It's your ConCon. What do you want to do with it? Learn - Discuss - Decide
Successful School Restructuring (I’m about to rain on some parades, so apologies in advance…)
A five-year study by University of Wisconsin-Madison researchers found that structural school reform works only under certain conditions:
1. Students must be engaged in activities that build on prior knowledge and allow them to apply that knowledge to new situations.
2. Students must use disciplined inquiry.
3. School activities must have value beyond school.
In their report, "Successful School Restructuring," the researchers at Wisconsin's Center on Organization and Restructuring of Schools found that even innovative school improvements, such as portfolio assessment and shared decision making, are less effective without accompanying meaningful student assignments based on deep inquiry. Researchers analyzed data from more than 1,500 elementary, middle, and high schools and conducted field studies in forty-four schools in sixteen states between 1990 and 1995. (Source: Edutopia—George Lucas Educational Foundation, 2001)
In other words:
1) Reform must be student centered, and involve applied knowledge (projects).
2) Reform must be student centered, and use guided inquiry (open-ended, long-term projects).
3) Reform must be student centered in the context of their families, communities and personal interests (place-based, real-world projects).
Nowhere is it indicated that kids’ problems can be solved by reorganizing adults’ problems. A business that ignores its clients’ needs doesn’t survive unless it is a monopoly.
I really believe deeply and strongly that if you want to change education, you can’t just set up multiple districts and hope for autonomy to be a panacea—more importantly you also have to sanction and guide curricular change within the whole stakeholder community.
Machiavelli tells us why (and you tell me if he wasn’t a time traveler describing our DOE 500 years ago):
"There is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things. For the reformer has enemies in all those who profit by the old order, and only lukewarm defenders in all those who would profit by the new order, this luke warmness arising partly from fear of their adversaries … and partly from the incredulity of mankind, who do not truly believe in anything new until they have had actual experience of it."
This very “incredulity of mankind” is why you cannot just wipe away the BOE, and then cut loose 15 or 42 or however many new districts without first considering curricular models that demonstrate how they might make good use of their autonomy right away.
With luck and visionary leadership, such models toward change may eventually arise spontaneously if districts first set up innovative curricular experiments. Then again, a newly constituted, autonomous district tasked with reinventing the proverbial (curricular) wheel WHILE ALSO managing autonomous governance structures may likely hobble along for a while on its remaining familiar structures before entropy finally sets in.
In the context of Hawaii’s education milieu, one should really take a serious look at charter schools. Although none are perfect, many are highly effective in both pedagogy and governance methods. Many are quite instructive as R&D initiatives that can be replicated in each and every district. Several charter schools are just flat out better than a majority of their DOE peers by any practical measure you care to apply.
Before I go further, I have to say this: Hawaii charter schools are NOT for-profit operations, NOR a bridge to vouchers, NOR a means for religious schools to get public money. Nor are they a threat to the DOE. Those who benefit from preserving the status quo spout obtuse and disingenuous shibai like this about charters all the time. I wish they would simply stop.
Hawaii charters are in fact quite unlike their mainland counterparts. Here in the middle of the sea, they are the very embodiment of democratic grass roots reform, and are among the most successful innovation initiatives occurring in our state government today. Period.
Charters complement DOE programs, providing innovative service to underserved segments of the taxpaying public. They account for 2.4% of public education dollars, yet educate 4.6% of public school children.
Consider: My main concern is that the DOE system itself cannot simply be overturned and reinvented. The energy required to make wholesale changes to a large system is normally what dooms initiatives to failure. The sentiment of simply breaking it apart into a scattering of smaller school districts is just not going to work. I’m sorry if you disagree, but me and Machiavelli are on the same page here.
We do all agree that in order to bring meaningful change to education, community stakeholders need to have meaningful say, so let’s start there. The Constitution already appears to support the notion of grass root initiatives like place-based, community-run schools and/or community focused academies via Article X, Section 4 (“The State shall promote the study of Hawaiian culture, history and language.”). It is clearly implicit to me that this means within every complex there is room for Hawaiian-focused programs in the DOE. In that absence, and where demand dictated, charter schools have arisen.
