Andy Hargreaves

TRES TEMAS IMPORTANTES PRESENTAN EN LA EDUCACIÓN COSTARRICENSE QUE SIRVEN DE EJEMPLO A LA COMUNIDAD INTERNACIONAL

By Maureen Hughes

En la actualidad, escuelas alrededor del mundo están enfocadas en las pruebas. El rendimiento académico es visto como el principal resultado de la escolarización. Los gobiernos y las escuelas de todo el mundo están haciendo enormes esfuerzos para asegurar que los profesores tengan el mejor currículo, estándares más altos y el dominio de las nuevas metodologías de enseñanza (Ning, Rong, & Baoying, 2010). Mientras aprenden a leer, escribir y resolver problemas de matemáticas que son importantes, las escuelas públicas de Costa Rica nos recuerdan que lo académico es sólo una parte del aprendizaje y la enseñanza es el trabajo tanto de la sociedad como de las escuelas.

La educación costarricense brinda al mundo una nueva perspectiva de la escuela. En mis tres meses en una escuela pública fuera de San José, me recordó una y otra vez de lo simple, pero importante que suele pasar por alto las lecciones: los niños aprenden tanto fuera de la escuela como en sus aulas, los recursos de lujo y clase llena de materiales didácticos no garantizan logro, y la instrucción que puede ser tan divertida como un asunto serio.

·       Los Niños Aprendentanto fuera de la escuelacomoen sus aulas

Hay un fuerte compromiso a través de Costa Rica con los valores morales. La familia es prioridad, la fe es muy valiosa y el trabajo duro es respetado. Los niños de todo el país llegan a las escuelas a la edad de tres años con una comprensión cada vez mayor de estos valores. Apoyando a las escuelas con los mismos mensajes, de la valoración de la integración familiar, la enseñanza de la religión como una clase, y reconocer a los estudiantes su trabajo. Estos valores proporcionan una base común, reducir los problemas de disciplina, igualando a los estudiantes dispuestos a aprender y proporcionar un lenguaje común para resolver los problemas que puedan surgir. Como resultado durante el recreo de 15, 10 ó 5 minutos los niños salen de la clase sin maestros que los supervisen y no se presentan ningún tipo de problema. Durante el recreo, ellos son libres de permanecer en sus aulas o correr en el patio, comprar bocadillos en la pequeña cafetería o visitar a amigos en otras aulas. Los maestros son libres para prepararse para su próxima clase o relajarse en la sala de profesores durante este tiempo. Pocos problemas de disciplina se producen y la intimidación no se conoce. Problemas tales como el divorcio, las drogas, la prostitución y el robo son problemas no muy comunes, sin embargo, al igual que los niños de todo el mundo se les enseña a atarse los cordones de los zapatos, a respetar y amar el prójima.   Todos los niños en Costa Rica aprenden en el núcleo familiar, luego de la sociedad y, de nuevo en sus escuelas lo cual fomenta la educación de los morales. Las escuelas no solo son responsables de enseñar sino también de fomentar los valores morales y espirituales en sus estudiantes. Vivir una vida con valores es tan importante como aprender a leer, escribir y resolver problemas de matemáticas.

·       Los recursos de lujo yclasesllenas demateriales audiovisuales no garantizanlogro

Ya sea en una escuela de un solo edificio o un campus abierto de varios edificios, los salones de Costa Rica tienen una decoración sencilla. El aprendizaje es visto como adquirir conocimientos y las decoraciones de la pared excesiva pueden distraer a los estudiantes. Lecciones bien planificadas, no excesos de carteles, fotos y ejemplos de trabajo de los estudiantes. Las aulas constan de uno o dos carteles académicos (el alfabeto, cartel de horarios) y un mínimo o ningún cuadro decorativo. No hay alfombra en el aula o áreas de estudio. Los estudiantes se sientan en pupitres en filas. Pizarras blancas en las paredes que es el foco de atención de las lecciones. Curiosamente, las evaluaciones de las tareas son asignadas como trabajos extra clase y no en forma de tareas pequeñas de día a día. Hace años había tareas pequeñas de día a día pero los niños que tuvieran clase en la tarde no tenían tiempo de hacerla y en las mañanas los padres de ellos tienen trabajo y no podrían ayudarlos. Por eso, el ministerio cambio la regla y ahora ellos tienen ‘trabajo extra clase.’ Trabajo extra clase los hacen en forma selectiva y con temas específicos. Los cuales ellos deben de hacer sus respectivas investigaciones y presentarlos ordenados en forma, especifico – portada, índice, introducción, desarrollo, conclusión, bibliografía, y anexos; no deben tener manchas errores ni faltas de ortografía y tienen que escribir con letra leíble o por computadora. Deben de decorar su trabajo y presentarlo en un folder forrado.   Este trabajo es sumamente importante antes de la aplicación de cada examen. Ellos lo hacen con mucho cuidado y los padres lo supervisan. Por eso, estos son una guía para los examines.

·       La educación puede ser divertido pero además es un asunto serio.

Los niños en Costa Rica no les disgusta ir a la escuela, de hecho, la gran mayoría de los niños de todas las edades disfrutan de aprender. Sin embargo, los maestros presentan el material de una manera muy tradicional. Los libros de texto son seguidos, los maestros dan conferencias o mantienen conversaciones interactivas con los estudiantes. SmartBoards, gastos generales y las computadoras no son el principal medio de estudio. A veces, los estudiantes trabajan en grupos o con sus compañeros, pero en otras aulas trabajan individualmente. Los juegos son cortos y poco frecuentes y presentados como juego educativo únicamente. El tiempo de clase se centra en el aprendizaje académico y desde los valores se limitan las cuestiones disciplinarias, los maestros cubren cantidades significativas de material en cada lección. La escuela es medio día (los niños asisten de 7-12 ó 12:30-5) con horarios alternos, exigen que los niños se centran sólo intensamente por unas pocas horas antes de regresar con las madres, familiares o cuidadores. Lo electrónico, los teléfonos móviles o los juguetes son sacados por ellos de las mochilas y el profesor debe de recordar que no use en clase, ellos lo ponen sin objeción. En general, los estudiantes parecen tener menos aparatos y por lo tanto requieren menos estímulo para permanecer enfocados en la escuela. Además, el aprendizaje académico se considera importante. En todos los grados, los estudiantes deben pasar las pruebas trimestrales para pasar al siguiente grado. Si no, están obligados a retomar el curso en la parte superior de la carga lectiva el año siguiente. En la escuela secundaria, una prueba llamada pruebas del ministerio es necesaria para ingresar a la universidad (por lo que mientras la educación es gratuita, se le ve como un asunto serio).

