Moving at the Speed of Creativity

What is the supported pedagogy and politics of the “Stand Up” organization? The full-text from the “About Stand Up” website philosophy page is:

EVERY STUDENT IN AMERICA CAN AND SHOULD GRADUATE FROM HIGH SCHOOL READY FOR COLLEGE, WORK AND CITIZENSHIP.

STAND UP is more than a campaign.

We are a community-people of all ages, races, and political persuasions joined by the desire to fix our broken schools. We want to make sure all young people finish high school and succeed in college and in the workforce.

STAND UP is a commitment to change.

We believe that dedication is contagious and that great change starts with small steps. We want people to talk to their friends, write a letter to their governor, and become involved in school organizations. All of these simple actions will bring the education crisis to the national spotlight. Seeing the urgency of this issue, the community will commit to the improvement of our high schools.

STAND UP is the end of indifference.

We are people of action. We are disappointed in our high schools, yet optimistic about their future. We know we can make them better, and we will.

OK, fine. So far this sounds a lot like NCLB. Of course people want a better education for their children. Of course we want people to succeed in the workforce. But what specific types of educational reforms are going to lead to those changes? That topic is something I write, think, and speak about quite a bit– but I am not sure where the organization “Stand Up” is on these questions.

I certainly want people to stand up for better schools and improving educational expectations as well as outcomes. But I support local control of school curricula and assessment, as well as increased autonomy for teachers in the classroom. I support changes to traditional bell schedules so students and teachers can regularly engage in collaborative, project-based and problem-based learning activities. I support learning in depth, rather than shallow content-dipping that characterizes learning-in-breadth. I support high expectations of student learning, and want kids engaged in complex, challenging inquiries into issues that matter so they acquire skills that not only will help them get a job down the road, but will also help them make a positive difference in the world: today and tomorrow.

Is the “Stand Up” organization aligned with my own pedagogical perspectives? I have no idea. I just understand they are a group of mad people who want more national attention on education, so things can change. We need a lot more definition than that to sign up for a campaign like this, I think.

The Stand Up Community Action Toolkit (PDF) suggests the following:

• Know the facts by visiting websites like SchoolMatters.com.
• Demand High Quality Schools. [MY THOUGHT AND COMMENT: DUH! OF COURSE EVERYONE WANTS HIGH QUALITY SCHOOLS AND EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES. BUT THE $10 MILLION QUESTION IS, HOW DO YOU DEFINE QUALITY? MAKING THIS STATEMENT IS ANALOGOUS TO HAVING A CAMPAIGN SLOGAN, "DON'T LEAVE ANY CHILDREN BEHIND." WELL, NO KIDDING. OF COURSE WE DON'T WANT TO DO THAT. BUT PLEASE DEFINE YOUR TERMS. DO YOU THINK HIGH QUALITY SCHOOLS CAN BE MEASURED BY NCLB TESTING STANDARDS? THEY CAN'T. THERE IS SO MUCH MORE TO A "QUALITY SCHOOL" THAN JUST HIGH TEST SCORES. TEST SCORES ARE PART OF THE PICTURE, BUT JUST A SMALL PART.]
• Connect with organizations already working to improve high schools: Organizations they suggest are America’s Promise, Communities in Schools, The National High School Alliance (see their partner list for links to supporters), and Junior Achievement.

The website Schoolmatters.com purports to “educate Americans about how schools and school districts are performing and help them understand the complex relationships between achievement and investment.” The problem is: This site just provides demographic and traditionally measured student performance data (in the spirit of NCLB) to help achieve this goal. There is so much more to “high quality schools” than things which can be represented through data, statistics, graphs and charts. The website has a noble goal of helping people understand COMPLEX RELATIONSHIPS. Unfortunately, like much of the debate surrounding educational policy, it appears to fail in that goal because it chooses a simplistic, statistical approach.

If “Stand Up” was partnered with the Coalition of Essential Schools, I would take that as a very good sign. The CES Common Principles are right in line with my own thinking about effective pedagogy and high quality schools. These ideas are specific, concrete, and well-defined. That is not the case with all the educational advocacy organizations cited and linked by “Stand Up,” however. As an example, the “five promises” of the Alliance for Youth sound pretty good, but number 4 is “effective education.” This is further elaborated as:

• A foundation in basic skills, such as reading, writing, mathematics, science, technology and communication.
• Thinking skills, such as creativity, decision-making, problem-solving and reasoning.
• Personal attitudes and qualities, such as integrity, responsibility and self-motivation.

These all sound good. But my question is, does the Alliance for Youth as well as the Stand Up organization think these goals can be achieved by a fear-driven, stick (rather than carrot or otherwise) approach to education like that embodied in “The Texas Miracle” and NCLB? If not (because in my opinion, they CANNOT) then what pedagogical and school reform changes does the group support?

We need to recognize there is little overlap in a venn diagram describing skills encouraged in high-stakes testing environments, and those desired by many organizations interested in educational reform, digital literacy, and workforce development. For more on that topic, check out the podcast of my TCEA 2006 presentation, “Cultivating Digital Literacy Through Blogging and Podcasting.” To go directly to that section, link to the enhanced podcast and select the 19th chapter marker. (Free QuickTime player software required.)

On this day..

• Podcast246: A Tech Talk for Retirees by Eric Hileman and Wesley Fryer - 2008
• Be wary of saying it with email - 2008
• Digital interaction opportunities for grandparents and grandchildren - 2008
• Podcast245: Technology Shopping Cart Podcast05 - Digital Citizenship and an Interview with Kristine of PBWiki - 2008
• Welcome Scott McLeod! - 2007
• More on network security from Mike Pennell (part 2) - 2007
• Protecting school networks against attacks (Mike Pennell with NewNet66) - 2007
• Student Entrepreneurship - 2006
• The Dark Side of the Farm - 2006

This entry was posted on Monday, April 17th, 2006 at 10:51 am and is filed under economics, literacy, politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.