negotiations. Student test scores should not be used in evaluating teachers, the Peer Assistance and Review (PAR) teachers provide valuable support to our new and struggling teachers. And a weighted funding formula is good policy and should be implemented throughout the state. However, the CCEA should never compromise on the core principle of adequately funding our public schools. Under no circumstances should we allow citizens to take money out of a school system that is at the bottom of national rankings and apply it to private for-profit schools. As a result of the 2016 election, and the recent conformation of Betsy DeVos  for Secretary of Education, public education is under attack, and we must fight with everything we have to prevent our public education system from being preyed upon by Wall Street investors. Retreat is not an option and the CCEA is wrong on the ESA issue. This is an association of teachers, and policy must reflect the will of its members, not just the few seated around the executive board’s table. Because the CCEA did not ask its members how they felt on the issue of ESAs, it is up to us to let the CCEA officers and executive board know where we stand. Contact your representative today, they work for us, and remember, we must stand for something, or we stand for nothing.

Why I Oppose DeVos and the Privatization of our Public Schools

One of President Trump’s most controversial cabinet appointments has been Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos. Despite her experience as a businesswoman, philanthropist, activist and noted political campaign contributor, Secretary DeVos has no experience in public education. She did not attend a public school, her children did not attend public school, she has never worked in a public school, and as her disastrous Senate confirmation revealed, was seriously lacking in even the most basic understanding of public education policy. As a professional educator, I felt bewildered, let down, and angry that the President would appoint such an unqualified person to lead the Department of Education. But, as we all know too well, elections have consequences, and certainly those who are committed to the mission of public schools to educate all students regardless of their zip code, feel that Trump and his Secretary will try to undermined our schools with disastrous voucher programs, designed to steer money away from public schools into the pockets of private, for profit, investors. As a candidate, Trump stated “There’s no failed policy more in need of urgent change than our government-run education monopoly." Much to the chagrin of many, President Trump has been resolute in keeping his campaign promises, and he warned us that “As president, I will establish the national goal of providing school choice to every American child living in poverty. If we can put a man on the moon, dig out the Panama Canal and win two world wars, then I have no doubt that we as a nation can provide school choice to every disadvantaged child in America.” Except that we already have choice in public education. Open enrollments, magnet, career & technical academies, public charter schools, and virtual schools are all examples of choice. However, Trump and DeVos don’t want just choice, they want to destroy our public schools for ideological and political reasons. Many on the right believe that public schools, colleges and universities are bastions of liberal thought that “indoctrinate” their students to hate America. They have taken God and school prayer out of the classroom, shown tolerance to LGBT people, and practice multiculturalism and inclusion. In the political realm, public schools employ teachers who belong to teacher unions, who overwhelming use their due to support Democrat candidates for office. Dismantle the public schools, destroy the unions, and no more political support for Democrat candidates.

My home state of Nevada is a microcosm of the debates swirling around education policy. In the 2015 Legislative session, Republican Governor Brian Sandoval, with bipartisan support, passed the largest education package in state history. In fulling his vision of a “New Nevada,” Governor Sandoval understands how important properly funding and supporting education is to include expansion of full day kindergarten, Zoom schools for English learners, Victory Schools for chronically under-performing schools. In addition, AB 394 has given schools and their leadership teams, enhanced autonomy and budgetary discretion. The education reforms are not without controversy as the legislature passed the most lenient voucher program in the nation known as the Education Savings Account (ESA). Essentially parents will be able to apply and receive a percentage of their education investment placed in an account, approximately $5,200 that they can then use for educational expenses such as private school tuition, tuition at eligible institutions, distance education, curriculum, tutoring, fees, transportation, specialized services or therapies for students with a disability. The argument for this program is that parents should be able to choose where their student attends school, whether it be a public school or private school. They argue that students would vote with their feet forcing underperforming school to improve, or face closure, free market capitalism at its purest. Arguments against the program is that parents will drain already chronically underfunded public schools of valuable resources. The 2016 Quality Counts report, for example, puts Clark County per pupil funding at $7,745, while the national average is about $10,763. States like New York and Massachusetts, two of the highest performing states, each having numerous districts that spend close to $20,000 per student. Of course the price tag for attending private school can be prohibitively high even with the ESA, for example the Meadows School, for the 2015-16 school year, charges high school students $25,775, while faith Lutheran charges $11,500, not counting books, uniforms, and additional fees. It is not surprising then that of the 8,000 ESA applicants, most come from the wealthiest parts of the Las Vegas valley. It should also be noted that a neighborhood school serves a social function, particularly in communities of color, they are anchor points as one generation after another pass through their corridors, passing on history and tradition. Because of this, most students, even in under-performing schools, choose not to be bused out of their neighborhoods to new unfamiliar neighborhoods. Luckily, the Nevada Supreme Court has temporarily put a halt to ESAs on the grounds that legislators would have to find alternative funding outside of school budgets.  

