Gap Thinking

One way to help improve teaching and learning is to focus on Gap Thinking.  When students are not providing work at the expectation level of the course, it is considered a deficiency.  Different from the deficiency itself, Gap Thinking is the flawed thinking that leads to the wrong answer.  With just about anything people learn, improvement comes from correcting faulty logic, assumptions, and habits, not from merely pointing out what is deficient.

We can help our students with more precise feedback and instruction when we uncover what they actually think about a topic, and work with them to correct problems or access the appropriate practice needed to reach mastery.  You can gather information about Gap Thinking while you are assessing a students by getting them to reflect during the assessment.  It can be as simple as questions that require description of their process, pointed questions about a specific step, or even ratings of how certain they felt about their answer.

For example, if a student is repeatedly getting a math problem wrong, among the causes could be not knowing how to multiply negatives (previous content), that the student doesn’t understand the steps or process (current content), or may be unable to deal word problems (application).  Regardless, structuring the assessment to provide clues into which of these may be the issue is an effective way to help the student grow.  A good personal trainer wouldn’t merely inform somebody they’re overweight or that they eat too much.  They might help a person realize, for example, that it’s not as simple as how many carbohydrates you eat, but also what type and when.  By the same token, simply telling students they answered 20/30 correctly or wrote a C-level essay does not help them improve.

This really isn’t anything new, is it?  For years, math teachers have asked for students to show their work and marked the type of error.  The additional value of focusing on gap thinking is getting the students to focus on it as well.  If the assessments and criteria are structured with this end in mind, we can increase the students’ ability to diagnose and correct their own gap thinking, or at least have a greater sense of ownership and control.  It’s not hard to see how it can be easier and more effective to help a student when they approach you with a better sense of their own deficiencies. Granted, they will need help with this, but the mentality of “why am I wrong and how do I fix it?” is much more conducive to education than “what did I get wrong, and did I do good or bad?”  If we don’t ask for more, they often stop at judgement, rather than reflect and grow.

(If you're interested in more along these lines, I highly recommend you check out Proficiency Based Assessment, written by a number of school leaders from Steven High School in Lincolnshire, Illinois.  It can be found on Amazon here.  I don't get a kickback or anything...it's just thought provoking book and I recommend it.)

The Single Solution to All Problems in Education (Part 2)

         Typically, because schools are bureaucracies, they respond with such.  Enter all the programs for kids…we have programs to prompt their readiness, interventions while in school, and more remediation in place afterward. We recognize that they have low esteem, self-worth, and we try to build it up. We have lots of systems and programs.  Forms too.

         But what isn’t done often enough is just spending time with them, individually, or in a really small group.  A student that’s gone through years of a certain education system without success is probably not going to respond to more “system.”  They need attention—and even that’s really just the indicator that somebody cares about them, that somebody’s willing to sit and help them. If you have multiple children of your own, you probably know this intuitively.  Family time is great, but everybody needs some time with they are center stage.     

We’re hard wired for this, and again, if students are not getting it at home, the school can struggle mightily to try and make up the difference.  It’s not that teachers don’t care about each individual, they are doing as much as possible. On the other hand, the intent and how hard the teachers are working doesn’t matter to children…they just need to feel like somebody cares about them.  I suspect that being put in a remediation “program,” for example, feels more like be reshuffled or reclassified, more than it seems like somebody coming to help.

Schools do successfully help students like this all the time.  They do it one student at a time though, or in very small groups.  When a student sees somebody really cares—and the threshold is individual time quite often—they engage, and that is when we able to help them.  That emotional void must be filled before they will go on.  Take a look back and Harry Harlow’s research for some grim confirmations of this.  

My student- teaching experience was in a pretty high needs environment.  I left that experience with the realization that high needs kids make you work a lot harder to win them over, but once you do, they will give their all to not let you down.  Over time, I came to believe that this is because they are used to people quitting on them, individually or in a group.  When teachers persist, students eventually realize they somebody really cares about them.  Even where I work now, the most effective interventions we have are really just those that don’t overwhelm the adult with unmanageable caseloads, and it’s the ones like that where we hear the kids saying, “She's like a mom to me.  She really cares and she wouldn’t give up on me.  She helped me every day and that’s why I realized that school is important.”  Quotes like that are great as it is, but when they are accompanied by better behavior, grades, attendance, self-control and respect, all the better.  But that quote came from a student that benefitted from an intervention where the teacher had a lot of time to invest in her due to a small case.  Scaling that up to serve lots of student without losing the individuality is a greater challenge, and given the above it’s likely going to require a lot more labor.

