School Choice: What's the Fuss?

Everyday, I spend a lot of time reading different perspectives on education, what needs to be fixed and why. I follow people and organizations with whom I disagree as well, because in all things I believe we need to listen to each other and search for common ground. I don't know of any other way we can move forward--and move forward we must. One cause for debate is school choice, and frankly I have difficulty understanding why.

School choice to me includes using public education fund for programs like vouchers and charters. As far as I can tell, the argument against is that if people want choice, they should fund it themselves. The argument is that public funds should only be spent on public schools which are underfunded already. What I don't understand is why must we only reform public schools in one manner? (The other argument is about non-union teachers, but I'll have to save that for its own post).

Even if, in an ideal world, we could update our buildings, pay our teachers better, purchase and integrate technology, have an individualized curriculum, what's wrong with offering parents more than one way to educate their kids? Even if we did our best to create the "best" system, it still wouldn't be the right place for all kids. By only providing one way, I would guess there are kids on either end of the spectrum that would still not be served, as well as the kids who are "different" in any way. What is wrong with using the tax money these parents already pay to buy their kids the education they need?

Of course, I speak from experience. My sons have both attended charter schools. One was just okay, and operated basically like a small public school, so if class size/overall enrollment was your only issue with the local public school, this charter might fit the bill for your kid. The other charter was great in theory, but was operationally deficient in putting that theory into practice. The local public middle school both my kids attended after the charters didn't meet their needs was even less impressive, despite it's "excelling" status. It felt more like a prison than a school, so my son spent the last four months of last year at a virtual (charter) school that was equally unimpressive, but at least got him out of an unfixable situation in the public school (between him and a teacher/admin, not other students).

I don't claim that charters or vouchers are "the" solution, but as a parent who is now paying private school tuition for one kid, and has the other one at another charter, I'm open to whatever solution works for MY kid. And I don't think that just because your kid can't march in lock step with the public school, that you shouldn't have other options for using your tax money for their education.

The Cart Before the Horse: What is the Why and the What of Education?

I am new to the education reform debate. I am not a teacher, but I have volunteered in my kids' Montessori, public, and charter schools over the years. I am a parent and a voter. I also have 20+ years as an instructional designer for corporate training. For many years now, I have been consulting with large organizations on how to best train their employees and how to align their practices with their missions. As a newbie to education reform, I just don't get how we can move forward until we know what our "mission" is.

The very first thing I learned as an instructional designer is to determine, "what do we want people to know or be able to do" by the end of this course. And in turn, those objectives are in line with the company's mission--the "why are we doing this?" I still haven't heard one really clear response to "what do we want our kids to know and be able to do by the time they graduate from high school and why?" What are our mission and objectives for America's children?

Without a good answer to that question, it seems to me that there is no possible way to move forward. There is no way to measure teacher performance and determine teacher pay, if we don't know what they're supposed to achieve. There is no way to measure student learning, if we don't agree on what they're supposed to be able to do. There is no way to determine teaching methods, school design, school hours, classroom needs, and, perhaps most importantly, BUDGETS, if we don't agree on what kids should be able to DO by the time they graduate high school.

Everyone seems so focused on the "how" when no one seems to be able to agree on a common goal of "what." I agree that teachers, parents, and students must have more power than corporate reformers, but I disagree with dismissing them outright. There are some things we can learn from business--and their money and involvement can be a good thing. I've seen too many companies--like Borders Books, for example--who ignored the "what" and the "why" and spent a lot of time and effort trying all kinds of "hows." It's a surefire path to demise and our kids deserve better than that.

I Will Not Be Bullied

I stepped into this education reform debate as an innocent. I am a parent whose children have suffered. I have suffered. I have volunteered in public and private schools. I have a say. I am a voter. I am a tax payer. I have a say.

My last few weeks in the e-discussion about education have been interesting. I am shocked at how severely people are attached to their positions. I am dismayed by the agendas at work. I am frustrated by the lack of rallying around a common goal. Our kids deserve better.