La comunidad internacional tiene mucho que aprender de Costa Rica. ¿Deberían las comunidades internacional estar preparadas para incluir en los planes escolares, temas transversales tales como valores morales? ¿Es preciso seguir gastar tanto dinero en construcción de escuelas modernas, tecnológicamente avanzadas, entrenamiento de profesores altamente avanzados en lugar de mejorar las lecciones en el aula? ¿Deberíamos darle menos énfasis a la diversión en clases y enfocarnos más en el nivel de aprendizaje? Como una nación dispuesta a participar en PISA en el año 2012 por primera vez, los costarricenses están interesados en un buen desempeño, pero no a costa de la disminución del apoyo de los valores morales. Tal vez para esta pequeña nación, es ofrecer al mundo algunas grandes ideas.

Reference

Ning Z, Rong , and Baoying, G (2010). Curriculum Reforms in Primary Schools and Teacher Perspectives in China. International Journal of Learning, 17(8), p. 227-238.

In the Eyes of the Youth: Equity and Education 09/14/2011

In the Eyes of the Youth: Equity and Education

I just returned from a week long camping trip in New Hampshire with a group of approximately 70 teenage girls. The girls came from all walks of life – some of them were from higher socioeconomic backgrounds with others coming from families who were struggling to make ends meet; some of them spoke only English with others having barely arrived from another country, and so on. Interacting with these girls provoked reflection on the types of opportunities each of them has within their respective schools and communities. I wondered about what each of them would do with their lives, their careers, their families, and their opportunities for growth.

While gathered around a campfire one afternoon with some of the girls, I asked them about their experiences at school and their plans following high school graduation. One of the Latinos told me how she had been held back that school year and was about to repeat the grade. She said she didn’t really like school. Another Latino girl told me how her school had a poor reputation and that the teaching wasn’t very good. One of the White girls told me how she had thought a lot about college during the past school year with another telling me of her upcoming tryouts for sports. I was intrigued by how well their responses aligned with what research has said about school performance and quality. Those girls coming from more affluent neighborhoods described greater opportunities in terms of educational and extracurricular activities, a higher quality of teaching and learning, and could articulate clearer goals for thinking about higher education following high school. Those from schools located in areas reflecting lower socioeconomics described a poorer quality of teaching and learning, fewer opportunities for academic and extracurricular growth, and had less clear plans regarding postsecondary pursuits. While I realize that the discrepancies mentioned above are broad generalizations and that the sampling was less than representative of the population at large, this experience highlighted a persistent concern in public education – that educational opportunities for students are not always equitable.

My research interests are in the area of equitable educational opportunities for Latin American students, more particularly in their educational opportunities following high school. Educational inequity for Latin American students has persisted over time and is reflected in their retention and enrollment in higher education (Cabrera & La Nasa, 2001; Choy, Horn, Nunez, & Chen, 2000; Hurtado, Inkelas, Briggs, & Rhee, 1997). When compared with other ethnic and racial groups, Latin American students reflect one of the lowest college enrollment rates (Huber, Huidor, Malagon, Sanchez, & Solorzano, 2006).

Schools within the United States continue to be the recipients of immigrant students. Our nation claims that No Child [will be] Left Behind. But what is happening in the schools nationwide? A report by the UCLA Chicano Studies Research Center (Huber et al., 2006) considered U.S. census data from the year 2000 indicating that of the Latino students included in the report, 54% of the females and 51% of the males graduated from high school, and 11% of the females and 10% of the males graduated from college. This was in comparison to a high school graduation rate of 84% for White females and 83% for males, and a college graduation rate of 24% for White females and 28% for White males. Data from 2005 presented by the American Council on Education (Cook & Cordova, 2007) showed that 87.8% of White students and 65.9% of Hispanic students graduated from high school, and 48.7% of White students and 37.6% of Hispanic students enrolled in college. Data highlighted by these studies indicates that a problem exists in providing equitable opportunities for all students.

What can be done to address these issues of equity and social justice within education? Although useful interventions have been implemented by policymakers, educators, and community members, I pause to ask if the voices of teenage girls sitting around a campfire are being heard. Are their experiences from their native countries and cultures being listened to in terms of how this impacts their perspectives and goals for the future? And what role do their parents and families have in all of this? It is my personal mission to better understand the voices of these students so that I can help provide more equitable educational opportunities for them that meet their individual and collective needs. These students are not just numbers included in statistics illustrating discrepancies in educating the nation’s youth; they are human beings who deserve a right to a high quality education.

Michelle Reich

Doctoral Candidate

Educational Administration

References

Cabrera, A. F., & La Nasa, S. M. (2001). On the path to college: Three critical tasks facing America's disadvantaged. Research in Higher Education, 42(2), 119-149.

Choy, S. P., Horn, L. J., Nunez, A., & Chen, X. (2000). Transition to college: What helps at-risk students and students whose parents did not attend college. New Directions for Institutional Research, 27(3), 45-63.

Cook, B. J., & Cordova, D. I. (2007). Minorities in higher education: Twenty-second annual status report: 2007 supplement. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.

