There is a story line in every story and what keeps the story line interesting is the back stories. Today we are going to tell the story of education and how National Policy influences change. We are also going to tell the back stories of how students will learn best in the future. These back stories will be about inflection points, and past or present paradigms of thinking. The new back story will be about thinking outside of the box for a new generation, a generation of learners who will be asked to perform authentically while thinking abstractly. Let's take one example of an inflection point as it might be related to the future. This back-story concerns the launching of Netscape as Thomas Friedman points out the importance of “inflection points” in history. An inflection point is a curve that changes direction from convex to concave, or vice versa. |
Friedman states in his book entitled the World is Flat that when Netscape was launched “We went from a world where value was created in vertical silos of command and control to one in which value is created horizontally on this platform by who you connect and collaborate with… I would argue that shift from command-and-control to connect-and-collaborate is the mother of all inflection points. … It is the biggest event, I would argue, to change human beings and how they interact, since Guttenberg invented the printing press.” | |
Now how does this back story on inflection points relate to the plot of our story -- Education is at an inflection point – a strategic opportunity to change course or direction. We are now introduced to the next back story of a paradigm, a paradigm of dysfunctional proportions , the idea of accountability as established through No Child Left Behind. A paradigm is a set of rules and regulations that does two things: (1) it establishes boundaries; and (2) it tells you how to behave inside the boundaries in order to be successful. But what if the paradigm is wrong? What if the boundaries that are set for you are out of proportion to how you measure success? In this case the back story of No Child Left Behind.
A little bit too late, or is it a little bit misunderstood? "Our education system was never designed to deliver the kind of results now needed to equip students for today's world- and tomorrow's. The system was originally created for a very different world. To respond appropriately, we need to rethink and redesign." The problem with this statement is that it was published in 2006 which advocates a change to a paradigm of thought, as the book entitled "Change Leadership," is reflecting a transformation away from the old and embracing something new. The question becomes what is the new and how will it be defined? What is prominent in this back story is the failure to recognize a system that forces us to continue to improve the current system, a system designed in reporting progress on two dichotomy lines, success or failure. | |
In April of 2011 the National Center for Fair & Open Testing concluded that practices implemented through NCLB have been unsuccessful. NCLB has not succeeded, with rare exception, in even maintaining the previous rates of improvement. In a recent June 13th, 2011 article of "eSchool News" the Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, was reported as saying, "that 82 percent of U.S. schools could be labeled failures in the year 2012 if No Child Left Behind isn’t changed." This statement only reinforces popular opinion that the majority predict that no one state will meet the law’s goal of having 100 percent of students proficient in math and reading by 2014.
These statements of predicted failure for public education under the NCLB Act is articulated in another way in terms of lack of authenticity in an article November 2008 article “Why Rising Test Scores May Not Equal Increased Student Learning.” In the article the author David Berliner states, "It is not uncommon for 20-60 school days per year to be spent in test-preparation activities. Children trained to answer questions are drilled on items that will appear on their test. But that is not education. It is training. It is less clear that any authentic learning has occurred.” Have we now after ten years of struggling with the reality of the first paradigm, finally came to grips that the educational system is in fact, in need of reauthorization?
These statements of predicted failure for public education under the NCLB Act is articulated in another way in terms of lack of authenticity in an article November 2008 article “Why Rising Test Scores May Not Equal Increased Student Learning.” In the article the author David Berliner states, "It is not uncommon for 20-60 school days per year to be spent in test-preparation activities. Children trained to answer questions are drilled on items that will appear on their test. But that is not education. It is training. It is less clear that any authentic learning has occurred.” Have we now after ten years of struggling with the reality of the first paradigm, finally came to grips that the educational system is in fact, in need of reauthorization?
According to the White House website, "Race to the Top" a need for reauthorization marks a historic moment in American education. "This initiative offers bold incentives to states willing to spur systemic reform to improve teaching and learning in America’s schools. Race to the Top has ushered in significant change in our education system, particularly in raising standards and aligning policies and structures to the goal of college and career readiness. Race to the Top has helped drive states nationwide to pursue higher standards, improve teacher effectiveness, use data effectively in the classroom, and adopt new strategies to help struggling schools. " | |
Now that leads us back to the plot of the story and its most essential question, "What is Race to the Top?" Race to the Top, could mean simply moving away from the first paradigm as we are now in a paradigm shift. A paradigm shift is discovering problems that we cannot solve which triggers a catalyst in new ways of thinking. Thinking the A Race to the Top way. A way to reach success for all as it is defined in college and career readiness. Yet we know that in every paradigm shift begins a new set of problems. It is the special set of problems that everyone in the field wants to be able to solve. But in the shift it becomes very complex in that no one has a clue as how to solve it. The second thought may mean that we are defining "Race to the Top" as a tipping point. A tipping point of change that needs a strategic plan to move in the right direction. States and local districts that view Race to the Top as a threshold that can be reached, may be inclined to reach results in successful planning .
The leading question about the "Race to the Top" initiative becomes a parallel of understandings, "Is this new initiative of National Policy for education reform, a tipping point or is it a paradigm shift? To be a tipping point you have to be able to recognize the point in which change occurs and then plot a new course of direction. To define the Race to the Top as a paradigm shift would mean discovering problems along the way and that no one has a clue how to solve them. These two complex statements of identifying and defining the Race to the Top initiatives is not so much the course local districts are taking but more about how individual states are defining the process.
States and local districts who define the process as a paradigm shift are clinging to the old system while trying to make it better. While states and local districts who are defining the Race to the Top as a tipping point have tossed the old bathwater and are strategically aligning policy to meet the new demands. These states and local districts are viewing Race to the Top as a tipping point to a simple addition or increment that in itself might not seem extraordinary but that unexpectedly is just the amount of additional change that will lead to a big effect. The end of the story on National Policy in Education should leave you with some accumulating thoughts, or questions. "How is your State or district viewing the future in education?"
The leading question about the "Race to the Top" initiative becomes a parallel of understandings, "Is this new initiative of National Policy for education reform, a tipping point or is it a paradigm shift? To be a tipping point you have to be able to recognize the point in which change occurs and then plot a new course of direction. To define the Race to the Top as a paradigm shift would mean discovering problems along the way and that no one has a clue how to solve them. These two complex statements of identifying and defining the Race to the Top initiatives is not so much the course local districts are taking but more about how individual states are defining the process.
States and local districts who define the process as a paradigm shift are clinging to the old system while trying to make it better. While states and local districts who are defining the Race to the Top as a tipping point have tossed the old bathwater and are strategically aligning policy to meet the new demands. These states and local districts are viewing Race to the Top as a tipping point to a simple addition or increment that in itself might not seem extraordinary but that unexpectedly is just the amount of additional change that will lead to a big effect. The end of the story on National Policy in Education should leave you with some accumulating thoughts, or questions. "How is your State or district viewing the future in education?"