Continuing my sniffing through the NAEP Data Explorer, today I “explored” differences in digitally-infused pedagogy by race.  One of the items on the background questionnaire of the 8th grade NAEP in 2007 was as follows: “When you are doing math for school or homework, how often do you use these different types of computer programs?”  One of the listed programs was “A program to practice or drill on math facts (addition, subtraction, multiplication, division).”   Looking at the results for that item disaggregated by race, we get the following (click on image to enlarge):

Overall, African-American students are much more likely to use computers to practice or drill on math facts than White students.  Given the significant achievement gap that exists, these differences partly explain why, overall, the there is a negative correlation between using computers to practice or drill on math facts and math achievement.  I can’t be entirely sure about the degree to which race confounds that overall relationship without access to the raw (restricted-use) NAEP data.

But, more importantly, is the figure above problematic?

Tags: computers, drill, math, NAEP

Scott McLeod deemed today Leadership Day, and so it is!  And so I go…

If you haven’t watched the video of Chris Lehmann’s presentation at NECC, there’s no question that it’s a must see.  I’m sure I’ll have lots of occasions to use it as a pedagogical tool with my ed. leadership students, especially as a model of instructional leadership.  The reviews of Chris’ preso have been through-the-roof high, and deservedly so.  Will Richardson used Twitter to suggest that we need to clone Chris, and Bud Hunt (aka Bud the Teacher) replied that he had secretly taken a few of Chris’ hairs for exactly that purpose.

For those who don’t know, Chris is the principal of the Science Leadership Academy; a magnet high school in Philadelphia that he founded/started a few years ago.  Because he is extraordinarily transparent (want to visit SLA; just ask!) and collaborative, and for at least one other reason I shouldn’t disclose, I’ve learned quite a bit about Chris and SLA.  And, as best I can tell, we really do need to clone Chris; we can’t have enough principals like him.

THAT ALL SAID, here’s the question…what would happen if we suddenly made Chris the principal of Frederick Douglass High School (NOTE: the school doesn’t even have it’s own website) in Baltimore (the subject of a recent HBO documentary which has been written about by me and others)?

You see, Chris admittedly had the luxury of starting a brand new school according to his (and presumably others’) incredible vision.  He got to self-select a whole faculty.  The school’s magnet status means that the students that attend, at some level, want to be there.  in fact, according to the school’s website,  “[a]dmission to SLA is based on a combination of a student interview at the school with a presentation of completed work, strong TerraNova scores, As and Bs with the possible exception of one C, teacher or counselor recommendation and good attendance and punctuality.” I know many, many principals who would drop everything to be able to select an entire faculty and work with already accomplished students.

But, there’s another thing that separates Chris from the vast majority of his principal peers.  Chris is an unrelenting progressivist and he has a true global, future-oriented vision.  Just read his recent blog post about progressive pedagogy for 21st century schools.

I know that not all schools like Douglass High are destined to fail.  I’ve seen and read parts of this book.  And, I know about the Achievement Alliance’s efforts to document success stories.  But, even there, if you read about the high school they spotlight, the school is unique in its geography and the “success” is having gone from 26% proficiency in one subject (ELA) to 42% proficiency over the course of 6 years.  That’s steady, but slow, improvement; but 42% is not exactly superior.

I’ve also followed closely the research and documentation of the 90/90/90 schools (90% low income, 90% minority, 90% proficiency).  Just about everything I’ve read about those schools (including this by Douglas Reeves) points to a blinding focus on standards, assessment, data-driven decision-making, etc.  For better or worse, there’s NOTHING progressive about those schools.

So, I wonder what would happen if we put Chris Lehmann in the hardest-to-staff schools; schools consistently failing to make adequate yearly progress.  I guess the question I’m asking is: Who wins?  The extraordinary progressive leader or the system?  Can a brilliant, extraordinary leader WITH A PROGRESSIVIST BENT truly reform a severely struggling school within the existing system of public education?