Huber, L. P., Huidor, O., Malagon, M. C., Sanchez, G., & Solorzano, D. (2006). Falling through the cracks: Critical transitions in the Latina/o educational pipeline, 2006 Latina/o Education Summit report. Los Angeles, CA: UCLA Chicano Studies Research Center.

Hurtado, S., Inkelas, K. K., Briggs, C., & Rhee, B. S. (1997). Differences in college access and choice among racial/ethnic groups: Identifying continuing barriers. Research in Higher Education, 38(1), 43-75.

International achievement tests and educational change 08/23/2011

International achievement tests and educational change

On 7 December 2010, the results of PISA 2009 were released. PISA or the Programme for International Student Assessment is an international achievement test conducted once every three years by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). First introduced in 2000, this study measures students’ ability to apply knowledge and skills in mathematics, science, and reading as they go about analyzing, interpreting and solving problems. The study is administered to a sample of 15-year-old students from each participating country. Two other prominent international achievement tests are the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) and Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS). TIMSS is run by the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA) and is a study concerned with improving the teaching and learning of mathematics and science. The study involves Grades 4 and 8 students, and has been conducted every four years since 1995. PIRLS provides information on trends in reading literacy development among Grade 4 students. The study is into its third cycle, and measures reading comprehension as well as children’s home and school experiences when learning to read.

There is widespread international interest on the relative performance of countries following each test, leading to debates and discussions. Following the results of PISA 2009 in which Shanghai, participating in the study for the first time, became the top performing country in the reading, mathematics, and science literacy scales, there were intense debates in the USA, ranging from speculation on the reasons Shanghai was able to top the PISA ranks to whether certain interest groups were using the USA’s performance to launch a panic attack in their efforts to further a particular political agenda for education. Chester E. Finn, Jr., a former member of President Ronald Reagan’s education team, is said to have likened Shanghai’s stellar performance to a “sputnik” moment, a reference to 1953 when the launch of this satellite gave America reason to fear that the Russians had surpassed them in space technology. Other pundits were more blasé and less apprehensive about the ‘threat’ posed by the Shanghainese students; they attributed the surprising performance of Shanghainese children to an education system that conducts relentless test preparation under a highly centralized, highly pressurized education system.

Barely after the waves caused by the release of the results of PISA 2009 have subsided, another two international achievement studies in mathematics and science, and literacy are currently underway in 2011, this time involving Grades 4 and 8 students. This year, 2011, marks the convergence of the four-year TIMSS and five-year PIRLS cycles, where there will be a “comprehensive assessment” of Grade 4 students from participating countries in all three areas of learning. Over 50 education systems have committed themselves to this once-in-twenty-years international testing event. While a number of systems are assessing the same students for both TIMSS and PIRLS, others are using the same sample of schools but arranging for different classes of students to take TIMSS and PIRLS. Interspersed between the cycles of international achievement tests, most education systems would typically conduct internal assessments, either informally as classroom tests, or more formally as standardized tests like the International General Certificate for Secondary Education in the United Kingdom, or the mandated state tests under the No Child Left Behind law in the USA. Overall, it is evident that large numbers of students around the world are subject to frequent and numerous tests. The questions I ask myself are why these international tests generate so much interest, and more importantly, given the frequency, scale and extent of these studies, how can policy makers and educators best make sense of and use the data. Making cautious inferences and deliberate decisions from the test information is a way to account for the large sums of public money spent on the tests – for instance, the total participation cost per country for PIRLS 2006 was US$120,000 for the duration of study. Evidently, there are other intangible costs involved as well, such as time and human resources spent implementing the tests.

I was prompted to ruminate on the influence of these international tests because of two recent articles which I read over the last fortnight. Both articles make direct or indirect reference to the significance and implications of the East Asian education systems topping the international tests, but with similar purposes: the authors contribute suggestions for improving education systems, recommending broad approaches that countries may adopt. Second, they also emphasize that the end goals of educational change should be supporting all students to attain high levels of achievement. Ben Jensen (The Australian, 29 July 2011) makes the case for Australian policymakers undertaking educational change to learn from the East Asian education systems, namely Hong Kong, South Korea, Singapore and Shanghai, and from Finland, the only non-East Asian jurisdiction mentioned in the article. Finland has topped the PISA tables for the 2000, 2003, and 2006 cycles. Jensen draws on data from PISA 2009 to raise the alarming news that the average 15-year old student in Australia was lagging behind his Shanghainese counterpart by about two years of learning. Despite Australia being geographically close to the East Asian nations, he laments that Australian policymakers appear reluctant to learn from her high performing neighbours because of a lack of understanding of the nature and design of the achievement tests, as well as ignorance about the educational reforms taking place in recent years in the East Asian systems. To this end, educational reform in Australia is needed, and he urges Australian policy makers not to dismiss lessons which may be drawn from the East Asian systems. He praises the fact that in the East Asian education systems, there is a teacher career structure which sees the most effective teachers desiring to work in the least advantaged schools.

While not dismissing the validity of international tests, Yong Zhao (Leading the Change Series, August 2011) urges U.S. policymakers not to simply rely on single measures of achievement, and in particular, he presses educators to look beyond the current “test-driven incentive system”. In his view, it is not appropriate or feasible to transplant models of educational reform from one country to the next; rather, he asserts that thorough knowledge of the context is critical. For instance, while he recognizes that Finland, South Korea and Singapore are high performing countries in PISA 2009, their education systems are roughly the size of the state of Massachusetts and hence, their strategies may not be appropriate for the USA. In addition, the cultural, economic, social and geographic contexts of these systems are vastly different from the USA. Related to this, he asserts that policymakers need to develop a deep awareness of the different systems rather than persist with stereotypical views of other systems, a point also raised by Jensen. One of Zhao’s proposals is for researchers to look broader beyond a narrow emphasis on instructional interventions to focus on larger, systemic reform. In his view, educational change must be accompanied by longer term objectives; currently, there is myopic reverence for short term outcomes based on a narrow set of indicators.