When it comes to effectively helping students, no matter what the problem, I’m not sure I’ve ever seen an intervention that worked because it was some great innovation or discovery.  There’s no shortcut or substitute.  Humans need the caring guidance of others who care about them as individuals. Though many are looking for a much more exciting solution than, “Somebody needs to start paying direct attention to these children.” I’m not sure one is available.  Until we reach a utopian society, there are always going to be children in need, and we can’t afford to wait for some perfect, easy-to-implement solution to come along.  The positive side is that each of us, in our roles as educators, parents, family members, or friends, are able to help—no special training required.

The Single Solution to All Problems in Education (part 1 of 2)

And not only that, we can do it in one word.

Attention


For all the new innovations, regulations, tests, consultants (guilty as charged) and others, there is really only one thing that works for students that struggle, and it’s actually giving them some one-on-one attention.  Think about the obvious reasons students may struggle:

• The student doesn’t know the material.  Clearly attention will help this.  Parents help with homework, kids stay after class to work with their teachers, and tutors are hired to help make up for deficiencies.
• A physical or intellectual ability interferes with learning.  Again, attention will help…the person working closely with their kids may see them squint, transpose letters, or some other indication of a broader problem. 
• The student is bright, but he/she is just not trying.  They don’t think education is important. The attention of adults is direct evidence of the contrary.
• The student is suffering from socioemotional problems, perhaps due to their outside-of-school environment.  Attention from a caring adult will help that student in a number of ways, such as showing that the child is valued, support can be provided as needed.

Where is all this attention supposed to come from?  Well, without beating some of my earlier pieces to death, I’d start with the foundation that love and attention comes from home first.  Any teacher has seen it: often it’s the parents of the most successful students that come to conferences, while the parent we really need to talk to is not there.  And this is not accident.  In order to sit in desks for years and learn things that are not currently or perhaps ever relevant to them, students need a great deal of acculturation and coaching.  The students that come from supportive environments, read: where somebody cares and pays attention to them and their education, are far more likely to do well, even if their parents aren’t experts at providing tutoring, counseling or whatever else the student is in need of.

We see study after study that talk about the importance of effort, motivation, and grit.  In schools, we talk often about the problem we face with our students being principally rooted in their disengagement.  So imagine for a moment the ideal: every student gets 1-1 education or pretty close to it.  Would we have the time to give them everything they need?  And of course, it’s not a surprise to anybody who has even 2-3 kids that when we give a teacher 30 students she simply can’t give the same attention she’d give if she had only 1.  That’s the premise of the system’s correct function—if the kids get enough love and attention outside of school, the amount the teacher needs to supply to keep the student moving is not as great.

Sometimes, perhaps regularly in some schools, students arrive without having gotten all the loving attention they need, and we see this when they fail chronically.  What can be done if the staff is overwhelmed by the needs of its students?  What if there’s just too in need many for the adults in the building to reach?

(part 2 next week)

College Ready or Credit Worthy?

In a previous article I brought up some of the issues with judging schools based on standardized exam scores.  The obvious question is why we use them still.  College readiness (highly suspect) and public accountability are the two reasons most often given.  The public wants their money’s worth, which is totally appropriate, but individuals, seeing/hearing about the problems of the national standardized testing movement/culture typically get that it’s a bad idea.  Yet we continue.

When I was teaching economics, one of the basic principles instructed was that “people respond to incentives.”  In other words, there are reasons (people) that things are the way they are.  I am reminded of a photo I saw once.  In it was Sal Kahn (creator of Khan Academy), a high school leader, a Citibank executive, and a high ranking exec from the College Board.  So Kahn Academy, the College Board, Citibank, and High Schools….which of these doesn’t fit?  It’s Citibank, correct?  Three educational institutions and a bank….we’ll come back to this.

Not long ago I saw a College Board presentation about the redesigned the SAT. The logic was that they were concerned that too many students, particularly minorities, were not "college ready.  This made them re-examine the exam and realize the test wasn’t aligned with what kids need to know in college.  Nice they finally figured that out, but it’s sad they put it on minority students, not the inappropriate use of these exams—which they’ve peddled, pushed, and lobbied.

Thus, they redesigned it, “taking out words like ‘loquacious’ and replacing them with words like ‘dedicated.’” They also formed a partnership with Khan Academy. Any student that takes the SAT is now automatically set up with a Khan account that's customized with videos and practice where they need it.  This sounds well and good, especially if you believe that high SAT scores = college readiness (they don’t). 

Enter Citibank, a major underwriter of federal and private student loans.  The more kids go to college, the more loans they make. Most important: student loans survive a bankruptcy, so this is a largely risk-free market for them. They set it up like that because 18 year old college bound kids don't exactly have the credit profile that banks like to see...no history, no job.