With that said, I think the DOE should be changed via external forces—market forces, if you will. Change must come from the outside incrementally by setting up autonomous programs with the potential to prove they are effective, and then be used as models to modify the larger system. This is exactly what the Hawaii charter school movement is doing right now. In concept they are kindred spirits with the Castle High School Theatre, established via Ron Bright’s genius and honest sweat. In practice they are akin to Waverider Productions, which took much political will and community support to establish. These and charters are exactly the type of inroads toward Machiavelli’s “incredulity of mankind” that must be encouraged by the tools of government.
A constitutional change that supports such initiatives, both from the DOE side and the community based charter school side, is the most effective avenue toward permanent change.
I think of public transportation as a fair allegory of the DOE/BOE bureaucracy—perhaps very much like an old style locomotive chugging along. The BOE holds as much control as the guy who yells, “All aboard!”, and takes tickets from passengers. No one really thinks he’s in charge of the whole operation, except maybe him. But he CAN hold up the whole rig capriciously if he so chooses.
A Con Con certainly can make meaningful changes without attempting a wholesale gut-and-retrofit.
1. The way the BOE is assembled, and their self-serving nature are big problems that can be fixed by creating an appointed body that puts accountability squarely at the feet of the Governor
2. Its status as exclusive overseer of all public education can also be set aside to make room for unmolested competition from charter schools or other autonomous education initiatives. Big Business allows their R&D to operate unfettered by the engineers and bean-counters over at the main plant—this seems a sound approach for education as well. Let charters, magnet schools, et cetera create reform models for the rest of the system.
The BOE is ineffectual at initiating change. The Governor is insulated from initiating broad education policy. The legislature is often misguided by special interests. The Bureaucracy is resistant. And the Superintendent, beholden to the BOE, is not particularly tasked with revolution and transformation, even amid crisis.
A simple increase in accountability at the top is the way to go. Preserve the state BOE as a body, but place it squarely under the Executive Branch. If schools are junk, the Governor and appointees are directly answerable.
There is indeed room for the idea of locally elected boards of education within the districts, in fact, I totally agree with that as a part of what needs to happen. It preserves voters’ choice, and would serve to greatly enhance local control, while still retaining statewide oversight.
1. Students must be engaged in activities that build on prior knowledge and allow them to apply that knowledge to new situations.
2. Students must use disciplined inquiry.
3. School activities must have value beyond school.
In their report, "Successful School Restructuring," the researchers at Wisconsin's Center on Organization and Restructuring of Schools found that even innovative school improvements, such as portfolio assessment and shared decision making, are less effective without accompanying meaningful student assignments based on deep inquiry. Researchers analyzed data from more than 1,500 elementary, middle, and high schools and conducted field studies in forty-four schools in sixteen states between 1990 and 1995. (Source: Edutopia—George Lucas Educational Foundation, 2001)
In other words:
1) Reform must be student centered, and involve applied knowledge (projects).
2) Reform must be student centered, and use guided inquiry (open-ended, long-term projects).
3) Reform must be student centered in the context of their families, communities and personal interests (place-based, real-world projects).
Nowhere is it indicated that kids’ problems can be solved by reorganizing adults’ problems. A business that ignores its clients’ needs doesn’t survive unless it is a monopoly.
I really believe deeply and strongly that if you want to change education, you can’t just set up multiple districts and hope for autonomy to be a panacea—more importantly you also have to sanction and guide curricular change within the whole stakeholder community.
Machiavelli tells us why (and you tell me if he wasn’t a time traveler describing our DOE 500 years ago):
"There is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things. For the reformer has enemies in all those who profit by the old order, and only lukewarm defenders in all those who would profit by the new order, this luke warmness arising partly from fear of their adversaries … and partly from the incredulity of mankind, who do not truly believe in anything new until they have had actual experience of it."
This very “incredulity of mankind” is why you cannot just wipe away the BOE, and then cut loose 15 or 42 or however many new districts without first considering curricular models that demonstrate how they might make good use of their autonomy right away.
With luck and visionary leadership, such models toward change may eventually arise spontaneously if districts first set up innovative curricular experiments. Then again, a newly constituted, autonomous district tasked with reinventing the proverbial (curricular) wheel WHILE ALSO managing autonomous governance structures may likely hobble along for a while on its remaining familiar structures before entropy finally sets in.
