One of the most interesting motives for people and society has been a belief that resources are limited; what Stephen Covey has called a scarcity mentality (I read about it in the 8th Habit). However, I simply cannot accept this belief anymore (if I ever really did). I cannot help but come to the conclusion that there is an abundance of resources in our world and there is enough resources (whether natural or created) in our world (and solar system, and galaxy, and universe) to sustain all of us.
Another author, Thomas Freidman who wrote The World is Flat, also spoke about this abundance mentality. He proposes the belief that as long as people have ideas and can imagine possibilities, there is no limit to what we can have or do. Imagine what life was like simply one hundred years ago. The only way to "see" someone from another country (or even another town) was (1) look at a photograph or (2) go to the country (or town). Now, we can watch and listen to someone on the other side of the world in our own home. We can even interact (via video conferencing, web cams, etc.) with anyone who has access to the equipment. If you lived in the early 1900s, this type of communication wasn't even envisioned by most of the population, so how can WE (those living today) not see the abundance that surrounds us (why does a scarcity mentality continue)?
Another example that I just can help but see (but I must first refer you to the web video, "Did You Know?" that mentions that today, we have five times more words in the English language than in Shakespeare's time). Lately, I am amazed about how may people use the phrase, "Goggle it." We can create (and obviously do) new words every day! Our language is ABUNDANT.
One last observation of mine (which may be a LEAP of faith on my part) relates to job availability. Always a concern is the number of jobs available for more and more people (this is the basic premise of the scarcity mentality...as population grows but resources stay the same, there is less "stuff" for everyone). However, I propose that we can continue to create jobs that are not "extra" but extremely useful. One example is On-Star, the security system for automobiles. This service has to be manned by someone on the other line ready to help out those in need. This service may not be a necessity, but it can possibly save lives (bad accident) as well as just save the day. Another useful job is reviewers of college applicants. As more and more individuals apply for college, it is becoming difficult to select quality students and it is so difficult to really know someone without taking the time to really review the information (and even do some follow up). This is why some universities (sorry I don't have a reference right now) are hiring numerous reviewers to get a holistic view of its applicants, not a job for just anyone either. Therefore, I do believe we can continue to have more and more (abundance) as we need it and as long as people have ideas they act on.
A variety of thoughts, ideas, and tips about education, technology, or both.
Friday, September 28, 2007
Monday, September 24, 2007
Letter to Mazie Hirono
Ms. Hirono,
I am a teacher at Moanalua High School and am have concerns about the Re-Authorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
First, any good educator knows that a single source of evaluation (e.g. a state test) cannot possibly provide enough information to determine whether a person or organization is successful or failing. This type of evaluation does, in effect, limit what good teachers can do, and eventually what students will be able to do. This is the most damaging aspect of this Act. However, I do believe in standards. There are many renowned educators that promote standards (but not the typical state standards we see) without standardization. I am sure you know of these educators, but here is a short list: Debbie Meier, Ted Sizer, Grant Wiggins, and Dennis Littky. All of these educators promote high standards, but really work at preparing out students to contribute and compete in our democratic society. They have even proposed better ways of school accountability (see Tony Wagner's "Making the Grade," which was highly publicized by our own DOE).
Second, any good educator knows that people do not develop at the same rate (both physically and mentally). A true standards-based system allows students to progress appropriately and provide adequate support along the way. This does not mean students are left to stuggle, but it provides more of a time cushion than expecting all 3rd graders (who are not all born on the same date) to have the same reading ability at the same time. An excellent example of standards-based progression is being done in the Chugach School District in Alaska. This allows students to progress accordingly but not let them flounder without support. Therefore, the examination system (an important part) should take differences in development, such as students take the exam when they are at that stage and schools report who has been at all stages for how long.
Third, in order for education to be successful, teachers need to know their students. It is difficult (if not impossible) to motivate and support a student you do not know. This again is nothing new. The highly recommended Breaking Ranks and Breaking Ranks II both make a teacher load a priority. However, I must make a concession here. I personally do not believe "class size" is the issue as much as total "student load." This is usually more prevalent in secondary schools where a teacher sees multiple classes of students in a day. I believe good teachers can handle reasonable size classes (25-35 students) but should only have two or three of these classes. This would limit a teacher's load to around 80-100 students. Although this is one way of organizing the day, it would also provide teachers what they need in order to actually respond and plan to the students' needs: TIME. Could you image if the U.S. actually gave teachers the time they need to plan and assess and respond to students? (Most other countries do it.) This idea would impact several areas of the law such as funding, possibly teacher quality, and others. However, if this issue (knowing students well) is crucial to education, it must explicitly or implicitly be address in this Act.
Lastly, I do want to comment that the actual concept behind the 2001 version of this Act is not bad. I do believe that schools and teachers need to really examine their work and reflect on what is working to make improvements. However, the implementation has been misguided and led to a lack of understanding about what started as "standards." The General Learner Outcomes (with some additional details) really provide us with the guidance of real standards, but these outcomes cannot be measured by a test at the same time for the same "cohort" of students. Push for methods that take multiple data points from a variety of sources and provide teachers with limited number of students and necessary time to actually know and respond to those students.
Thank you,
Robert Widhalm
Teacher
I am a teacher at Moanalua High School and am have concerns about the Re-Authorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
First, any good educator knows that a single source of evaluation (e.g. a state test) cannot possibly provide enough information to determine whether a person or organization is successful or failing. This type of evaluation does, in effect, limit what good teachers can do, and eventually what students will be able to do. This is the most damaging aspect of this Act. However, I do believe in standards. There are many renowned educators that promote standards (but not the typical state standards we see) without standardization. I am sure you know of these educators, but here is a short list: Debbie Meier, Ted Sizer, Grant Wiggins, and Dennis Littky. All of these educators promote high standards, but really work at preparing out students to contribute and compete in our democratic society. They have even proposed better ways of school accountability (see Tony Wagner's "Making the Grade," which was highly publicized by our own DOE).