A common observation from both authors is that education change in some OECD countries (USA and Australia in the two articles) is moving towards increasing centralization (and standardized testing) while education change in the Asian countries is headed for more flexibility, with more autonomy being devolved to schools. The articles resonated with me because the Singapore education system – one that I grew up in, and later taught in – was mentioned in both articles. Further, I am also interested in educational change and reform. Reflecting on the two articles, I pondered over several topics related to educational change, as well as data from the international tests. Responding to the two authors, as well as drawing from findings in PISA 2009, I have further suggestions for the Australian and US policymakers.

The first topic is related to issues of equity and the achievement gap. Zhao attributes the persistent achievement gap in the USA to disparity issues contingent on where students live and on their social economic status. In this respect, I suggest that the contextual data collected in addition to the achievement booklets in the international tests play an important role in educational change. The contextual data comprise self-report responses from students, teachers, principals, and parents with respect to a wide range of educational indicators, including experience of learning, use of instructional and assessment activities, details of homework activities, home and school provision of educational resources, and teacher efficacy. I also contend that trend analysis of the contextual data will help countries determine patterns of educational change in their systems. The analysis of the contextual data collected from PISA 2009 (and also from previous cycles) shows that across countries, students from lower SES backgrounds spend less time learning science than their more wealthy classmates. These trends are especially pertinent in light of the disparities resulting from globalization. However in a number of countries, “resilient” students in the bottom SES strata were also predicted to score within the top quarter of the achievement scale. As reported in the PISA 2009 Results: Executive Summary, such a pattern was evident based on the statistical analyses conducted for Finland, Japan, Turkey, Canada, Portugal and Singapore where 39 to 48% of disadvantaged students were “resilient”. In Hong Kong and Shanghai, 72% and 76% of students were “resilient” respectively. These findings suggest that despite coming from less privileged backgrounds, students from these countries had access to quality education, as well as were given opportunities to excel academically in mathematical and scientific literacy. Further, there were also countries which devoted a larger proportion of teachers to schools serving low SES populations than to the advantaged schools. Such data will be of interest to countries like Australia where, as Jensen mentions, students from the lower SES backgrounds are more likely to drop out of school, and have deteriorating grades than their East Asian peers. In fact, in my view, given the widening disparities resulting from globalization, studying the reform strategies used by countries with high “resilience” will help to ensure greater equity and accessibility in the distribution of education resources to help every child succeed.

The second topic relates to the within-country use of international test data. Rather than be preoccupied with international comparisons, I suggest that countries scrutinize trend data and use them as indicators when conducting internal reviews of their own systems. Such data are available every 4-5 years if an education system participates in each successive test cycle. Schleicher presents the case for the international achievement data to be used as indicators of widening disparities as well as levers for educational change. For example, he argued that following judicious statistical analyses of the achievement results and other contextual data from PISA 2000, the German government was made cognizant of the deepening impact of socio-economic segregation in German schools: privileged students from higher SES backgrounds were channeled into the elite academic track while students from lower SES families were directed towards the vocational schools. This finding raised awareness that the sorting approach in German’s education system was deepening the socio-economic divide rather than moderating socioeconomic background factors. International benchmarks may also be used as critical levers to spur educational change. Using Japan’s performance in PISA 2003 as an example, Schleicher illustrated how the analysis of student performance led Japanese policymakers to review the curriculum and propose changes for modifying the country’s assessment system. The outcome was a recommendation to incorporate more open-ended tasks in the national examinations because Japanese students were weak in this aspect of literacy. A similar approach was undertaken in Korea which recently increased the emphasis on literacy tasks for its university entrance examinations, arguing that these tasks were critical as part of 21st century skills. In both instances, Schleicher contends that the international test and contextual data brought attention to areas requiring review within the education system, and became the impetus for urgent and immediate education change; such revisions might have faced fierce opposition and resistance if proposed without the evidence provided in international benchmarking studies.

Finally, Zhao’s recommendation for policymakers and researchers to concentrate on the purpose of education is especially pertinent. Education is certainly more than achievement test scores and the meeting of policy targets like Adequate Yearly Progress set by the U.S. Department of Education. In his interview, Zhao speaks of the need for countries to embrace or adopt an educational philosophy. He cites the objectives of China’s recent education reform which is shifting the emphasis from knowledge acquisition to focus on four areas: ability to create, ability to apply, move towards flexibility, and desire for students to develop global perspectives. Likewise, Jensen urges Australian stakeholders in education to cast away their stereotype (mis)perceptions of East Asia education; in particular, the general (mis)conception that there is undue emphasis on rote learning in East Asia. While this may have been so in the past, both Jensen and Zhao note that recent educational change efforts in the past decade in these education systems have seen a move towards more progressive views: as the new policies are more child-centered, there is a recognition that each child is different, as well as an overarching effort to reduce the reliance on test scores as a measure of success. In response to Zhao, I agree that developing an educational philosophy is useful, but I also suggest that this must be complemented by deliberate efforts to ensure continuity in the policy. In many countries, this permanence in policy is typically not easily achieved because with each successive government change, the pendulum swing in education reform may take diametrically opposite philosophies, objectives and approaches.