In the context of Hawaii’s education milieu, one should really take a serious look at charter schools. Although none are perfect, many are highly effective in both pedagogy and governance methods. Many are quite instructive as R&D initiatives that can be replicated in each and every district. Several charter schools are just flat out better than a majority of their DOE peers by any practical measure you care to apply.
Before I go further, I have to say this: Hawaii charter schools are NOT for-profit operations, NOR a bridge to vouchers, NOR a means for religious schools to get public money. Nor are they a threat to the DOE. Those who benefit from preserving the status quo spout obtuse and disingenuous shibai like this about charters all the time. I wish they would simply stop.
Hawaii charters are in fact quite unlike their mainland counterparts. Here in the middle of the sea, they are the very embodiment of democratic grass roots reform, and are among the most successful innovation initiatives occurring in our state government today. Period.
Charters complement DOE programs, providing innovative service to underserved segments of the taxpaying public. They account for 2.4% of public education dollars, yet educate 4.6% of public school children.
Consider: My main concern is that the DOE system itself cannot simply be overturned and reinvented. The energy required to make wholesale changes to a large system is normally what dooms initiatives to failure. The sentiment of simply breaking it apart into a scattering of smaller school districts is just not going to work. I’m sorry if you disagree, but me and Machiavelli are on the same page here.
We do all agree that in order to bring meaningful change to education, community stakeholders need to have meaningful say, so let’s start there. The Constitution already appears to support the notion of grass root initiatives like place-based, community-run schools and/or community focused academies via Article X, Section 4 (“The State shall promote the study of Hawaiian culture, history and language.”). It is clearly implicit to me that this means within every complex there is room for Hawaiian-focused programs in the DOE. In that absence, and where demand dictated, charter schools have arisen.
With that said, I think the DOE should be changed via external forces—market forces, if you will. Change must come from the outside incrementally by setting up autonomous programs with the potential to prove they are effective, and then be used as models to modify the larger system. This is exactly what the Hawaii charter school movement is doing right now. In concept they are kindred spirits with the Castle High School Theatre, established via Ron Bright’s genius and honest sweat. In practice they are akin to Waverider Productions, which took much political will and community support to establish. These and charters are exactly the type of inroads toward Machiavelli’s “incredulity of mankind” that must be encouraged by the tools of government.
A constitutional change that supports such initiatives, both from the DOE side and the community based charter school side, is the most effective avenue toward permanent change.
I think of public transportation as a fair allegory of the DOE/BOE bureaucracy—perhaps very much like an old style locomotive chugging along. The BOE holds as much control as the guy who yells, “All aboard!”, and takes tickets from passengers. No one really thinks he’s in charge of the whole operation, except maybe him. But he CAN hold up the whole rig capriciously if he so chooses.
A Con Con certainly can make meaningful changes without attempting a wholesale gut-and-retrofit.
1. The way the BOE is assembled, and their self-serving nature are big problems that can be fixed by creating an appointed body that puts accountability squarely at the feet of the Governor
2. Its status as exclusive overseer of all public education can also be set aside to make room for unmolested competition from charter schools or other autonomous education initiatives. Big Business allows their R&D to operate unfettered by the engineers and bean-counters over at the main plant—this seems a sound approach for education as well. Let charters, magnet schools, et cetera create reform models for the rest of the system.
The BOE is ineffectual at initiating change. The Governor is insulated from initiating broad education policy. The legislature is often misguided by special interests. The Bureaucracy is resistant. And the Superintendent, beholden to the BOE, is not particularly tasked with revolution and transformation, even amid crisis.
A simple increase in accountability at the top is the way to go. Preserve the state BOE as a body, but place it squarely under the Executive Branch. If schools are junk, the Governor and appointees are directly answerable.
There is indeed room for the idea of locally elected boards of education within the districts, in fact, I totally agree with that as a part of what needs to happen. It preserves voters’ choice, and would serve to greatly enhance local control, while still retaining statewide oversight.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by jk on -
Different people see things in different ways. Here’s how I see the bridge metaphor.
