Tilting the Balance of Information

Traditionally, teachers harbored the authority within the classroom based on the perceived level of their role in the organizational hierarchy with respect to learners, and their expertise of the knowledge that formed the curriculum of the class. Technology has impacted that dynamic, particularly at the secondary level, through the democratization of information in terms of access, storage and application opportunities emerging from the power of the on-going digital revolution. That is, high school learners (and for that matter, nearly all learners) can readily retrieve information at their fingertips via their cell phones, thus reducing the teacher's "power" advantage. I mention high school learners because I believe they are more likely to grasp the change in the classroom dynamic regarding information.


Don't get me wrong - I'm not implying that the learner now knows as much as the teacher. Please note, I have refrained from equating information with knowledge. Effective teachers breathe life into information and convert it into knowledge. I'm merely pointing out that learners can instantly access information (assuming they have sharpened their search techniques) that had been within the firm domain of the instructor. This prompts teachers to maintain a conscientious command of facts since learners can quickly fact-check for accuracy. It should also serve as a reason for teachers to move well beyond rote facts and low level comprehension exercises and promote higher order thinking skills.


Here's a relevant excerpt from best selling author Daniel H. Pink's book, To Sell is Human.

"When buyers can know more than sellers, sellers are no longer protectors and purveyors of information. They’re the curators and clarifiers of it – helping to make sense of the blizzard of facts, data, and options. Today’s educators can no longer depend on the quasi-reverence that information asymmetry often afforded them. When the balance tilts in the opposite direction, what they do and how they do it must change."

Pink used examples in his book that support this change between provider and consumer. think of buying a car, for instance. The buyer can easily obtain price data on a specific model by comparing costs across many dealerships. The buyer can also discover reports on the car from many different websites and social media platforms sharing reviews by owners, consumer report research,... Thus, the buyer enters the negotiation with the salesperson with greater knowledge than they might have in a similar situation twenty years ago. That's what Pink refers to as information asymmetry = when one party in the provider/consumer equation has a disproportionate power through information that places the other party at a disadvantage.

Now, imagine this same relationship in the classroom. There is less imbalance between teacher and learner (and teacher and parent!). The question for educators becomes - what are we doing in response to this decreased information asymmetry? How have we changed our instructional delivery model? Have we successfully exploited the power of technology to increase the extent and complexity of outcomes? 

Right Direction, Poor Timing

 

The state of New York has unveiled two program/policy initiatives designed to improve school efficiency and effectiveness. Unfortunately, while they are well intended and point in the right direction, the timing is a bit off pace. It’s like watching your favorite film – but the audio is not synchronized properly with the video. You can still follow along but it’s not comfortable.

The 2014-15 state budget established a property tax freeze credit for homeowners across New York for the 2014-15 and 2015-16 school years. If schools can prepare and pass a budget that remains below the allowable tax levy cap, according to the state formula, the homeowners in the district will receive tax rebate checks. The expectation is that the incentive to acquire a refund will generate pressure from homeowners that will subsequently leverage school districts to develop a budget of modest means, at best.

Our district met the criteria for the first year by gaining approval for an annual budget that was below the state guidelines dictating allowable tax levy limits. However, the second year requires school districts to craft efficiency plans that produce savings of at least 1% of the district’s tax levy in order for homeowners to qualify for their tax refunds. We must devise and authenticate savings of 1% of the tax levy for each of the next two budget years.

 
The goal of the efficiency measures is understandable. The timing is incomprehensible. The introduction of this plan has arrived several years after public schools in New York have been ravaged by drastic reductions in state aid to public schools. These fiscal cuts, experienced like patients undergoing surgery minus the anesthesia, have already compelled school districts to engage in financial retrenchment (significant staff lay-offs and loss of programming) and collaborative partnerships to increase efficiency. School districts must join with other school districts to share services and save money BUT these partnerships are only credited for purposes of calculating “efficiency” if they have been instituted since 2012. The problem is that the prolonged state aid cuts prompted districts to join together to save money long before 2012 and those cooperative efforts do not receive any credit in this new policy. So, if your school district exercised fiscal prudence prior to 2012 and sought savings through increased efficiency, they are penalized by not having such actions count as credit moving forward.

Our district has shared a food service staff and program with an adjacent district for many years. We have also shared transportation services with yet another school district. These two partnerships have produced savings that are exempt from consideration in the newly designed parameters governing the tax freeze credit program. These are two of the more common shared services that may likely impact savings to meet the 1% of tax levy limit. Now we are faced with the need to seek even greater savings, without the low hanging fruit of transportation and food services.

