To Reinvent Public Education, We Need To Change Our Frame Of Reference

This will be one of my shorter posts.

I had a small epiphany last week.    What do all of these headlines have in common?

 "The Charter School Threat To American Society"

"Online Learning:  Before We Rush Down That Path, Make Sure We Know Where We Are Going"

"Can Technology Replace Teachers?"

I'm sure you haven't gotten the answer.   That they all have in common is that they are looking at innovative ideas and reforms as a "threat" and not as an "opportunity."   This is a lesson in organizational behavior.   The status quo, especially local public school monopolies, will ALWAYS fear change, and they will communicate this fear to their entire community.  That is what the self interest groups such as the NEA are doing, and it is not helping the constructive dialogue around how to reinvent public education in America.

We all need to hit the "reset" button, and start embracing new ideas for the potential they offer our children, and then include policies to regulate such reforms so that their adverse effects are minimized or eliminated.

We truly need to change our frame of reference, because only then will we find the common ground to reinvent our education system.  

The Declaration of Independence As It Relates To Education Reform

I came across this incredible whitepaper from GSV Advisors titled "American Revolution 2.0" and I fell in love with it.  I hope they won't mind me redacting a page from the free whitepaper which is an education-centric Declaration.     Enjoy:

The Declaration of Independence
July 4, 2012

The unanimous Declaration of Students and Education Innovators of the United States of
America

When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one group of people to
change the status quo, and to assume the powers of the earth, and create an innovative
approach for the education of our people, a decent respect for the opinions of society
requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to advocate for this
change.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all students can achieve their potential, that
they are endowed with certain unalienable rights, that among these are access to
information and technology, great teachers, cost-efficient learning, and the lifelong pursuit
of knowledge.

That to secure these rights, Education Systems are created among students, deriving their
just powers to educate from the consent of the learner – that whenever any Form of
Institution becomes unproductive to these ends, it is the right of the students and
innovators to alter it, and to institute new learning methods, laying its foundation on such
principles and organizing its capabilities in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to
positively effect their knowledge and skills.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Education Systems long established should not be
changed for light and transient causes, and accordingly all experience has shown, that
students are more disposed to suffer, while incompetences are sufferable, than to right
themselves by abolishing the Systems to which they are accustomed.

But when a long train of ineffectiveness and neglect exists, pursuing invariably the same
objective of reducing America’s competitiveness in the future, it is their right, it is their duty,
to throw off such Systems and to provide new solutions for their future prosperity.

Such has been the patient sufferance of these innovators; and such is now the necessity
which compels them to alter their former Education System. The history of the present
System is a history of repeated failures, all having direct effect on dimming the long-term
prosperity of this nation…

…in every stage of these failures, we have petitioned for reform in the most humble terms:
our repeated petitions have been answered only be repeated neglect. A System whose
characteristics are thus marked by every example which may be defined a failure, is unfit to
be the platform of the knowledge citizens of the future.

We, therefore, the Representatives of Education Innovators of the United States of
America, solemnly publish and declare, that our students ought to have the chance to
succeed, that they have access to the best learning technologies, and that as free and
independent learners, have the full power to choose their path to success in life.

And for the support of this Declaration, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our
Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Public Education Must Embrace Online Learning To Remain Relevant

The major media outlets are writing a great deal of misleading articles about online learning.   The foolhardy would be unwise to follow the advice of NY Times writer Mark Edmunson.   His article, "The Trouble With Online Education"is flawed on so many levels I can't even compel myself to rebut it.  I'll let my friend and colleague Michael Horn do that, which he did here.  I have also seen some highly toxic, overly hostile-toned op-eds from teachers union-funded efforts that portray themselves as "public policy institutes."   Countless times, they misinterpret the words of people like Bill Gates, claiming he would replace all teachers with avatars and first person shooters.  They have also tried to bastardize the intentions of Sal Khan, inventor of the Khan Academy.  Khan has never tried to make himself a martyr or some symbol of a flipped classroom.   All he did was show what the power of digital technology can do to help students learn, if we let it.   All of this behavior is not surprising, because institutions fear change, and they will do whatever it takes to protect the status quo.