It is my opinion that Secretary DeVos’s plan to privatize American schools is shortsighted. Our public schools are our best hope to ensure that all students, regardless of zip code, have an opportunity to achieve the American dream. In addition, our schools are our best defense against the tyranny of ignorance, and threat of demagoguery. As Thomas Jefferson pointed out  "I know no safe depositary of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power."   

TEAMS an Education for the Future

“ I have never let my schooling interfere with my education.” -Mark Twain

“The best way to predict the future is to invent it” -Alan Kay

Why do many students find school boring and irrelevant? Because school is mostly boring and irrelevant, that’s not just my opinion; that’s what students have told me over my 15 years in the classroom, and I am not just talking about students who have fallen through the cracks. Even our best and brightest, those matriculating to MIT, Princeton and Stanford have told me how mind-numbing school can be. If that’s what our model students think, you can begin to understand why our at-risk students do so poorly or drop out of school entirely. Why is this? Because in most cases, school does not do a very good job preparing students for the “real” world, or tap into student’s talents and interests. That is why kids don’t apply themselves, kids who do well, are not necessarily learning in a deep and meaningful way, they just become good at doing school. They know what they have to do in order to receive the grade they want, mostly memorizing and regurgitating information gleaned from reading the textbook or listening to a lecture, unfortunately this is the modus operandi of most Advanced Placement classes. Students who are “educated” this way usually are not required to think critically, creatively or required to solve problems.

What if kids went to school and actually developed a passion for learning about the things they want to know more about? What if we re-imagined school to be completely different from the factory model we have perpetuated for the last 160 years or so, and allowed the student to be the center of their own learning, stopped teaching subjects in isolation, regulated by arbitrary bell schedules. What if teachers became the “guide on the side” instead of the “sage on the stage?” What if we encouraged students to take risks and see failure as an opportunity to learn and not something to be avoided. What if we taught students to be entrepreneurs and innovators so that the next generation of creators become successful because of school not in spite of it? What if we taught our students to use the latest technology to effectively research, collaborate, and communicate ideas? Make learning relevant on their terms and not on ours.

Most schools today stress STEM education (Science, Technology, Engineering and Math). The implicit goal of the STEM movement is to recapture America’s lost prestige as a world innovation leader. The prevailing narrative among policy makers is countries like China and India have quickly outpaced our ability to produce students proficient in the STEM fields and are well on their way to technological and economic domination. International tests such as the Program for International Assessment of Students Achievement (PISA) reinforce this point. As a result, the United States has taken bold measures to ensure that it remain the economic leader of the free world by emphasizing STEM education as evidenced by the proliferation of career and technical academies and magnet programs that specialize in these subjects. I believe that STEM education is a good thing, but I don’t believe that schools exist solely to train students for the workforce and that is what STEM education seems to do. The reality is that we are preparing our students for jobs that don’t even exist today. The technological revolution has affected every aspect of our personal and professional lives, yet we continue to “school” our students for a bygone era. I believe that the best way forward to is train students to think like artists and entrepreneurs, it is one thing to be able to learn STEM, but it is a much better approach to teach our students how to use their education to create something original and new, think of it as the Steve Jobs approach to design. For this reason, I propose a new acronym, one that will prepare students to be creators, innovators, and collaborators. My school will be built upon the TEAMS acronym, Technology Entrepreneurship, Art Math and Science, STEM education with a purpose.  