This brings to mind one of Aesop’s fables entitled The Ant and the Grasshopper. Wikipedia summarizes it as follows: “The fable concerns a grasshopper that has spent the warm months singing while the ant (or ants in some versions) worked to store up food for winter. When that season arrives, the grasshopper finds itself dying of hunger and begs the ant for food. To its reply when asked that it had sung all summer, it is rebuked for its idleness and advised to dance during the winter. The story has been used to teach the virtues of hard work and the perils of improvidence. Some versions state a moral at the end along the lines of "Idleness brings want", "To work today is to eat tomorrow", "Beware of winter before it comes.” We were aware of the impending winter in the form of continued reductions in state aid and the need to be more efficient but now the grasshopper districts are rewarded with new incentives to entice them to become more efficient – after the ant’s poorly funded districts had been busy adjusting to cuts of their scarce resources that have brought them to the brink of bankruptcy. 

The voter approved proposition entitled the “Smart Schools Act” also suffers from a lack of coordination between intent and timing. This act provides $2,000,000,000 to schools throughout the state in a fund that districts can access through a process requiring constituent developed technology plans that meet with state approval. Although some of the money can be allocated for very specific purposes attendant to pre-Kindergarten programs, the bulk of the act is intended to improve school use of technology as an instructional tool by supplying funds to acquire infrastructure (bandwidth, internet access) and hardware (interactive white boards, laptops…). There is NO MONEY available for the added IT staff needed to support and repair the many computers, interactive white boards and the like that will be purchased through the funds. That last fact is significant for underfunded school districts. Again, the goal is supportive and appropriate BUT the timing is not in concert with the goal.

Just a couple of years ago public school districts were informed of the state education department’s intent to have state exams administered via computer instead of the pencil and paper method in the 2015-16 school year. That determination prompted school districts to prepare for the necessary number of computers to accommodate the number of learners expected to take these tests. Since these tests are administered at the same time, that is the 4^th grade Math exam is taken at the same time by all fourth grade learners in a school, then the schools must have a number of computers equivalent to the number of test takers. In other words, the integrity and security of the tests prevent schools form staggering the test taking schedule to minimize the amount of computers required.

Given the prevailing fiscal crisis that has haunted schools for several consecutive years now, it is impractical, nigh impossible, to suddenly purchase a large number of new computers. So, many schools, like ours, made incremental purchase of computers as allowed by budgetary constraints as soon as we possible following the announcement by the state. Additionally, even if one had access to the amount of money to buy many computers at once the district then runs the risk of having them all become obsolete or in need of repair – at the same time! Similarly, we began increasing our bandwidth and wi-fi access to meet the anticipated need of internet access by the test takers, and adding more computers here and there as the budget permits. In sum, we have expended valuable monetary resources to gradually get in position to meet the need to have state exams administered via computer in 2015-16.

Now, after the voter approval of the proposition this November 4^th, we qualify for access to $254,706 through the Smart Schools Act. That’s great news (beyond the fact that most of what is purchased will cease to be functional long before the state taxpayers complete their financial obligation in paying for the bond issue), but a little late. We already spent money in preparation for the state requirement concerning the administration of state exams. That same money could have been invested in other well deserved programs had there been any indication of the scope and form of the Governor’s Smart School initiative prior to the vague (no specifics beyond the total amount per district) news blurbs that appeared in the last few months before the general vote.

One could suggest that school district leaders should have anticipated the approval of the proposition and planned accordingly once the measure was created. However, in terms of odds-makers, I’m afraid I would not succeed in that venture since I was surprised that the vote passed because there was so little known about its scope, the fact that the purchased products would not begin to last half as long as it will take to pay off the bond, and an absence of money for the staff needed to support and repair the many pieces of technology purchased though the proposition.

Technology and Debate

I believe it was former national news anchorman Tom Brokaw who lamented that the internet instantly allows us to communicate with and befriend people all over the world, yet holds the possibility that we are left not really knowing the person living next door. Like most everything else, technology can be both a positive and a negative, depending on how we exercise its potential.

Technology is a vital tool within our schools. Schools are critical elements of a vibrant community. At times the two do not constructively intersect.

Public school education is a fertile ground for debates. In part, since most people have attended schooling of some kind for at least thirteen years, the shared experience leaves many people with a deeper knowledge and broader perceptions about education than they might have on small engine repair or architectural design or any other subject that is far less common in experience.

The leadership of a school or school district is not always right. “What is right,” when juxtaposed with the mission of the school, is more important in my opinion than “who is right.” Advanced degrees and specific titles are not dictators in a democracy. There are many subjects regarding education that could pose as focal points for productive consideration by diverse constituent groups in a community. The responsibility of a leader is to articulate positions on issues, whether they are popular positions or not, and attempt to convey them with appropriate explanations and context, and a willingness to adapt to changes or new information that might alter a previously made decision.