I have found myself in Twitter and Facebook discussions and more likely than not, I am attacked, ridiculed, and dismissed. And I've not set forth some radical agenda! I love teachers. I love kids. I love public schools. But apparently the fact that I have questions about funding, questions about our goals, questions about "traditional" classrooms makes me somehow an enemy.

Everything, it seems, in America, has become politicized. It's like saying if you are pro-choice you have to be a Democrat. There are two sets of agendas and if you are for one thing, you are against another. The line in the sand has been drawn.

In education reform, as in politics, I will not be bullied. I am an independent. Not with a capital I. I am an independent thinker. Classify me as you will, but I am here to listen to everyone, respond to everyone, formulate my own opinions and hopefully make progress. I will not ascribe to one agenda if it means that I must relegate everyone else to being ignorant, an idiot, or evil (ala Kathryn Shulz). I want to hear what everyone has to say and find a way to move forward, because what's important isn't who's right. What important is what is right for our kids. For EVERY kid--poor, rich, black, white, latino, native american--it doesn't matter. I want what's right for every American kid. Period.

So keep talking. And I'll talk, too. And you can bully me all you want. And I will remain calm and always strive for understanding and common ground, because I have one concern--let's move forward.

Kids Are People, Too--Not Just Part of a Group

I suppose it's human nature. We just naturally put people and things into categories. Sometimes it's easier to put people into "like" groups so that common needs can be met. Especially when it comes to educating hundreds of thousands of American schoolchildren. But something happens when we put kids into groups--we deny or overlook their individual needs.

I hear a lot about the "achievement gap" between white kids and their latino and african-american school mates. I hear a lot about poverty and how that impacts learning. I hear a lot about rich kids and communities and how those kids outperform. While I realize there are commonalities between people of the same race, gender, and socio-economic class, I also argue that everyone of those kids--rich, poor, white, or brown--has their own individual needs.

Some are auditory learners, some have natural intrinsic motivation or leadership abilities. Some are visual learners, some have learning differences. Some get things quickly, others need more time. Every kid, in every "category" deserves to have their individual needs met. I believe that once we start seeing kids as individuals and working to meet their individual needs--with a variety of instructional strategies, learning environments, integrated technology and more--then we will close the achievement gap. When we assess what kids need, listen to what their interests are and help them develop their strengths, then truly no child will be left behind.

I have a kid. An upper-middle class, white, male—two of them, actually—whose needs have not been met in traditional classrooms. They've attended schools in two states: public schools, private schools, and charter schools. The one thing we had because of our class is choice and there still weren't enough choices. My younger son would do great in a project-based learning environment, but the nearest PBL school is an hour away. My older son has ADHD and is brilliant, but struggles with executive function skills. He'd do well in a school with individualized learning plans and instructional support. There's no school like that near us. Despite living in a neighborhood with "excelling" schools, they are not schools in which my children can excel.

Choice is critical, because not every "great" school is great for every kid. I just read an article on how a kid was "encouraged to leave" Harlem Success Academy 3 charter school. The author made it sound like the charter shouldn't push kids out, but the fact is that even great schools are not the right schools for every kid. Different learning communities, that meet the needs of different kids are what we need to truly prepare today's kids to be productive citizens of tomorrow.

More Learning Time?

As I listen to the education reform discussion, there seems to be a lot of talk of late around extended hours or extended learning time. Tom Vander Ark has a recent Huffington Post article on "How to Double Learning Time." While I generally agree with Mr. Vander Ark, I have to admit the title makes me bristle.

He's not the only one. I just responded to a Facebook post yesterday (and I've seen many more to which I've not responded) asking the question, "how do we keep kids learning over the summer?" Before I can listen to these questions without feeling the hair on the back of my neck rise, I'd have to see a couple of changes.

First, a break from the traditional school schedule. In Mr. Vander Ark's article, I liked that he was talking about integrating resources like elearning and afterschool programs. As homeschooles have proven, school (or structured learning) doesn't have to be eight hours or more per day. Actually, I would propose that it is not. I'd like to see us get out of the 8-3 box we are in and look at what's best for kids bodies, minds and spirits.