Project Based Learning and the High School Social Studies Curriculum: Strategies to Develop 21st Century Competencies

The No Child Left Behind Act (2001), and its strict accountability measures for testable subjects such as math and reading, had the unintended consequence of marginalizing other subjects such as the social studies. This has had a profound impact on our student’s overall performance in reading as indicated by the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) or the nation’s report card. Since 2002, eighth grade students have made no discernable progress in reading despite the fact that schools report spending upwards of 60% of their time on the subject (Tieso, 2013). Countries that outperform us in reading point out that the only difference in curriculum is the fact that they “provide their students with a comprehensive, content-rich education in the liberal arts and sciences” (Tieso, 2013, p. 97). Our continual shortchanging of the social studies has not only led to historical amnesia, and reduced reading scores, but is a lost opportunity to develop student’s skills, and  habits of mind that will help them be successful after they leave school. The problem is that high school history students are not learning the skills and dispositions that will help them be successful in post high-school education, the 21^st century economy, and civic life.    

            For students to be successful in the 21^st century economy, they will need to possess skills beyond the traditional reading writing and arithmetic (Huang, Hodson, La Torre, Obregon, Rivera, 2010). The new economy puts a premium on abilities such as critical interpersonal skills to include speaking, listening and the ability to function as part of a team. Students need to learn the skills to help them find and assess appropriate information using technologies such as the World Wide Web and databases. Students need to know how to communicate effectively in both verbal and nonverbal ways through a variety of platforms to include digital networks. An understanding of American history is critical if students are to become contributing members of our democracy, students will need to understand basic scientific principles such as the scientific method if they are to become critical thinkers and adroit problem solvers. Living in a global society requires that students be fluent in multicultural understanding and foreign languages (Uchida, 1996). While teacher-centered classrooms are the predominate configuration in most American schools, they are ineffectual in developing the previously mentioned skills and dispositions.     

            Traditional teacher centered pedagogy is not conducive to students learning 21^st century skills, while teacher lectures and demonstrations are important to the learning process, students should be at the center of their learning, they should be provided with several opportunities to engage in “hands-on” learning (Odom, Bell, 2015). An effective way to engage students in a student-centered lesson is through the use of Project Based learning or PBL. According to Lattimer & Riordan (2011) “PBL is typically considered an approach to teaching in which students respond to real-world questions or challenges through an extended inquiry process. PBL often involves peer collaboration, a strong emphasis on critical thinking and communication skills, and interdisciplinary learning” (p.18) Research indicates that inquiry based teaching pedagogies such as PBL are an effective way to engage students, as Weimer (2012) points out “while no evidence proves that PBL enhances academic achievement as measured by exams, there is evidence to suggest that PBL ‘works’ for achieving other important learning outcomes. Studies suggest that PBL develops more positive student attitudes, fosters a deeper approach to learning and helps students retain knowledge longer that traditional instruction” (p. 44-45). The 21^st Century economy requires that students think creatively and become problem solvers, in addition, providing students a diversity of student-centered lessons will help them retain their learning, according to Starko (2013) “creative applications of core content are among teachers’ most powerful tools in building students’ understanding. If we want students to master the content, they must do something with it beyond simple repetition. They must use it in meaning ful ways and make it their own” (p. 55). In addition “collaboration, creative problem solving, and problem-based learning have all been shown to increase creativity in children. This recent research supports what earlier researchers have maintained about creative learning environments: they must be flexible, free, open to unusual or divergent answers, and collaborative” (Cullen, Harris, & Hill, 2012, p. 11).