To make a small analogy, we're seeing the folly of trying to televise the London Olympics as if we're still in an analog world.   NBC has been besieged with criticism for holding back key programming to air on a tape delayed basis in prime time.  The problem is, the blogosphere has already announced the winners to the entire world, so who wants to watch Ryan Lochte win the gold medal when the outcome is already known?   For some amusing commentary on this, feel free to read this article about it.  What I am trying to illustrate is that you can't keep following the same model when the world has changed.  Public education is no exception.

So instead of reading the reformers and other pundits who champion digital learning, the best course of action may be to simply observe how some teachers and students are embracing online education.   Edutopia released a story titled "The Brave New Breakthrough of Online Education," which enhances, not detracts, from the learning experience.   A study by the National Survey of Student Engagement, reported that the online-learning experience yielded deeper use of "higher-order thinking, integrative learning, and reflective learning." 

I encourage you to read the article because it stresses one important thing.   If naysayers took the time to actually observe students using digital learning tools, you would see that they are smiling, and they are motivated.   If you are motivated, then you are engaged, and if you are engaged, then you will learn.  I don't want our education system to become irrelevant, nor do I want my children to become irrelevant.  Do you?

Let Public Charter Schools Help Reinvent U.S. Public Education

Why are public charters looked at as though they are the evil empire?  And why do people believe that because you support public charters, you are anti-public schools?

The state of Georgia in one state in the center of this heated debate.  The rhetoric continues to escalate leading up to a November referendum asking voters to amend the state constitution to permit the state to approve certain public charter schools.    I wanted to break down the issues and explain, using strategy and research-based evidence,  why this amendment is good for Georgia and other states as well.

I look at public education through the lens of innovation theory.   Several prominent think tanks, including the Fordham Institute, have done extensive research showing how and why we need to significantly re-engineer how our schools operate; how funds are allocated; what and how we deliver knowledge to students;  and how we train, hire, compensate, and evaluate teachers.   Until the system is fundamentally reinvented so that it can take advantage of new types of learning environments, we must allow other types of school designs to operate successfully.  Our public education system operates as a series of local "monopolies" with heavy bureaucracies.   It has been proven time and time again that monopolies do not innovate and will use their perceived power to stifle innovation at every turn.  Every new idea is a threat to them, and their heavily bureaucratic infrastructure and legacy culture will inherently resist change.  

While some public charter schools have been able to co-exist within a local school system, these are the exception, not the rule.  Some school systems have somehow created a culture of innovation and will encourage creative thinking.  Working together with charter schools, they will compromise where possible, and then everybody wins.  These charters receive state and local funding, and their existence does not adversely impact local public schools because the money follows the child, meaning the public school has fewer students to cover the costs for.

Unfortunately, in most cases, local school boards will perceive a new public charter school as a threat, and will use their monopoly power to force these charters into financial distress, and eventually, closure.  This is what is happening with many Georgia charter schools, for example.  There are several ways that local school boards are doing this. 

1. They will try and push the low achievers to the charter schools and also make recruiting difficult.  This took place from time to time with the recently closed Tech High.
2. A recent article illustrated how the Atlanta Public schools have allocated unfunded school system pension liabilities to its charter schools, even though they are 100% unrelated to these schools.  This controversial decision forced Tech HIgh to close because it triggered a $360K shortfall AFTER budgets had been set and contracts sent out to teachers.  Other charters such as KIPP will see a more than $1 million negative impact on their budgets.   The option of litigation is being explored by the charter schools due to this very controversial decision by APS.  Because local schools have failed to innovate for decades, they will try and transfer any budget pain onto charter schools.  Remember, because the system has not been fundamentally altered in more than a hundred years, taxpayer dollars have been spent to protect the status quo, and not improve teacher training, nor the manner in which knowledge is delivered to the child.
3. For new charters, local school boards will delay voting on an application, and in many cases, not vote at all.  This is even happening in other states such as New Jersey.  As my friend, Michael Horn, Executive Director of the Innosight Institute, said in response to the legislative delays in that state, "Blocking or delaying the option of full-time online schooling because of a fear of lack of research isn’t the right tact to take. States should encourage innovation in order to meet students’ individual needs and set up the regulatory environment that rewards providers for doing that well."