With respect to the continuity of educational policy, I would like to illustrate my thoughts using Singapore as an example. In Singapore, the outcomes of education are underpinned by the Desired Outcomes of Education (DOEs), which are key attributes that society aspires for each Singaporean student to have at the end of formal education. These outcomes are the indicators of the vision of education, Thinking Schools Learning Nation. Since 1997, these DOEs have guided policymakers and educators when conceptualizing policies, initiatives and programmes. For a teacher like me teaching in the system, it is important that the overall education vision has been consistent over the last fifteen years. However, the strategies for meeting these goals continue to be refined and reviewed based on feedback from schools, teachers, researchers, students, and the public. To this end, the constant review of processes and targets is a means of ensuring that goals are realistic, and that schools and teachers have the necessary support to implement the policy intent. For teachers who have to implement the policies, the constant renewal and review may be a bane because they have to keep making new adjustments. Nevertheless, because the DOEs have been in existence since 1997, a sufficiently long period of time has transpired for the policy instruments to take shape. To date, the three phases in Singapore’s young education system – survival-driven, efficiency-driven, and ability-driven – have progressed and transitioned seamlessly, with each phase lasting 15 to 20 years. This consistency in the system may be attributed to a stable social and economic arena because the same political party has been leading the country since independence in 1965. As such, developments within each phase are part of a deliberate and concerted movement towards the overarching education philosophy. For example, since 1979, there has been a consistent shift from autocracy to more school autonomy, and from uniformity in the system to more diversity. Finally, because of the consistent reviews, curriculum and education planners are more aware of the support structures required to help teachers realize the policy intent. To this end, where previously teachers had to grope in the dark to decipher and interpret the intent and meaning of particular policies, with new initiatives like Teach Less Learn More which were introduced in 2006, there are mini-descriptors that help teachers understand the spirit and intent of the policy. As mentioned in both articles, Singapore’s education system is now increasing its emphasis on creativity and independent thinking, the present challenge for planners is to locate the balance between central and local control of curriculum and assessment.

Educational change is a complex process. While student achievement in international test data provides an indication of each education system’s relative standing with respect to others, there are many other indicators which need to be thoroughly examined before implementing changes. Although valuable lessons can be drawn from the high performing education systems, it is also important to bear in mind that what works in one jurisdiction is not transferable or replicable in another due to different economic, social, cultural, and political contexts.

Karen Lam

Disparity, Austerity, and Education 08/18/2011

Disparity, Austerity, and Education

Alex Gurn, PhD student

This summer we witnessed a rancorous debate over the United States’ economic policy that stemmed from the authorization of the federal debt ceiling. In brief, if the U.S. Department of Treasury doesn’t collect enough revenues to pay for the federal government’s budget, it can borrow money to cover the budget deficit only if authorized by the Congress. The Treasury has no authority to take on debt beyond this specific limit, or debt ceiling, set by Congress. Increases to the debt ceiling have been passed many times before, typically without any fanfare. This year, however, raising the debt ceiling became contested territory as Republicans used the issue to force a debate over national debt and seek cuts in government spending.

On one side of this debate, Tea Partiers and their fellow Republicans aimed to address the country’s debt problems by proposing deep cuts to government funding of programs, in particular Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, which primarily serve the poor and middle classes. At the same time, they fought hard to protect tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, those making over $250,000 per year. On the other side of the debate, Democrats initially called for a ‘clean’ increase to the debt ceiling, thus raising the limit without cutting spending. Later, the White House and many Democrats pushed for moderate increases in taxes for the rich, in order to raise federal revenues, alongside cuts in future spending. A political standoff ensued.

In the end, the United States did not default on its debt. At the final hour, a complicated deal was reached that would raise the debt ceiling and cut trillions of dollars in federal expenditures over the next decade, while leaving untouched the question of tax loopholes for the rich. By most accounts, the Republicans won this battle.

Yet after the dust settles from this debate, real Americans will begin to deal with the consequences of the cuts. To be fair, some Americans will be faced with graver consequences than others. According to a new analysis by the PEW Research Center, “the median wealth of white households is 20 times that of black households and 18 times that of Hispanic households,” which represents the largest racial disparities in family wealth since the government began releasing such data. In 2009, the median African-American household had $5,667 in assets; the median white household had $113,149. This racial gap is approximately double the size of wealth ratios witnessed during the two decades prior to the Great Recession that officially ended in 2009. Although most American families have experienced declines in wealth, the recession has affected people of color much more so than whites. Between 2005 and 2009, the median white household’s wealth fell by 16%. Among Latinos, that figure jumps to a 66% drop and among African-Americans, 53%, during the same period.

The United States boasts the world’s most powerful economy, but it also exhibits sharp socio-economic disparities that are more typical of third world countries. According to data from the Luxembourg Income Study (LIS), the U.S. has the highest level of inequality in any advanced industrialized nation (see Brandolini & Smeeding, 2007). And as the PEW research shows, the deep divide between the rich and the poor has grown even deeper in this decade. In a contradictory twist, while so many Americans have sunk into or stand on the brink of poverty, corporations have enjoyed record profits and consumer spending on luxury goods like Louboutin shoes and Mercedes-Benz cars is on the rise.

At a time of great economic insecurity, big budget cuts to federal entitlement programs threaten to create even greater instability for those living at the bottom of the pyramid. U.S. legislators should pay attention to the results of a recent study by the Centre for Economic Policy Research that examines the connection between budget cuts and social unrest in Europe from 1919-2009. The authors found “a clear positive correlation” between fiscal austerity and social instability. Cuts to government spending are closely associated with widespread demonstrations, strikes, and criminal activity such as riots and assassination attempts. While the study does not prove causal links between budgets cuts and social unrest, it may help to historically contextualize the riots that took place last week in England, and warrant caution in the U.S. Over the past year, the UK has adopted economic austerity measures that many Republicans dream of. At the moment, crime rates in the U.S. have actually decreased since the recent recession. Whether that trend will continue after next year’s government spending cuts remains to be seen.

For now, it is unclear exactly how these cuts will affect public education in the U.S., but some legislators and advocates are concerned about what the deal spells for schools. The Congress has not yet decided how the budget cuts will be specifically divvied, only the overall cap in expenditures. In an interview with the Associated Press, U.S. Representative George Miller said that spending cuts imposed by the deal will "make life much more difficult for" public schools. Although most funding for public education comes from state and local sources, federal cuts could significantly impact the Head Start program and educational initiatives for students with disabilities, among others. What’s more, these reductions in federal dollars follow behind sharp cuts in state funding. Schools that have already been forced to slash budgets will be made to once again tighten their belts next year.