SAT/ACT scores are therefore credit ratings as much they are college readiness indicators.  This system will get kids further into student loan debt.  And worse, since the College Board has been quick to point out that they're specifically hoping to help minorities, one should conclude that this increased student loan debt will be disproportionately borne by students from those groups. It's unavoidable: Any plan to increase "credit" is a plan to increase debt. This also will to debt with no degree in many cases.  If student scores increase, but are void of real learning and a host of soft skills, we’ll merely be pushing marginal students into postsecondary institutions where they will not matriculate.

This is obviously cynical and not the intent.  Sal Khan, whose goal is to make education accessible, is not in Citi's board room scheming.  And of course, borrowing money to further an education is often wise.   That said, the above are completely likely outcomes and are even expected by the proponents: They want more low SES kids to go to college, but by definition, they don't have the money and must borrow.     

All the more reason we need to emphasize the importance of understanding the relationship between the cost of college and their likely future earnings. In my experience teaching personal finance, students' are in a disadvantaged position when it comes to making decisions about massive loan debt, etc., even if the law permits.  Surely, all of the advice we here about investing young making all the difference applies in reverse to starting out with debt young.  The gains foregone are invisible, but they’re forgone nonetheless.

What is the Purpose of School?

The national conversation about education has been focused on accountability, “college readiness,” and of course, test scores.  The condemnations of educators and schools is a loud chorus with different segments advocating some overhaul or another.  I work in schools, and have been in them most of my life.  I work at a really good school right now, and we’re on the firing line regularly. 

I find it fascinating that the public education system lacks a uniform mission. Some would say it’s about a citizens that think critically enough to sustain a free society—as the many of our founding fathers argued.  Others point to assimilation, vocation, leveling the playing field, and on and on.   Each of these justifications is worthy of debate.  Take a look around now and you’ll see these have all been lazily combined into the increasingly ambiguous term “college readiness.”  In complete defiance of all common sense and mountains of apparent data, this is boiled down even further to the almighty ACT/SAT scores.

It’s obvious why the political system, where the primary focus is on accountability—that is, bang for your buck—would look to these scores: they are readily available, seemingly objective, and if you’re not an educator, they it just seems logical: higher test scores must mean better schools, right? …..Right?.....

Wrong.  First and foremost, about 70% of all test score variation across schools is explained by socioeconomic status alone.  In other words, if you used the income level of their students, the school rankings we see would come out largely the same.  It’s not that schools don’t have an impact on students, and some are better than others.  It’s just that, using these test scores as the criteria not helpful. 

There’s more though.  Take a look at the tests and expectations to which schools are often held.  For example, ACT’s College Readiness Standards are deeply flawed when it comes to predicting how well students will do in college.  Surely, the higher the score, the better, but scoring high on ACT does not guarantee success at any level of school.  Probably even more important to this argument: students that fail to meet various college readiness bars based on these exams along regularly go on to get degrees.  Perseverance, ability to delay gratification, willingness to participate in the daily activities necessary to pass courses, family influence, perceived likelihood of success, perceived value of a degree…all of these things are important factors in college success that are not measured by these exams.  This list is far from exhaustive, and probably even lacks some of the most significant factors that affect college success.

This all brings us back to the question, what is the purpose of school?  If it’s not just about maximizing this one dimension of student performance, and it clearly is not, then we should reconsider our commitment to these exams.  The goal is learning; genuine, authentic learning.  It’s complex—really complex—to deal with and measure.  Educators generally are very good at this when it comes to individuals and small groups, but because learning itself is so complex and dependent on so may factors, it’s very difficult measure and grow the system from the top down.  This is akin to requiring all children speak their first words or take their first steps by the exact same date.

For this, there are no shortcuts, only the kind of individual, human intelligence that allows us to work others, empathize with their individual needs (whether or not they are in common with the group), and provide feedback.  Assessment performance should be supplemented with careful consideration of the factors that led to the performance, and this is true whether it’s the parent/teacher viewing a student’s marks or a prospective home-buyer evaluating a community’s school systems.

Primal Learning

Educating the young is a fundamental and critical task of any society.  I’d say “it’s more important than ever,” but it’s not. Education has always been, and will always be, the essential task of youth and adulthood, both as teachers and learners.  Though changes in society may make certain skills and knowledge “more important than ever,” taking a moment to step outside of the common use of the word education—going to school—reminds us that what we’re really talking about is the transmission of knowledge, skills, and characteristics needed to survive/thrive in society. 

In the US, education is often thought of as matriculating through the school.  This is an error in thinking.  School is the means, education the end.  Nevertheless, the discourse on education generally centers on schools: standardized test scores, school performance, teacher evaluation and preparation, and funding.  Our focus on these, and the core ideas of aggregation and centralization that they are expressions of, are precisely the reason why the house is on fire.  Education is not about these.