These reactions by local school boards are not surprising, because established organizations fear change at every turn.     Now lets get back to the situation in Georgia.

The Georgia Supreme court ruled llast year, contrary to what is explicitly written in its constitution, that local school boards have "exclusive authority" to apporve public charter schools.  The amendment, which has been misrepresented and distorted by those who support the status quo, is plainly clear.  

• Local school boards are still encouraged to approve charter applications
• In the event that a local school board rejects a charter application, the state may elect to approve the application in accordance with this new amendment.  In this case, the charter school will ONLY receive state funding, and local schools will not have their funding impacted because of the new charter school.

Nowhere in the amendment does it say anything about "taxation without representation" or "local schools will see their funds reduced," or "this will lead to private school vouchers."  What this is trying to do is fix Georgia's constitution, which by the way, also celebrates mediocrity.  I feel compelled to add that what is not being changed in the constitution is this wording:  "Georgia's citizens have the right to an adequate education."  I am not kidding.  It says "adequate."  Not "quality," but "adequate."

Competition drives innovation, and it is best for these new schools to operate independently of the local school boards so they can truly innovate.  Nonetheless, these charter schools  cannot select students based on athletic talent, achievement or any other qualifier.  Further,  Charters have to meet specific academic targets and management principles that are laid out in the charter agreement. Failure to do so means revocation of the charter. 

People are afraid of change, and while not every charter school will be successful, many of them have demonstrated achievement levels far higher than traditional local public schools.  Charter schools should not be seen as the sole "magic tonic" that will fix our education system in one swoop.  They do, however,  provide new options for families who cannot afford to send their children to private schools and who may require a different type of learning environment.  Charter schools are experimenting with some promising new learning designs, including   blended learning.  Look at Carpe Diem Schools in Arizona, or the International Studies School Network.  Many of these charter schools have shown superior levels of achievement and are operating at a cost per pupil of less than $6K!   As a means of comparison, APS spends $15K per pupil.  Even normalizing for special education, the costs are still more than $10K per pupil!  A more local example is Drew Charter School, which went through a great deal of political stress to get conditional approval by APS of its high school charter application, despite the fact that the graduation rate for its students is more than 20 percentage points higher than APS!

I am not going to bore you in this already lengthy post with extensive research data on charters and achievement.  What I will leave you with is a quote from a recent report authored by the Fordham Institute:  Education Reform for the Digital Era, which discusses digital learning in particular, but  also highlights  of the major barriers with continuing to let local school boards have monopoly power:

Leaving local districts and their boards in charge of digital instruction will retard innovation, entrepreneurship, collaboration, and smart competition, simultaneously stifling students’ ability to find—and be taught by—the very best educators in the state, region, nation, or even world. It will raise costs, undermine efficiency, block rich instructional options, restrict school choice and parental
influence, and strengthen the hand of other interest groups—including but not limited to already-too-powerful teacher unions

It is important to truly understand the differences between "improvement and "innovation."  A colleague of mine, Tom Vander Ark, wrote a post today that eloquently states the difference between the two:

Improvement is doing things better. Innovation is doing things differently.

Lets give charter schools every opportunity to innovate.  They were not designed to just "do things better."   If Georgia's citizens support the referendum in November, then Georgia's children will win, and Georgia can be looked upon as  leader, not a laggard, in the efforts to reform U.S. public education.