Personally, I think Chris, or someone like Chris, would do wonders in a school like Douglass High.  But, unfortunately, I think that remains an open (empirical?) question.  And, I’d love for us to be able to do that empirical work.  I would love to document the experiences of bright, extraordinary, progressive leaders who have proven successful in more comfortable situations attempting to completely turn around a failing school.  Please note, my interest is not how “good” someone like Chris is.  I want to know what effect “the system” has on someone as “good” and particularly as progressive as Chris.  If you know of any such experiences, let me know.

Tags: education, equity, leadership, leadershipday2008, progressivism, schooltechleadership

Something (perhaps some thingS) is (are) rubbing me the wrong way about NECC.  I’ll reflect a bit more over time, but for today I want to write a bit about a related set of issues about which I am incredibly passionate.  My ed. leadership professorial friends/colleagues and I joke about what we perceive as an over-emphasis on issues of “social justice” “equity” and “diversity” at the annual conferences we attend.  Please understand that we all care deeply about those issues; it’s just that it’s gotten to the point where it seems like it’s all that gets discussed at a comprehensive conference. Well, after being at NECC for a few days, I long for some conversation about…”social justice” and “diversity” and “equity.”  Hang around the blogger’s cafe for a bit and tell me how much diversity you notice.  Sure, there are international folks and that’s awesome.  But, racial diversity?  Forget it.

I did a keyword search of the program and came up with the following results:

EQUITY - other than the Digital Equity Summit (which I’ve written about before), there are only two other instances of the word “equity” in the program.  One is for a session about “[r]ole playing a seventh to ninth grade student, participants will complete an inquiry activity using technology for supporting diverse learners.”  The other is about how the addition of interactive white boards have promoted classroom equity in one school district.  This is a joke and a crime.  Sorry.  That’s how I feel.

DIVIDE (looking for references to the digital divide) - appears two whole times in the program.  The first reference is for a session about the “digital divide” between what teachers and students can do with technology.  Give me a break.  The second reference is for a session I’m sorry I missed.  The session was about research showing what works for disadvantaged students.  Hooray for Dennis Harper, Generation Y with Trina Davis, Susanna Garza and Martha Peet.

JUSTICE (looking for references to social justice) - shows up twice but only because one workshop is being run twice.  In what sounds like a really interesting session, participants are asked to “[e]xplore the merger of social justice and technology by creating a podcast on the Civil Rights Memorial Center and learning from student producers.”  Nice.

DIVERSITY - Zero.  Zilcho.  NEVER appears in the program.

I’ve asked quite a few people I’ve spoken with either at the conference or out on the town if they watched Hard Times at Douglass High, the documentary that was all over HBO last week.  Not a single person I asked had seen the film.  How could that be?  How could there be so much attention on books like Here Comes Everybody and Wisdom of the Crowds (the author gave the keynote) and virtually no attention to an important film like Hard Times (and I don’t mean the Ridgemont High version)?

I DARE YOU to watch Hard Times (see preview below) and then to walk through the exhibit hall at NECC.  The conditions and consequences of poverty documented in the film stand in complete contrast to the glitz and excess of the exhibit hall.

Please people, how can we continue to talk about the pedagogical applications of Google Earth and how much we need to talk about how to do good presentations and, and, and?   And how can we continue to soak in the excess and the free giveaways when so many young people don’t have basic necessities of life.

Tags: diversity, equity, necc08, social justice

Last night, I watched and recorded the HBO documentary, Hard Times at Douglass High: A No Child Left Behind Report Card.  Hard Times is essentially a “year-in-the-life” cinema verite type film that “documents” the inner workings of one high school in Baltimore, MD that serves only African-American students (as a result of de facto segregation).  I’m recommending the documentary, with lots of caveats.  My greatest concern is that the film will feed streotypes about urban high schools.  My greatest hope is that people will watch the film and wake up to the reality that schooling, particularly in urban areas, is a difficult and complex institution that does not work for too many young people.