            Addressing this problem would benefit a variety of stakeholders to include social studies teachers, curriculum designers, administrators and of course students. I believe most teachers want to do everything possible to ensure that their students are successful in school, I believe the reason most social studies teachers do not engage their students in PBL, is simply that they do not know any better. Despite the fact that PBL has been effectively used for many years, my school district has never provided training on its benefits and implementation. In addition, I  never received PBL training in my education preparation program. Despite these facts, I believe it is important that teachers provide their students opportunities to hone the skills and dispositions that will make them successful  in post high-school education, the 21^st century economy, and civic life. Student-centered pedagogies like PBL will do just that.   

     

References

Axelrod, A., Markow, D., Metropolitan Life Insurance, C., & Harris Interactive, I. (2000). The

            Metropolitan Life Survey of the American Teacher, 2000: Are We Preparing Students for

            the 21st Century?. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, doi.

Cullen, R., Harris, M., & Hill, R. (2012). The learner-centered curriculum. San Francisco, CA:

            Jossey-Bass.

Huang, D., Leon, S., Hodson, C., La Torre, D., Obregon, N., Rivera, G., & ... University of

            California, L. E. (2010). Preparing Students for the 21st Century: Exploring the Effect of

            Afterschool Participation on Students' Collaboration Skills, Oral Communication Skills,

            and Self-Efficacy. CRESST Report 777. doi. 10.1037/e642072011-001

Lattimer, H., & Riordan, R. (2011). Project-Based Learning Engages Students in Meaningful

            Work. Middle School Journal (J3), 43(2), 18-23.

Odom, A. L., & Bell, C. V. (2015). Associations of Middle School Student Science Achievement

and Attitudes about Science with Student-Reported Frequency of Teacher Lecture

Demonstrations and Student-Centered Learning. International Journal Of Environmental

And Science Education, 10(1), 87-97.
Starko, A. (2013). Creativity on the Brink? Educational Leadership, 70(5), 54-56.

Tieso, C. L. (2013). Moving the Past Forward: From a Birmingham Jail to Occupy Wall

            Street. Gifted Child Today, 36(2), 96-113. doi: 10.1177/1076217512474982.

Uchida, D., American Association of School Administrators, A. V., & And, O.

            (1996). Preparing Students for the 21st Century.

Weimer, M. (2002). Learner-centered teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Student Centered Teaching

One of the key elements of a 21st century education is the shifting of focus from a teacher-centered classroom to a student-centered classroom, a classroom that gives students “voice and choice” as they engage in real world problem solving through creative critical thinking, collaboration, and use of technology. According to Weimer (2013) there are five elements of the learner-centered classroom, they are lessons that focus on students as active learners   rather than passive receptacles that teachers need to fill. They empower students by giving them control over their learning, teaching that encourages collaboration. In the student-centered classroom students have the opportunity to reflect on their learning and engage in explicit learning skills instruction.

In the article New Learning Environments for the 21st Century: Exploring the Edge , Brown points out that 21^st century schools should be cross disciplinary in nature. That today’s learners need access to multiple ways of knowing and that a one size fits all curriculum is counterproductive, as today’s learners have been conditioned to expect choice in the things they consume. Today’s students want to create and learn at the same time, and by doing this they will bridge the gap between knowledge and knowing (Brown, 2006). One of the best pedagogical approaches to create the learner centered classroom is the implementation of project based learning or PBL. In a study of the educational outcomes of PBL, Pedro Hernandez-Ramos and Susan De La Paz found that students who engaged in project based learning activities in a middle school social studies classroom learned more than students in a traditional classroom setting (Hernandez-Ramos and De La Paz, 2009). Project based learning requires students to engage in real-world 21^st century skills and elicits greater overall learning. In addition students learn the skills they will need to be competitive in the modern economy. A 21^st century education must take advantage of the revolutionary changes brought by computer technology and the internet. According to Harry Pence (2010) teachers must become acquainted with the technological environments of which their students are familiar. This approach will enable teachers to connect with their students and build upon their interests using technology. This approach will not only hook students, but will engage them throughout the lesson leading to greater student learning.  