Why "El Sistema" Needs A Strong National Voice

Music is very important to K-12 education.  So are any of the performing arts as well as athletics.  Students need development in not only the mind, but the body and spirit as well.   Time and time again, I am seeing public schools, particularly in the state of Georgia (where I reside), making the mortifying of decision of cutting music and athletics programs whenever they have let reduced budgets force their hand.   As I have said repeatedly on this blog over the past 4 years, it is because of the fact that public education has failed to innovate in a digitally-connected world, that they have let their operational inefficiency get the best of them.  As a result,  public schools continue to adhere to the "addition by subtraction" philosophy, which regrettably, does not put our children first.  

As many of you know, I have been a major supporter of the Venezuelan-born, globally recognized "El Sistema" music program ever since I watched its founder, Jose Antonio Abreu, win the TED Prize in 2009.   It's all about using music as an instrument for social change.  In the words of its founder, the most miserable thing about poverty is not the lack of bread or water, but the lack of hope."  I co-founded the Atlanta Music Project because I believe that Atlanta's at-risk youth could be saved by giving them access to the finest music education program in the world.   Two years later, the program has already provided hope to nearly 100 children, most whose household income is less than $20,000 a year!  There are more than 50 El-Sistema inspired programs in the United States, and the number continues to grow!

However, there are still many skeptics out there, and recently, one such skeptic wrote an article in Classical Music Magazine titled "Sceptic's Sistema."  Unfortunately, I am not able to provide a link to the full article, and I do not know the circulation base of the author, nor the publication.   Many supporters of El Sistema have vowed to not give any legitimacy to the author's perspective, and I certainly agree.  I would not comment on the author's blog about this, nor will I provide any links to the author's blog.  You are more than happy to find the blog if you care to see some of the discussion about his controversial point of view.  Let me provide you with a few statements and why the author has an inherent bias that is not factually accurate:

1. The author does not believe that playing an instrument makes you a better, more well rounded person:   this is factually inaccurate, especially if the author took the time to observe the children in these "nucleos."  There is a growing body of research about the importance of social and emotional learning on academic learning.  Through music, these children are learning creativity, teamwork, self-confidence, and many other 21st century skills.  In addition, there is growing evidence of the strong linkage between music and mathematics.  I have written previous blog posts about social and emotional learning.
2. The author believes that many musicians lead a "depressed" life, and finding jobs in this area is difficult:  the author needs to understand what the purpose of El Sistema truly is.  Not every student in the program will become another Gustavo Dudamel.  But these students will ALL graduate from high school and lead productive lives in whatever they decide to pursue.  Music is an art form.  it is also a vehicle to help these students increase their sefl-esteem and motivation to learn, whether  music or in the classroom.
3. The author lnks the program to the authoritarian Chavez regime in a very negative way. Yes, it is true that the musicians perform in patriotic Venezuela state colors, but that is where the linkage ends.  This program has been around for more than 30 years, long before the Chavez regime.  In fact, the program has "survived" the regime.  Nowhere will you ever see any political talk from Maestro Abreu, Mr. Dudamel, or any other representative from the program.  This program is the one bright hope in one of the most oppressed countries in the western hemisphere.

It is unfortunate that music publications, or any publications for that matter, would allow writers to write articles that include a great many factual inaccuracies.  Certainly, dissenting opinions are welcome in a democracy; however, I would caution people to write about programs without having any meaningful first-hand knowledge or observations with such programs.

All of this leads me to the title of this blog post.  The El Sistema movement, particularly in the United States, is fledgling.  Most programs are less than 3 years old, and there is still no strong national voice, similar to how organizations such as Teach for America interact with their large affiliate base.  Plans are being discussed to organize a central organization, but these activities take time to achieve scale.   It would be the responsibility of the national organization to create a messaging strategy so that all affiliates are speaking off a similar script, adjusted for the local communities in which they operate.   Instead of dozens, or even hundreds of people responding to such baseless claims as this author has levied, the central organization can help deflect and discount such dissenting viewpoints, while also lobbying for financial and other support at the national level.

I have seen firsthand how this wonderful program is saving children, its families and its surrounding communities.   It's time for a strong national voice to drown out the misinformed writers such as the one who penned the article in question.

Moral of the story?   Before you choose to attack a program with a global following, you better have your facts right!