Though I’ve never taught in an urban high school, my research projects have allowed me to spend a LOT of time in various urban schools all across the country.  I’ve also taken courses on urban education, read all of the classic books about urban education, etc.  So, nothing in the film surprised me and I learned nothing new.  So, I’m guessing the film was not made for people like me.

However, for those who’ve only “heard about” schools like Douglass High (even writing “schools like…” is value laden and probably not my best choice of words), I imagine the film is pretty startling.  There’s a real sense of hopelessness, indifference and/or resignation that permeates the film.  There are a couple of nice stories about a few of the students, but mostly the statistics cited throughout the film are terrifyingly bad and the negative stories certainly outweigh the bad.  The images of students sleeping through the administration of the state tests are disturbing.  The “so be it” attitude of some of the teachers is really upsetting.  This is not a film to watch if you’re looking for a pick-me-up.

My own takes?  As a professor of educational leadership, I was wholly unimpressed by the principal.  She seemed kind and well-meaning, but she was not at all inspiring or personable.  I believe that school would be better served by someone with tons of energy, ideas and enthusiasm.  Also, I don’t understand the use of NCLB in the subtitle of the film.  Other than the frequent citing of statistics about outcomes, the film is NOT about NCLB; it’s simply an ethnographic look at one urban high school.

Having watched the film in the week leading up to NECC, I’m left conflicted.  On one hand, it feels like going to a conference with a massive exhibit hall loaded with glitzy, expensive products sold by many lucrative companies is so wrong-headed. How can interactive white boards and Google Earth, for example, help the kids in Douglass High, many of whom worry about where they will get their next meal?  Or, how can I concern myself with “big ideas” about the future of schooling and tech.-driven learning theories when there are so many schools like Douglass High where the status quo is simply unacceptable?  On the other hand, I wonder if discussing and thinking about “big ideas” like Classroom 2.0 or School 2.0 might help me think about ways to blow up the status quo.  I mean, what if “the best and brightest” thinkers at NECC were to be given the power to convert Douglass High into School 2.0?

A while back, David Jakes laid down a gauntlet to edubloggers and asked if we were ready to “earn it - really earn it” at NECC.  Well, I challenge those same folks to “step up” and figure out how the issues and ideas discussed at NECC (especially NECC Unplugged and Edubloggercon) can be used to serve those most in need of school reform.

Tags: necc2008, reform, urban education

By now you’ve perhaps read the Time magazine article, seen the New York Times ad, and/or read/heard elsewhere about this “movement” dubbed “The Broader, Bolder Approach to Education” spearheaded by Lawrence Mishel, Helen Ladd, Pedro Noguera and Tom Payzant. The list of signatories reads like a who’s who of educational and/or social policy and is notably diverse (hey, even Deborah Meier and Diane Ravitch signed on together!).

If the full statement that this task force created looks familiar, it may be because these folks are clearly regular readers of my blog and ripped off almost all of my ideas from THIS POST nearly a month ago. OK, that’s probably not true, but I must admit that I feel sorta proud to have written a summary of my beliefs about education that overlaps so extensively with this “broader, bolder approach”. Consider the following comparison:

So, other than the fact that I’m a brilliant scholar of educational policy, what does this mean? Not much. And, overlap notwithstanding, I think this “bigger, bolder” approach does not go nearly far enough. For example, they write that the approach, “assigns value to the new knowledge and skills that young people need to become effective participants in a global environment, including citizenship, creativity, and the ability to respect and work with persons from different backgrounds.” Those are definitely important and worthy skills and dispositions (especially “creativity”), but what about 21st Century Skills such as digital literacy? I think it’s worth pointing out that there are no signatories that represent the ed. tech. community. No Tim Magner. No Don Knezek.

Also, I believe the approach is purposefully broad about outcomes, but I don’t see enough of an emphasis on learning.

I could go on, but I’ll stop now and wallow in my brilliance (-:

Tags: education, equity, outcomes, policy