Secondly, if we move toward a competency-based, individualized learning system, then the structure may look different for different kids--especially as they get into their middle and high school years. If a child is interested in cooking, perhaps they intern with a chef part of the week, or participate in an engineering contest if they're into science, or work on a community garden if they like biology and gardening. The more applied learning we can offer, the better off we'll be.

Technology also means that learning doesn't have to take place at school. In my corporate experience, blended learning works best when learners have an opportunity to do the "knowledge-imparting," technology based work at their own pace and according to their own schedule. Then, when we come together for classroom work, everyone has a level of knowledge that makes the interactive work more productive and enriching. Blended learning in schools (especially, again, in the upper grades) should function in the same way. If I walk into a a school and see one more "computer lab" I think I'll cry.

I don't mind the idea of "more learning time," as long as the "learning" we are discussing is not all structured learning. Much of the best learning takes place when it's not framed as "learning" at all.

Why Isn't Montessori Part of the Education Reform Conversation?

Maybe the reason I am asking this question is naivete. My kids spent five years in a private Montessori school in Seattle, and so far, it was the best learning community we've been a part of and the one where they were able to achieve the most success. It seems like all of the things we are discussing in terms of education reform have already been in practice in Montessori schools for almost a century with great success. Things like:

- Individualized learning plans
- Low teacher/student ratios
- Integrated subject matters
- Project-based learning
- Experiential/hands-on learning
- Whole child learning
- A student-centric environment
- Assessment and demonstrated proficiency (vs. testing)
- Multi-age classrooms

I could go on and on. I frequently substituted as a teacher's assistant at the school, mostly with the 3-5 year olds, but also with the 6-9 year olds, and was constantly amazed at how much fun the kids had, how proud they were of their "work," how engaged they were in their learning, how advanced they were, how they cared about other students and the school, and so on. So if so many Montessori schools are already doing the things we want for education reform, why does it seem that Montessori isn't part of the conversation and getting the recognition it deserves? Do we really need to reinvent the wheel?

Why I Love Ronald A. Wolk or Wasting Minds: A Book Review

Months ago, I "won" a book from one of the educational pages I subscribe to on Facebook. The book is Wasting Minds: Why Our Education System is Failing and What We Can Do About It by Ronald A. Wolk. Mr. Wolk is the founder and former editor of Education Week, Teacher Magazine, and Quality Counts. He is currently chairman of Big Picture Learning, an organization devoted to creating small, innovative schools. I do not know the man, but I love him.

I do a lot of reading, but I don't think I have ever read a book that made me want to come out of my skin--in a good way. I actually couldn't read this book in bed at night because I would get so fired up that I couldn't sleep. My husband and sons had to put up with lengthy, impassioned soap-box speeches after almost all of my reading episodes. I told my 17-year-old, "have you ever had a conversation with someone and they're going on and on and you're thinking--'THIS IS WHAT I'VE BEEN SAYING AND TRYING TO TELL PEOPLE FOR YEARS!'?" That's how reading this book was for me.

Mr. Wolk cites many credible sources, and (for the first time in years) I found myself reading with highlighter in hand. A few of the awesome quotes that I deemed worthy of highlighting are:

• "To insist that all students be treated the same way, that they all study the same subject at the same time in the same way, is a strategy that denies reality." (p.25)
• "Civil rights leaders need to realize that until a high-quality education is available to all minority children, standards-based accountability is a form of discrimination." (p.29)
• "The conundrum is that if we can't define an adequate education and agree on it, then how can we determine what it costs or how to allocate funds to achieve it?"(p.90) I know, right?? 

The book is organized in two parts. In the first part, Mr. Wolk lists the Flawed Assumptions of our current system. In part two, he lists strategies for a second, parallel strategy (you'll have to read the book to find out why it's parallel). He concludes with "Can We Get There from Here?" 

I'd like to send a copy to Arne Duncan and every member of Congress for immediate implementation. Mr. Wolk admits his own strong liberal leaning, but as an Independent who is very familiar with conservative opinion, I think his assertions and strategies fall in line with the question we all want to answer with school reform: "What's best for kids?"

If you're interested in where to start, start with Wasting Minds.