Second, any good educator knows that people do not develop at the same rate (both physically and mentally). A true standards-based system allows students to progress appropriately and provide adequate support along the way. This does not mean students are left to stuggle, but it provides more of a time cushion than expecting all 3rd graders (who are not all born on the same date) to have the same reading ability at the same time. An excellent example of standards-based progression is being done in the Chugach School District in Alaska. This allows students to progress accordingly but not let them flounder without support. Therefore, the examination system (an important part) should take differences in development, such as students take the exam when they are at that stage and schools report who has been at all stages for how long.
Third, in order for education to be successful, teachers need to know their students. It is difficult (if not impossible) to motivate and support a student you do not know. This again is nothing new. The highly recommended Breaking Ranks and Breaking Ranks II both make a teacher load a priority. However, I must make a concession here. I personally do not believe "class size" is the issue as much as total "student load." This is usually more prevalent in secondary schools where a teacher sees multiple classes of students in a day. I believe good teachers can handle reasonable size classes (25-35 students) but should only have two or three of these classes. This would limit a teacher's load to around 80-100 students. Although this is one way of organizing the day, it would also provide teachers what they need in order to actually respond and plan to the students' needs: TIME. Could you image if the U.S. actually gave teachers the time they need to plan and assess and respond to students? (Most other countries do it.) This idea would impact several areas of the law such as funding, possibly teacher quality, and others. However, if this issue (knowing students well) is crucial to education, it must explicitly or implicitly be address in this Act.
Lastly, I do want to comment that the actual concept behind the 2001 version of this Act is not bad. I do believe that schools and teachers need to really examine their work and reflect on what is working to make improvements. However, the implementation has been misguided and led to a lack of understanding about what started as "standards." The General Learner Outcomes (with some additional details) really provide us with the guidance of real standards, but these outcomes cannot be measured by a test at the same time for the same "cohort" of students. Push for methods that take multiple data points from a variety of sources and provide teachers with limited number of students and necessary time to actually know and respond to those students.
Thank you,
Robert Widhalm
Teacher
Thursday, September 20, 2007
School Motto
After being a leader in the Boy Scouts for a few years now, I see the power in a MEANINGFUL motto. The Boy Scout motto is "Be Prepared." Very simple, very elegant. In two words, the motto captures much of what it means to be a boy scout. The motto is often quoted to remind all members of the scouting community of how we should focus our attention (be prepared).
As an educator, I have been thinking about what kind of motto I would find as focused but encapsulating as the Boy Scout Motto but for a school. (Being one of my first entries, my one or two readers may not know many of my views, so let me sum up my opinion of what is normally viewed as "school" in a simple Mark Twain quote, "Never let school get in the way of your education.") In our day of (misguided) standards, I believe I have found a motto that I believe would encapsulate a school's vision.
Before I get to the actual motto, I must confess some strong opinions about "standards." I believe we must have standards and those standards need to set targets for what students are to do. However, these "standards" that I am referring are not the typical state standards that are so incredibly long and content specific that it is ludicrous to believe that all students can (and should) be proficient in all of them. I refer more to the "standards" often eluded to by Ted Sizer (see Horace's Compromise) and many other educators such as Mel Levine, M.D. (see Ready or Not, Here Comes Life),
Understanding a broader definition of "standards" (or actually more focused in my opinion), then my motto will make much more sense. My motto (which has recurrred in my mind for at least two years now) is, "SET THE STANDARD." Tony Robbins (yes, that famous or infamous guru of self-help) said, "We can't live on yesterday's standards and expect to be successful today." He gives the example of Roger Banister running a mile in four minutes (a remarkable feat--when it happened), but now "kids in high school are running four minute miles."
Each performance or project has standards that measure its worth. The real "standard" that is the focus of education is to improve oneself. Therefore, by instilling the need to push beyond the criteria of today and "setting the standard," we are really moving to the type of school (and world) I hope to see. I am sure I'll return to this idea at a later time...enjoy life!
As an educator, I have been thinking about what kind of motto I would find as focused but encapsulating as the Boy Scout Motto but for a school. (Being one of my first entries, my one or two readers may not know many of my views, so let me sum up my opinion of what is normally viewed as "school" in a simple Mark Twain quote, "Never let school get in the way of your education.") In our day of (misguided) standards, I believe I have found a motto that I believe would encapsulate a school's vision.
Before I get to the actual motto, I must confess some strong opinions about "standards." I believe we must have standards and those standards need to set targets for what students are to do. However, these "standards" that I am referring are not the typical state standards that are so incredibly long and content specific that it is ludicrous to believe that all students can (and should) be proficient in all of them. I refer more to the "standards" often eluded to by Ted Sizer (see Horace's Compromise) and many other educators such as Mel Levine, M.D. (see Ready or Not, Here Comes Life),
Understanding a broader definition of "standards" (or actually more focused in my opinion), then my motto will make much more sense. My motto (which has recurrred in my mind for at least two years now) is, "SET THE STANDARD." Tony Robbins (yes, that famous or infamous guru of self-help) said, "We can't live on yesterday's standards and expect to be successful today." He gives the example of Roger Banister running a mile in four minutes (a remarkable feat--when it happened), but now "kids in high school are running four minute miles."
Each performance or project has standards that measure its worth. The real "standard" that is the focus of education is to improve oneself. Therefore, by instilling the need to push beyond the criteria of today and "setting the standard," we are really moving to the type of school (and world) I hope to see. I am sure I'll return to this idea at a later time...enjoy life!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)