Yet, the consequences for public education go beyond direct equations of school district spending. A child’s readiness to learn in school is significantly influenced by a number of out-of-school factors, such as low birth weight, lack of adequate medical and dental care, persistent hunger, socially and physically toxic environments, and emotional stressors, writes . Growing up in poverty, and all the complications that it entails, puts significant strain on youth and their opportunities to learn. The total picture of students’ lives, their physical, social, emotional well-being, matters a great deal inside the classroom walls. As the depth and length of poverty increases, and as the social safety net available to children living in poverty is eroded, the pressures on schools and teachers mount and their capacity to teach is compromised. While it is possible for committed schools and educators to alleviate the harsh affects of poverty by extending learning beyond the traditional school day (e.g. preschool, after school, summer camp), these sorts of interventions require more resources, not less.

As the United States grapples with the realities of our economic downturn, we must honestly pose the question: how can the wealthiest country in history allow so much poverty to exist? And just who benefits and loses from such persistent disparities?

Both/And: Improving education in schools and in the community. 08/11/2011

2 Comments

Just over a week ago, several thousand teachers marched in Washington, D. C. with a group known as Save Our Schools (SOS) to protest much of the standards-driven reform agenda of the last decade, reserving particular scorn for standardized testing and its attendant pressures. The march and rally are one of educators’ first organized— yet still visceral— reactions to what has become common practice in our current discourse around education: the public lambasting and demonizing of teachers. The argument the teachers were responding to is relatively straightforward: critics argue that America is losing its competitive edge because schools are failing, and schools are failing because we have a dismal teaching force.

These critics are “the reformers,” including former New York City Schools Chancellor Joel Klein— as well as his successors— who tend to argue that out-of-school factors don’t matter. That poverty is easily overcome by heroic teaching alone. Reformers contend that good teachers, if they weren’t hampered by seniority rules, lazy colleagues, unions, and other elements of the public system, could get all children to achieve at high levels through little more than persistence and grit. Too many bad teachers are the enemy.

People who are and know teachers don’t see it this way. They see schools as underfunded and feel teachers working as hard as they can. Teachers are now not only confronting difficult conditions in and out of schools, but also a rising tide of public scorn that seeks to smash their professional associations and union protections with a massive political hammer. Teachers in networks like SOS see testing, the reformers, and NCLB as the enemy. They argue that they do the best they can with dwindling funding, uninvolved parents, and students pushed on without proper preparation. One sign at SOS noted that there are several barriers to student achievement, but argued that teachers aren’t one of them.

I think that most of the time the these two camps miss each other.

The fact is, there is a reason that children who grow up in poverty, in single parent homes, without stable housing or nutrition, do poorly in school. Poverty matters in the sense that it has a negative impact on school engagement and academic achievement. Out-of-school factors matter. But there is also something to be done about it—by teachers and schools as well as other agencies.

Each side is reticent to admit the two simple points in the preceding paragraph. Too many reformers argue that teachers use these social factors to abdicate professional responsibility, and that failing schools are the result of low expectations and union protections for teachers who are professionally incompetent. Too many teachers argue that schools and the communities they serve are oceans apart, and demonstrate precious little agency in tackling these problems as they effect learning.

Poverty and inequality in society are significant issues that need to be addressed in order for our educational system to improve. Important research has found that lack of attention to inequality hurts achievement, not just for those who are disadvantaged, but for the whole system. Beyond academic achievement, festering inequality can have adverse impacts on public health and other vital outcomes for a fully-functioning society.

More equal countries have done better on international assessments. These nations have taken steps to address poverty and are seeing results. Finland, the international archetype of educational achievement, has a successful system that contradicts both the non-agentic segment of the teacher camp and the vision of the reformers. Finland and other successful systems have neither abdicated responsibility for non-school factors nor chosen to press ahead, heads in the sand, teaching harder and longer and louder. Instead, they have cultivated a collaborative system that invests more funds and greater trust in teachers as professionals, while raising standards to enter and remain in the profession. They have not created and over-reliance on testing, complex dismissal procedures, so-called merit-pay, or other measures that de-professionalize teaching.

In addition, however, Finland, Ontario, Canada, and other high performers on international comparisons acknowledge inequality in their societies, create structures to address it, and ask schools to participate in the hard work of collaborating around these efforts to meet performance goals. Of the factors that schools can control, teachers matter a great deal. But they need partners to do what schools—even great ones—cannot. High-performing systems distribute responsibility and share goals around social improvement. Our system needs greater level of cooperation among the entities who are positioned to address inequality and—by extension—achievement.

I have recently joined the staff of a project that walks this common-sense middle ground in the education reform and improvement debate. City Connects (CCNX) is a systemic, evidence-based approach to addressing the out-of-school factors that impact learning. Its mission is to have children engage and learn in school by connecting each child with the tailored set of prevention, intervention, and enrichment services he or she needs to thrive. To accomplish this mission, CCNX relies on the rich services and enrichments provided by district programs and community agencies.

CCNX was designed to address deliberately the inequities in opportunity that ultimately contribute to the achievement gap. Through the structure of the City Connects model, these inequities are addressed. By matching each and every student to the tailored set of services he or she needs to thrive, CCNX helps distribute the resources of the city based on a particular student’s individual strengths and needs.

Through this reorientation of the way resources are distributed, CCNX has evidence that it is changing school climate and school staff. Teachers have reported that because of the CCNX model, they view children differently. The opportunity to consider each student’s strengths and needs, one by one, as well as to try a range of services and resources to enable children’s success, has opened a new way of thinking about students and their potential. The support that CCNX gives teachers to act on this new way of thinking gives substance to the belief that every child can learn and thrive in school. It builds teachers’ capacity to do what most have always wanted to do. They share in the hard work of collaboration. And the results show that this American model of attending to inequality is paying dividends, raising expectations for teachers and scores for students.