Oftentimes, the busy schedules of parents prevent them from making a regular commitment to attend meetings at school that could afford opportunities for discourse on subjects and concerns. That’s certainly understandable at a time when financial stress has prompted many to extend work hours or obtain additional work, or parents are juggling family schedules, or they are struggling with child-care as a single parent. Many schools maintain an active social media presence through facebook, twitter, or blogs, which combine to offer channels inviting an open and expanded virtual assembly over a time frame that accommodates varied schedules.

However, it seems like the ability to bring people closer through advancing technologies has also contributed to a fracturing of conversations and the creation of partisan camps. Most issues have multiple sides that can spawn differences of opinion that may lead to emotional expressions in support of particular points. Rather than promoting opportunities for many people to participate in an engaging dialogue examining possibilities, issues that could be discussed in a large format may be reduced to narrower conversations among people who share similar beliefs. Instead of accessing forums via readily available social media platforms, groups identify their perspective on an issue and then retreat to separate and private forums (i.e. facebook pages) based on common beliefs and a reluctance to entertain differing thoughts. This splintering effect provides some comfort to those refraining from a full scale discussion through semi-private exchanges that reinforce each other’s opinions and reaffirm their sentiments. But, as a consequence of people seeking refuge with shared beliefs we all lose the prospect of learning something new, contemplating or adjusting our position, or persuading opposing views to adopt our perspective or adapt their position. This smaller pool of perspectives in a more limited form of dialogue between people of similar opinions may leave some convinced that “everyone I know” thinks this way, or “everyone else feels the same way,” thus entrenching their original stand on an issue.

Additionally, the privacy of a faceless series of exchanges among people of similar beliefs can embolden people to extend their opinions beyond the boundaries they might otherwise hold when they are involved in a personal and real-time exchange of ideas in a more formal social setting. I suspect the language and emotions displayed in the narrower philosophical format of a private facebook page may not resemble an exchange people might evidence in a public forum at a school meeting. Such a prospect allows for feelings and expressions to escalate and eventually devolve to a degree of division that inhibits or prevents the cooperation among diverse groups that can enrich our school community.

Income, Educational Attainment, and Achievement

The Buffalo based "Business First Guide to Upstate School Districts "was published on-line this week. It was titled, Income data for Upstate New York school districts. Business First will be releasing additional reports in the coming days and weeks on other rankings of the 430 school districts in the region they have defined as Upstate New York.


I am not writing this Blog entry to discredit or question the statistics or the interpretation that Business First reports. Regardless of what one feels about their construct, it is consistent across the years of their studies. If nothing else, that offers some opportunity to view the data in a longitudinal perspective.



The Business First website produces a section entitled, Frequently Asked Questions. The following question was extracted from that list (in italics and underlined for emphasis).



QUESTION: Your ratings seem to be biased toward affluent suburban schools. Williamsville and Clarence, for example, always do well in your Western New York report. What does that prove?

ANSWER:It proves that the educational climate in those districts is consistently excellent. No one denies that socioeconomic factors give some suburban districts an advantage. But that advantage can’t be ignored. It’s unfortunate, but it’s the way of the world.

Employers don’t give a break to graduates from districts with bad ratings. Colleges don’t lower their admission standards for students from substandard schools. The state doesn’t reduce its Regents requirements for teens from poor districts. Our rankings, likewise, apply evenly to everyone.

The same link between money and quality exists in college ratings. U.S. News & World Report annually ranks Ivy League universities among the nation’s best. A large number of their students are affluent, yet no one disputes the quality of those institutions.

With that issue in mind, I reviewed the data base that Business First provided in their report on income data and it reaffirmed the widely held and thoroughly researched correlation between family income and learner achievement. Of the top 50 highest performing school districts in upstate New York, 33 of them were also represented in the top 50 highest income districts on last year's report on the highest achieving school districts in their coverage area. I used last year's data since Business First hasn't yet published their findings on performance. I believe it's a very safe assumption that the rankings in school district performance will closely resemble rankings of the previous year. Just as interesting are the results of educational attainment levels of adults (also from last year because they haven't published new data yet) sorted by school district community. Of the top 50 in that category, 39 also appeared on the top 50 list for overall school district achievement levels. That's a pretty strong link between educational attainment and income in a community and the ability of that community to provide substantial resources that promote achievement.