At the core, teaching and learning are not products of the school system, or the proprietary skill of trained educators.  They are instincts.  People of all ages teach and learn constantly.  The bulk of all learning that has ever occurred has taken place between individuals or small, tightly knit groups.  To make the point, let’s imagine a preindustrial, hunter-gatherer or agrarian society.  Children learned in small groups led by their elders, people with whom they had a personal connection.  The skills taught were directly and obviously relevant—hunting for dinner, for example. I’ll refer to this as primal learning.

Realizing this began when we decided to home school.  As an “educator,” I didn’t doubt that we could pull it off.  What caught my attention was how families were able to homeschool their kids with little education or training, and they were generally very successful.  Eventually it became obvious.  By instinct, going 1-1 with kids automatically triggers many of the characteristics of primal learning: accurate understanding of the student’s abilities, lots of feedback, checking for understanding, the right pace, interest, persistence, emotional commitment, and greater relevance of the content.

Teaching and learning: how it usually happens.

As much should be obvious, but the fact that it’s not shows how deeply ingrained the concept of learning as “school” has become.  When we teach our children to tie their shoes there are no PowerPoints, no standardized exams, no grades, no certified shoe-tying instructors…none of it. Yet, nearly everybody learns this skill.  This is valid teaching and learning, as valid as anything generated by the school system.

How do schools compare with primal learning?  Typical class sizes of 20-30, knowledge that isn't directly relevant or at least doesn't appear to be relevant in the eyes of student, teachers unattached to the kids except though school, coercion, classroom management concerns, difficulty providing extensive feedback consistently, the need to produce defensible report card grades, and all the rest.  The typical classroom teacher and their students are fish out of water in this environment. 

Preparations to test about 300 students at once to comply with mandated PARCC testing

US Education has become a race to complication and aggregation (or perhaps it should be aggravation).  It is a vicious circle wherein students are dehumanized by the inherent nature of the system, and when problems arise, we often double down on the very things causing them or address symptoms rather than root causes. For example, an exam score focus causes schools to implement a culture of test prep. Students are disengaged, resulting in more problems, lower scores, more prep.

Parents and teachers can best serve their students by always beginning with the individual, how he/she would have learned without a school system, and how pedagogy and technology can be used to replicate primal learning conditions. By doing this we’ll address the fundamental issues in learning, not merely symptoms.  

What Gets Measured Gets Done

What gets measured gets done

If the goal is to improve learning of students, for most teachers, the big project to tackle is classroom assessment policy.  

Classroom assessment practice, perhaps more than other components of teaching, is still shaped a great deal by what is pragmatic.  As I’ve mentioned before, the primary negative effects of the factory school system we imported from Europe come from class size combined with the need for consistent records.  Assessment is particularly impacted by this, and for much of the modern era has been reduced to merely grading assignments.  

As always, technology may be of some use in mitigating this, but also can make the situation worse if we’re not careful.  The advantage of tech in grading is to save the teacher’s time in doing final calculations: teachers enter grades as they go, and the system keeps a running total that, in more recent years, is live-updated or pretty close to it.  Parents can log in at a glance and see how their kids are doing.  Teachers are spared the work of calculating a student’s grade repeatedly and a lot of phone calls are probably saved as well.

Is this practice ideal? Has it primarily evolved due to its practicality or its educational value?  Has the advent of digital gradebooks shifted focus to the wrong place, the grade instead of learning? I believe so.

One of my sons attends his public high school, another attends a private elementary school.  Though his teachers use grading software, on a weekly basis we receive a folder with all of his work from the previous week. My wife or I go through the folder.  We look at each assignment and discuss the good and the bad.  Most importantly, if there’s something concerning, we see it right away and in detail.  For example, one week this spring we realized he didn’t understand improper fractions, so we worked on it and practiced--a quick adjustment.

With my older son, the conversation is different.  “You have a 2/10 on ‘Practice 5.  What’s going on?”  It’s hard to get it much more specific without the work, etc.  It’s not that one couldn’t get to the same place as in the example above, but it would be a lot harder.  More importantly though, grading in this way implies the most/only important thing is the final grade.  What gets measured gets done.  Kids will focus on the final grade.

Grades are the end result, the record of learning, but slowly they’ve crept into our minds purpose of learning, as opposed to mastery.  We’ve saved time with our current grading practices, but they’ve also shifted the mindset of students, teachers, and parent away from thoughtful qualitative discussions about learning to more mechanistic systems of reporting.  The cost of this is in actual student learning, not to mention the extent to which school starts to become about how to game various systems and become a more educated human being.

Whether a teacher or a parent, we have to think very carefully about what we choose to measure and tend. We need to focus on measuring and reporting learning--the formative, not summative marks.