There are things that schools can and should do, and effective, publicly accountable teachers are an important part of this equation. Our profession can do more to use effective teachers as examples, make better use of student data, collaborate, support new teachers’ growth, and, yes, permit and even encourage those justly accused of poor performance (or worse) to be dismissed. But if what we want is a truly functional, high-achieving educational system, we also need one that admits that there are other factors like poverty that force some kids to start way behind their peers. We can acknowledge this fact without abdicating professional responsibility and by playing an active part in using the school’s central role in the community to address these issues.

It makes little sense to claim that America will compete against the best, and then refuse even to consider the paths trodden by the most successful educational systems in the world. Schools are organizations that play unique and important roles in our society. As a conscientious public, we should do whatever we can to improve them, focusing special attention on their most important element: teachers. But we should also acknowledge that there are bigger issues that schools are not equipped to address. The good news is that much of that expertise is already there—often already paid for—in the communities surrounding schools. City Connects in just one of a variety of tools that we can use to improve the lives of children in poverty and enhance the impact of good teachers on their education. Teachers have a responsibility to partner in this effort, and they do as part of CCNX. Rather than making them the subject of scorn, we should honor teachers for their service. We should also ensure that they are part of a larger, coordinated effort to improve outcomes and our prospects for the future.

Matthew Welch
Doctoral Student of Professor Andrew Hargreaves

2 Comments

Irish Eyes 02/27/2011

Irish Eyes Aren’t Smiling

A classic episode of the Simpsons features Krusty the Clown’s entrance in a comedy competition. While the other acts represent new, alternative comedy, Krusty’s jaded repertoire of skits and jokes is an embarrassment. A string of “I say, I say, I say!” jokes is received in stony silence. Caricatures of Chinese people are met with moans of disapproval. And Krusty’s final desperate act of flipping up the dickie on his shirt, prompts only howls of derision. Young Lisa wins the competition hands down. Backstage, meanwhile, Krusty has collapsed in tears. “All these years when I’ve been cashing in”, he says, “I should have been sharpening up my act”!

Ireland has become the Krusty the Clown of economic and educational globalization.

A number of years ago, I addressed an influential steering group of representatives of church, state and business on the future of educational change in Ireland. The Celtic Tiger was roaring. Business had been attracted to the country by its 12% corporate tax rate, its European Union subsidies, and a ready made workforce that was young, highly educated, English-speaking – and cheap. People had invested their new-found wealth in their property, and Dublin had the highest home values in Europe. In education, Ireland was one of the top performers on the international PISA tables of pupil achievement. The country was young, successful and optimistic. What could possibly go wrong?

So I did not receive rapturous applause when I drew attention to a more sobering prospect. Ireland’s economy and educational system, I warned, were successful but not sustainable. Low taxes were limiting the opportunities for reinvestment in educational innovation and university research. The Government’s strategy was reactive to teacher union demands rather than proactive about a future-oriented reform agenda. Eventually, I predicted, the workforce would age, salaries would rise and the companies attracted by Ireland’s fair-weather tax breaks would migrate to Eastern Europe where workers’ motivation was just as strong but the wages would be cheaper. What would the Irish do then?

Like adolescents who have been reminded about their eventual mortality, the audience listened to me with indifference. After all, as Niccolo Machievelli advised us, in fair weather, people do not consider the possibility of a tempest. And what a tempest Ireland has become. When I addressed over 1000 primary school principals in Dublin a few weeks ago, their pensions, like everyone else’s had been cut by 7%, and while the wages and jobs of unionized teachers might have been protected, support and resource positions that gave assistance to struggling students were about to be sacrificed. In the face of all this, Irish schools were having to confront mounting problems as the families of the children they served had their benefits slashed, unemployment was up to 14%, and the country was experiencing an exodus of 1000 people a month.

Yet, isn’t it when your back’s against the wall that you most need to reinvest in your future? Ask the poor immigrant parents who sacrifice everything to provide opportunities for their children and their future. Look at the top European performer on PISA – Finland – that rebounded from a 19% unemployment rate after the collapse of its Russian market in 1992 by making massive investments in educational innovation and creativity to become the world’s most successful knowledge economy. Finland didn’t reduce support for teachers and increase external inspection. As leading Finnish education expert Pasi Sahlberg pointed out at the conference, it increased teacher quality and eliminated expensive inspection – believing that very high quality teachers are perfectly capable of inspecting themselves.

Or consider top-three PISA performer, Singapore, from where this blog is being written, where the collapse of its electronics industry in the 1990s led it to develop a new vision around the idea of “Thinking Schools, Learning Nation” with a slimmed-down curriculum so that schools could “Teach Less, Learn More”. In Singapore, high quality teachers are attracted against a competitive private sector with starting salaries that match those of other professions like engineering and with generous scholarships to study abroad for Masters degrees and PhDs so they learn from other countries, provided they pledge themselves to their government for several years on their return.

Even though the Irish didn’t see the tempest coming, the storm can still be weathered if everyone understands that education is not an unaffordable expense but an indispensable answer. Education is the way to reinvent as well as reinvest in the future. On PISA, high performing systems have well-supported (and not merely well-paid) teachers. Innovation is an essential investment, not an indulgent frill. Proper support for special education students shortens the long tail of underachievement. The curriculum is clear in its guidelines but prudent in its coverage – leaving room for innovation and creativity.

Ireland has had to change by default. Now it must change by design. Education must be the answer. This country has finally stopped cashing in. It is time to sharpen up its act.

Andy Hargreaves is the Thomas More Brennan Chair in Education at Boston College, USA. This article is based on his presentation to the Irish Primary Principals’ Network in Dublin, January 27, 2011

Content to be Canadian? 01/27/2011

Last year, I was driving through Toronto when I spied a bumper sticker ahead. It didn’t boldly proclaim “God Bless Canada” as if Canada was specially deserving of divine attention. Nor did it even advertise the country’s more usual epithet: “Proud to be Canadian”. In a characteristically understated piece of signage, the sticker simply said “Content to be Canadian!”