                  My educational system is still rooted in the industrial error but is desperately trying to move forward. Unfortunately, one of the biggest problems facing my school district are teachers who do not recognize the need for change. Many teachers I know, still cling to antiquated notions of education such as the need to cover tremendous amounts of content, overreliance on multiple choice tests, and lectures. These approaches are not serving the needs of our students as students want a more active role in their education. However, I believe that a paradox exists in that our school district wants to see growing participation in advanced placement courses, which are often taught in a rote way, but emphasize the  need for 21^st century skills and approaches this raises the question is the advanced placement curriculum and 21^st century approaches compatible? Is it possible to teach the AP curriculum in a PBL or other student-centered format?

Brown, J. S. (2006). New Learning Environments for the 21st Century: Exploring the Edge.

            The Magazine Of Higher Learning, 38(5), 18-24.

Hernandez-Ramos, P., & De La Paz, S. (2009). Learning History in Middle School by Designing

            Multimedia in a Project-Based Learning Experience. Journal Of Research On

            Technology In Education, 42(2), 151-173.

Pence, H. E. (2010). Teaching in the 21st Century. Journal Of Educational Technology Systems,

            38(2), 103-110.

Weimer, M. (2013). Learner-centered teaching: Five key changes to practice (2nd ed.). San
            Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Why Schools Must Change

The Clark County School District, the fifth largest district in the nation, resembles in many ways the factory system of the industrial era. In the 19^th century, industrialist experimented with ways in which to make their factories more productive, thus lowering costs and raising profits. At the same time, they had to contend with assimilating immigrants who had little experience of industrial and urban life. Work was structured around a bell system that signaled workers when it was time to start, break for lunch, and when it was time to end the workday. Complex tasks were divided into parts, so that each worker was responsible for only a small part of the finished product, they had very little autonomy and were under the constant supervision of their immediate supervisors. The factory system worked well for the time in which it was implemented. Educators, faced with the same challenges of assimilating immigrants and educating large populations of students turned to the factories for inspiration as to how to most efficiently educate their students. Schools were structured around individual subjects, students were grouped by age, and a bell system let students know when it was time to change classes. Schools and factories operated in a similar fashion for the last one hundred and thirty years or so.    

Unfortunately, the schools designed for a 19^th century economy are still ubiquitous today.  These factory school are anachronisms that seem woefully out of place in our modern technologically rich environment. One of the most problematic vestiges of the old factory model of education  is the teaching of subjects in isolation. A century ago an educated person was someone who had memorized massive amounts of information and could recall it at will, in an age when access to knowledge was reserved for a small minority of educated elites, this made sense. But today, thanks to personal computing and internet technology, students have instantaneous access to information once only dreamed of. This has called into question the relationship between learners and knowledge (Wiles & Bondi, 2014, p. 65). In addition, schools still function like factories in that they have standardized almost every aspect of education. While most education leaders talk about the importance for differentiation of instruction and giving students voice and choice, the school’s infrastructure impedes these very things. Teachers are locked into teaching by quarters and semesters, they must teach in such a way that denies the interdisciplinary nature of knowledge. Teachers themselves continue to work in the isolation of their classrooms, interacting with their colleagues intermittently or not at all.

While many schools across the country approach education in the manner previously described, there are some innovative schools that are forging ahead and reimagining what school could be. One such school is High Tech High located in San Diego California. What makes HTH different is that they base their curriculum on Project Based Learning, students work collaboratively to solve problems and design projects across the curriculum (Robinson & Aronica, 2015, p. 129). At HTH teachers are facilitators of student learning, not the sole source of all knowledge. Students are encouraged to take risks, ask questions, collaborate, evaluate and think outside of the box, all traits that will help them be successful in the world of work and college in the 21^st century economy.    

  

Robinson, K., & Aronica, L. (2015). Creative schools: The grassroots revolution that's
            transforming education. New York, NY: Viking.

TED Conferences, LLC (Producer). (2010). Ken Robinson: Changing education paradigms
            [Video file]. Retrieved from
            http://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_changing_education_paradigms

Wiles, J.W., & Bondi, J.C. (2014). Curriculum development: A guide to practice (9^th ed).
            Boston, MA: Pearson.