Neerav Kingsland writes: There is good reason to be skeptical of Relinquishment: most significantly, it has yet to be tried at scale. To change hearts and minds, we will need multiple proof points that Relinquishment works.
Recently in Guest Blog Category
November 18, 2013
November 18, 2013
Neerav Kingsland writes: That Relinquishment is not yet inevitable is in some ways obvious. After all, only one city in the country, New Orleans, has adopted its core principles. But, surprisingly (I didn't expect this to be the case when I started formulating this piece), I believe Relinquishment could become inevitable over the coming decades. Here's why.
November 18, 2013
Neerav Kingsland writes: In part because of my heritage - my mother is Indian and my father is African-American - I've spent a lot of time thinking about social movements, both in India and the United States. The causes of societal change are of course complex, but in a recent conversation with my father, I (perhaps naively) asked him: when did you know that legal racial discrimination would come to an end? When did it become inevitable?
November 15, 2013
Jal Mehta writes: I just wanted to offer a concluding thought about "deeper learning" and the Common Core. Along with doctoral student Sarah Fine, I have been doing a three year study of high schools that are seeking to promote instruction that pushes kids to think, and have come to the conclusion, shared by many others, that most high school classrooms are not very stimulating places. NSSE data says that 70 percent of high school students say they are bored daily, and Gates MET Study data says that only 20 percent of their sampled classrooms feature ambitious instruction.
November 14, 2013
Jal Mehta writes: One central challenge in American education is building more expertise in teaching. In recent years we have tended to think about this in terms of rating individual teachers, but what if we were to step back and see it more as a systemic issue, in terms of how well the field is organized to promote the development of expertise in teaching? Presumably the development of expertise is a two part equation: the development of knowledge that would guide work in a field, and then helping practitioners gain that knowledge, either during their training or on the job. We are particularly bad at both parts of that equation.
November 13, 2013
Jal Mehta wrtes: One problem with the school reform debate today is the way we cut the debate. One common way of pitching the problem is as "hard" versus "soft." In this telling, valor is awarded to those willing to make "hard" decisions: these people support merit pay, firing bad teachers, holding schools accountable, and closing failing schools. On the other side, from this point of view, are those who are "soft": people who are opposed to measuring outcomes, who in theory want to empower teachers but in practice want to support a failing status quo. Alternative certification and charter providers are good; traditional preparation and traditional public schools are bad. ... I think we should see the problem in a different way - the key difference is between "thin" and "thick" theories of change.
November 12, 2013
Jal Mehta writes: I was at a conference last spring sponsored by a group of foundations seeking to chart a new path for educational improvement. During that conference, a law professor who I deeply respect suggested that our reform efforts needed to remember the "Bad Man" theory. What's that, a number of us asked? It's a principle of jurisprudence, he explained, invented by Oliver Wendell Holmes that says that when making policy we should always be cognizant of the "bad man." The bad man is the man who always seeks to circumvent the policymakers' intent, looking for loopholes or other ways around the law. A good policy, the law professor averred, seeks to anticipate what the "bad man" might do, and create additional regulations that would cover any contingency he might seek to exploit.
November 12, 2013
Jal Mehta writes: The American school system assumed its contemporary form a little more than a century ago in the Progressive Era. In one generation, between 1890 and 1920, the modern school system was created by a group of civic elites, who transformed a nation of one-room schoolhouses into a set of district school systems. Influenced by prevailing Taylorist models of business organization, superintendents (mostly male) were empowered as CEOs of the school system, and teachers (mostly female) were expected to follow the rules and programs their superiors chose. In this hierarchical model, teachers possessed little power to formally resist dicta from above, although the "loose coupling" of the system permitted them considerable control over what happened inside their classroom walls.
November 07, 2013
Eric Westendorf writes: Done thoughtfully, professional development and curriculum are two sides of the same coin. The curriculum is the external facing side; the set of organized resources and lessons that a teacher can use with students. Professional development is the internal side; the deep practice that teachers participate in to adjust, improve, and test new adaptations, the best of which get pushed to the external. As a result, the curriculum can evolve as quickly as possible to meet the needs of the environment.
November 06, 2013
Eric Westendorf writes: Much of the current buzz around EdTech in K-12 focuses on personalization, adaptation, gamification and self-directed learning. I think these ideas have great potential, but miss EdTech's greatest benefit. Given the siloed world in which teachers have historically worked, I believe EdTech's greatest contribution will come from connecting teachers, enabling them to build from best practices, collaborate with colleagues, and share with the world. In so doing, technology will bolster the most powerful lever we have for school improvement -- the talent of our teachers.