And that’s Canada in a nutshell. How do you get 100 Canadians out of the pool? You say, “Please, would you get out of the pool!” Prosperous, inclusive, diverse - this Northern nation of 34 million people scores quite well (but not stunningly so) on a range of international indicators. It is 8th on the UN Human Development index, the 25th most equal of 130 nations on the GINI index of economic inequality, the 14th least corrupt according to Transparency International, and exactly half way on UNICEF’s index of child wellbeing in developed nations. Where Canada does excel is in courtesy and quality of service. It is top of the 2010 international customer service rankings and the most welcoming to visitors according to the Nation Brands Index. Canadians, it seems, may only be somewhat successful, but they are politely content to be so.

There are exceptions: hockey, the Winter Olympics and now, perhaps, education. In December 2010, the global media had a feeding frenzy over the release by the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) of the results on their Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). Among other things, every few years, PISA ranks the 34 OECD member countries and 41 partner countries and economies according to their performance in tested student achievement at age 15 in reading, mathematics and science. The big issue for the Western media was that five of the top ten performing economies were Asian. “Top Test Scores from Shanghai Stun Educators”, “OECD Warns West of Losing Global Edge in Education” and “A Sputnik Moment for US Education”, the headlines blared. Asians are now regarded as the new Russians – educationally poised to take over the world. What the media overlooked, though, was the strong performance of Canada.

Canada ranks 6th overall on PISA 2010. If the media have overlooked this, OECD hasn’t. A high-end video produced by Pearson Foundation picks out Canada as one of four “strong performers” and “successful reformers”. How is this strong performance explained? Strictly speaking, OECD concentrates not on the whole of Canada but on its most populous province: Ontario. OECD’s change guru Andres Schleicher, begins the video by praising Canada for how it encourages high expectations among families and teachers and how its positive approach to immigration is evident in narrow achievement gaps between students from different social backgrounds. But a minute or so into the video, without explanation, Schleicher suddenly switches to Ontario. The province is praised for its urgent focus on measurable improvement in literacy and numeracy (or math); its ability to set a clear plan and sign up key stakeholders to commit to it, including teachers; its sophisticated use of achievement data to pinpoint problems in underperformance among certain categories of students or particular schools; and then its response of “flooding” these schools with resources, technical assistance and support rather than inflicting blame, punishment and the threat of termination on them.

So is Ontario the answer to system-wide improvement, then? Well here’s the puzzle. Ontario isn’t the only high performing province on PISA. On reading, Alberta leads, followed by Ontario and British Columbia. On math, Quebec leads, followed by Alberta and Ontario. On science, Alberta leads, followed by BC and Ontario. Some of these differences between provinces are also very tiny – barely a percentage point or so. Yet the policies and strategies are often quite different.

Take Alberta. Just over a year ago, I led an international research team in a study of the Alberta Initiative for School Improvement. Here, the four-decade old Conservative Government has supported an $80m per year program spanning more than a decade to support school-designed innovations in over 90% of the province’s schools. Alberta’s political control is different from Ontario’s. Its broad approach to innovation from the bottom up is at variance with Ontario’s that is focused more precisely on literacy and math driven more persistently from the top, and Alberta’s teacher’s union does not merely cooperate with the government’s strategy but has been an equal partner in its design and development from the outset. Equally striking policy differences can be found in British Columbia where the government-union relationship is distinctly adversarial, and Quebec, which has shown that linguistic minorities in a nation can be high achievers when the conditions are right.

As far as PISA performance is concerned, then, we can’t really point to differences in provincial policy or political control as being the key factors. The policies and the politics vary, but the results are broadly the same. PISA success is not about the superior strategy of Alberta or Ontario or any other province. Superior PISA performance has something to do with Canada as a whole. So what is it?

Canada has some striking commonalities with Finland, the only non-Asian performer above it in the OECD rankings. Both countries value teachers and teaching and insist on a professional program of university-based training for all public school teachers. This is followed by an inspiring and supportive environment for teachers to do their work in schools - with good facilities, acceptable pay, wide availability of professional development, and a good degree of discretion to make their own professional judgments. Both countries have a strong commitment to public schools and only a very modest or non-existent private sector in education. Both countries have strong social welfare and public health systems with broad safety nets to protect the youngest and most vulnerable members of the population. Last, both nations are characterized by deeper cultures of cooperation and inclusiveness that actually makes them more competitive internationally.

Being Canadian is not just about being understated and polite. It’s also about being cooperative and inclusive and about valuing shared community and public life. It’s not this or that province’s policy that seems to make Canada such a strong educational performer, but a social fabric that values education and teachers, prizes the public good, and doesn’t abandon the weak in its efforts to become economically stronger. These are the things that make Canada educationally successful, and that it should cherish and protect. They are also the things that might lead lower performing nations like the US and UK to organize study visits to the world’s most successful multicultural and multilingual democracy on the PISA tests.

Sources

Hargreaves, A., Crocker, R., Davis, B., McEwen, L., Shirley, D. & Sumara, D. (2009) The Learning Mosaic: a multiple perspectives review of the Alberta Initiative for School Improvement, Edmonton, AB, Ministry of Education.

Hargreaves, A., Halasz, G & Pont, B., “The Finnish Approach to System Leadership,” In Pont, B., Nusche, D., & Hopkins, D.(eds), (2008), Improving School Leadership, Volume 2, Case Studies on System Leadership ,Paris , OECD , pp. 69-109 .

Knighton, T., Brochu, P., & Gluszynski, T. (2010) Measuring Up: Canadian results of the OECD PISA study, Ottawa, Human Resources and Skill Development Canada, Council of Ministers of Education, Canada and Statistics Canada

OECD (2010) PISA 2009 Results, Paris, OECD

Pearson Foundation (2010), Strong Performers and Successful Reformers in Education: Ontario, Canada, Pearson Foundation and OECD, http://www.pearsonfoundation.org/oecd/canada.html, last accessed 1/12/2011

Sahlberg, P (2010). Learning from Finland: How one of the world’s top educational performers turnedaround,Boston Globe, 27 December 2010