There appears to be an inverse relationship between poverty levels, as measured by the percentage of learners eligible for free and reduced lunch, and achievement levels. In other words, the higher the percentage of learners qualifying for free or reduced lunch, the lower the level of school district performance. This was referenced in the Business First FAQ response noted earlier in this Blog - No one denies that socioeconomic factors give some suburban districts an advantage.

Oh well. As Business First explained in the first paragraph of their FAQ response, "It's unfortunate, but it's the way of the world."

It is unfortunately, for too many underserved and unprivileged children and those committed to educate them, "the way of the world." But public school education doesn't have to be like that. It doesn't have to remain like that simply out of custom or disproportionate political leverage exerted to maintain the gap between the fortunate and the unfortunate - a gap that appears to be growing. However, politicians at the state level are resistant to right the wrong at a time when new money in the form of a budget surplus eludes their grasp. (ALTHOUGHT THERE IS PRESENTLY A FAIRLY SIGNIFICANT SURPLUS AT THE STATE LEVEL AWAITING THE LEGISLATURE WHEN THEY RECONVENE IN THEIR NEXT SESSION) Unless added or new revenue emerges (see above) the existing funding formulas will stay intact. The only alternative, beside complying with the court ordered results of the litigation brought on by the Campaign for Fiscal Equity 
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_for_Fiscal_Equity)
would be to reach in and adjust the funding formula to be equitably distributed and address the needs or school districts lacking resources due to low property and income wealth - the CWR (Combined Wealth Ratio). This would require a "Robin Hood" strategy of redistributing money by reducing state aid to affluent schools and providing the excessed amount to districts identified as high need school systems. Such a plan would be political suicide for those politicians seeking to remain in office. Sadly, I suspect that the percentage of socio-economic groups within the voting population is also skewed, with more advantaged people casting ballots at a far higher rate than those in need. If that's true, it shouldn't victimize the children of the economically disadvantaged, who can't vote.

I am reminded of an exchange witnessed 23 years ago, at a time when the state intervened during an ongoing school year and withheld funding to public schools in response to a budget shortfall at the state level. The superintendent of the district I worked for (a rural district of 1,700 learners) reached for his phone and called our area representative at the state level, a politician of considerable clout, and requested financial assistance in the form of discretionary "member money" (i.e. pork barrel) that the superintendent had received when working as a business manager in his previous job at a large suburban/affluent school system (approximately 10,000 learners). The rejection was swift and blunt - "Sorry, I don't get my votes from there."

"It's unfortunate, but it's the way of the world" and "Sorry, I don't get my votes there." form an epitaph to be inscribed on the gravestones of high need schools throughout New York.

The Management of Education

I have made a conscious effort over the years of this Blog to offer insight into the educational arena and prevent posts from slipping into a series of rants. With that said, I must extend a perception of education that will threaten that vow.

Although there are needs for specific protocol that dictate uniformity (i.e. procedures during safety drills,...) and conformity (i.e. compliance with appropriate regulations) the reach of such practices and expectations has extended itself to the point it begins to permeate the environment of a growing number of school districts. Without getting into the politics and competing perspectives on the Common Core, I would present that collection of learning standards as evidence of contrived compliance through the leverage of federal funds (Race To The Top money) made available as incentives to states (at a time when they are experiencing budget shortfalls in education) that accept the learning standards.

As the federal government has increased their influence over education at the local level (through regulations in special education, Title I, Title IX, the Homeless Children and Youth Act, No Child Left Behind,...) the impact of district influence has decreased in an inverse relationship. The more the federal and state departments of education have seeped into the school buildings, the less impact the locally appointed school leaders can exercise on instruction. Similarly, local decisions are becoming more muted and Boards of Education find themselves complying more with external regulations and creating less in terms of tailoring programs and practices to meet  needs and expectations unique to the local community.

In other words, we are moving closer to the management of education and away from the leadership of education. In sum, as a school leader who has valued innovation and imagination in developing programs and practices, I am glad that I'm nearer to the end of my educational leadership career than the beginning.

Across Four Decades

This September marked the fortieth “opening day” of my career as an educator. (Sadly, I remember when I once considered anyone forty to be old) Much had transpired in public education through those four decades, with far too many changes to count.

However, there are several fairly dramatic changes that have impacted education across those years. Of course, there are the obvious factors, such as federal interventions in the form of special education, title IX, and extending to programs and concomitant regulations like No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top. We attempt to make the list short by using acronyms (NCLB, RTTT, SPED, AIS, ESL,…) that depict programs with long term implications.

Those broad, sweeping federal mandates/initiatives are common to public school districts throughout the country. Lesser known, because they lack the power of headlines and the effect of simultaneously inflicting pressure on all schools at once, are the varied sources of unwelcome concern that have leaked into school buildings over the years like toxins that neither emit sound or detectable odors and challenge the capacity of schools, heretofore oriented primarily on the 3R’s, to respond.