Monkeys are on the bridge. There are hundreds of them. Maybe a thousand. They have been on the bridge for quite some time now, and they have developed their own culture, social order, and organization.
The monkeys don’t like to have their space invaded by people, for whom the bridge was originally built. So the monkeys make loud abrasive noises with their mouths when people try to cross the bridge. The monkeys throw things at people. They even attack people.
The people who live in the village on one side of the river have stopped trying to cross the bridge. The children are unable to fulfill their chore of picking the ripe fruit on the other side of the river. At night the monkeys steal food from the villagers. The children go hungry.
The villagers decide to act. They have a meeting. This is what they decide to do. Since their religion teaches nonviolence toward animals, they decide to destroy the organization of the monkeys and create a new one, without destroying the monkeys themselves. The villagers decide to put the monkeys through a retraining program. (It’s only a metaphor.)
Some monkeys refuse to be retrained. These monkeys are relocated. But those that accept retraining are taught to perform tasks that need to be done by the village. For example, some are taught to climb tall palm trees to get the nuts.
Monkeys and villagers now live in peace. It’s all because the villagers had a plan to take control of the situation. The villagers would no longer have the monkeys control them. People can cross the bridge now, and children can reach the ripe fruit.
I will stop now because someone may accuse me of just monkeying around.
-
Permalink Reply by Curtis Muraoka on -
HAH! Laughing Out Loud so much I eschew the conventions of internet contraction.
Okay, I'll follow your lead.
A couple of villagers have enlisted a few of the more progressive thinking monkeys, figuring they can build their own bridge--and do it without the expert help of the last bridge builders. The other monkeys and villagers can HAVE the old one.
They find a spot, and it starts to take shape. Every so often, the Holy Village Shaman of Bridge-Building comes by to put a curse on these infidels and their rebellious simian cohorts. He even came one night to steal rope and planks for his re-education efforts. He shows his ill gotten supplies to the rest of the village and states imperiously, "See how they squander our scarce supplies?" and calls them "infidels" again. He warns everyone not to follow the ways of the impious transgressors. They keep trying to re-train the monkeys, but the monkeys are not flexible thinkers, and complain that they want to go back to how it was, harassing villagers and flinging poo.
One bright morning, the new bridge was enjoined, and the builders walked out onto the middle. Along with the creative monkeys, they jump up and down, and up and down, to test the strength. Sure, it looks a little rickety, but it sure is strong!
A clutch of little kids starts pointing toward the new bridge and smiling. One of them says, "Hey, lets go use that bridge! The monkeys on this side work too slow, and their poo flinging is getting really old."
Meanwhile, on the opposite side of the river has appeared the village neighbors from the other side. They wave everyone over, and decide that they will use the new bridge to support the building of a better, more stable bridge. Everyone pitches in because they now see how it can be done without the help of the Shaman.
The Shaman continues to try re-educating his poo-flinging followers, but eventually runs out of incentive bananas, because all the farmers (and pretty much everyone else) have moved to the other village, leaving the banana plants to die from neglect. All they find weeks later are the Shaman's empty robes, scattered atop a pile of composting banana peels...
Meanwhile, the villagers have become so good at building bridges, that there are over 10 new bridges serving the area, not just one. They also go back to the original bridge, and turn it into the biggest and strongest of all.
The Moral: Envision, practice, demonstrate, duplicate.
-
Permalink Reply by Curtis Muraoka on
-
Absolutely. If something is not broken it should not be fixed.
Everyone who is satisfied with the state of public education in Hawaii will certainly speak against trying to fix what is not broken.
Everyone not satisfied with the state of public education in Hawaii will have something to suggest.
The majority will most likely prevail.
That's America.
-
Permalink Reply by Dan L. on -
Sorry to take so long to reply. The powers of a state Board of Education must be sharply limited, far less than they are now. But that does not negate the need for a statewide governing authority for the schools. You pointed out some tasks they should perform, and there are others as well. I like the idea of an elected group of citizens overseeing the process, but there are other ways to handle it also. Perhaps an appointed Board would work, though it seems to me that we run the risk of allowing patronage to override education under such a system.
About
Badge
Photos
© 2009 Created by Peter Kay on Ning. Create a Ning Network!