Among these vexing issues that had previously not inserted themselves into public education on such a scale or depth are: more prominent mental health related issues (growing rates of stress and anxiety, suicide, acts of violence); the tumultuous dynamic of families (increased divorce rate, blended families, grandparent led units, homeless…);  technology aided social platforms (cyber bullying, sexting,…); technology assisted intrusions (hacking school financial accounts or data);  In regards to the last two categories, I certainly do not mean to infer that technology has spawned malice and mischief. There is no question that technology has provided a significant and lasting constructive force in teaching and learning, but it has been accompanied by opportunities of exerting negative influence as well by those with devious intent.

Public schools are contending with non-instructional issues at a level unprecedented in my forty years in education. Most public schools serve both breakfast and lunch. All public schools must accommodate the needs of the homeless through compliance with the federal McKinney-Vento legislation. As much as the school offers a vital safety-net for those traumatized and displaced from their home, the accommodations are unexpected financial burdens on already stressed budgets. http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Education/2014/0923/Record-number-of-homeless-children-enrolled-in-US-public-schools-video Social workers and school psychologists are employed in much higher numbers than they were decades ago. Programs providing valuable and needed services to children suffering varied mental health illnesses have multiplied at a much faster pace than instructional programs. The different issues that plague learners is often a strong distraction that can interfere with instructional achievement. It all adds up to a significant challenge that leaves those obstacles I faced years ago as a pale and distant memory.

At The End Of The Rope

There's an old expression often used to describe the point at which you approach and acknowledge inevitable defeat. Many public school educators jousting at windmills and toiling at teaching may subscribe to that adage. Public schools, particularly those considered "high need" (low in resources, high in need) are more than disappointed, at least in New York, at the inequitable distribution of state aid as it's constituted in archaic formulas that extend gaps in both opportunity and achievement. The primitive explanation of state aid distribution in New York resembles a card dealer who dispense cards to players in equal fashion. Personally, I've always viewed it in the form of watering plants. If you have a cactus and a tropical plant, two plants with very different needs for water, and insist on supplying each of them with the same amount of water one will die - due to either over-watering or under-watering.

That "end of the rope" expression reminds me of an experience during my first year in education, as an elementary school teacher on an island off the coast of Maine. It was fair to say that the children suffered in some part from the geographical isolation that led to a form of cultural deprivation as it related to assessment of learning designed by test creators operating in far different environments. For example, one question required the children to identify the beginning letter of an object by choosing from among the four selections. The object was a saucer for a tea cup. Suffice it to say that the kids ignored the "S" and were searching for a "P" for "plate because they had no idea what a saucer was, since few if any people were accustomed to serving tea or coffee in that manner.

However, a few months later I came across one of those short "IQ" tests associated with some group like MENSA that appeared in a magazine and quizzed people to discover whether they were super intelligent. Well, one of the questions went like this: "A boat rests alongside the dock by the ocean with a rope ladder descending off the side of the vessel, and each rung of the rope ladder is exactly one foot apart. There are four rungs exposed above the waterline. The tide goes out five feet. How many rungs are now exposed above the water?"

Many respondents would declare that nine rungs would be exposed because there were originally four showing and then the tide went down five feet, with each rung a foot apart so adding them simply produces a sum of 4+5 = 9.

Wrong. As all of the children on the island readily understood, the correct answer is four because the boat remains on the water level no matter how many feet the tide recedes. While this little quiz turned the tables and demonstrated in part the impact of cultural context in test construction and resulting discrimination, it left me reassured that the impoverished children of the island who couldn't identify a saucer were not as limited as the outcome of that national achievement test would indicate.

Reflecting on that experience caused me to continue with the subject of ropes and boats. High Need schools have much shorter ropes that those schools considered Average or Low Need. Imagine two boats identical in size and shape. One boat has a five foot long rope attaching it to the dock, the other has a fifteen foot boat connecting it to the dock. The tide goes out ten feet. The first boat in our example is hanging by its short rope, dangling from the edge of the dock above the water, half submerged in the ocean. Meanwhile, the other boat with the longer rope floats comfortably above the water with several feet of rope to spare.

High Needs schools have suffered from the benign neglect of those decision makers and policy makers who could intervene and support the equitable distribution of financial resources have avoided the discomforting task of doing "what is right" because they appear to be more driven by "who is right," as in those communities that exercise their affluence and connections to the levers of power to sustain a distribution system that maintains the gap and serves as an advantage for their own children and the property values and quality of life of their community.

High Need schools in New York are struggling precariously at the end of their ropes.....