What next? Career choices by 4th grade?

I appreciate State Superintendent of Public Instruction Susan Castillo encouraging Lebanon's 7th-8th graders to begin to ponder possible career options, and to know that there will be additional science and math requirements in place by the time they graduate from high school. But it seems there is pressure on students to select a career path before their developing brains can even get around the word "career." I would wager it's a small percentage of you reading these words who had selected a viable career choice by 8th grade.

The academy system at LHS tracks kids by asking them to pick a general career area so they can select the most appropriate academy before their freshman year. Each academy then tailors classes to cover high school basics within the framework of the academy career domains. This system greatly reduces the possibility that a student interested in physical science will enroll in a drama class (in a different academy) that sparks a passion for theatre arts, that might then lead to a college drama major: It reduces the chance a student strong in language arts (social systems academy) will discover a talent for chemistry as applied in a medical field (different academy).

High school resources are best spent offering a wide range of courses that cover basics and offer a taste of possible career futures. How will one know if one likes welding, if there is not a class to try? How will one know if they might have abilities and interests to train as a dentist if as an 8th grader they loved drama so selected a social academy?

Now dentists might indeed come out of a social academy: It can happen. But this tracking of high schoolers reduces the chances that they will find their way to a true passion. Just as tracking in the 60's steered some of us toward college, some towards vocational schools and some towards a terminal high school diploma -- this process limits students knowledge of their choices and interests by prematurely asking them to make life-changing choices.

There was a day when students graduated from high school, then decided on their next step. Then there was tracking by school-determined aptitude levels (college prep, voc prep, or high school is all you can hope for.). Now students are asked to decide in the 8th grade on a general career domain.

Will we keep pushing career-decisions to lower and lower grades? Do we start to teach the kindergardener who wants to be a cowboy to make rope loops?

We need to back off and gives kids space to discover interests and abilities at the high school level, while enthusiastically teaching basic courses with rigor so that as many students as possible are ready for college courses should they decide to pursue them.

"Shame on you"

I noticed, reading some comments on another educational blog, the phrase, "Shame on the rest," when someone disagreed with a commenter and those who agree with them. This is a variation of, "Shame on you!" Fortunately, I don't see this phrase too often. It's a deeply hurtful phrase used today, in my opinion, mostly by those without positive parenting skills while shaking a finger in a child's face.

How is this phrase helpful? Does it not just pour gasoline on the fire?

What about a simple, "I disagree with you," or, "I find that comment off-base" instead?

Thinking outside the country

There's a thought-provoking article in The Atlantic, January-February 2008 edition, (http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200801/miller-education) by Matt Miller. He argues that to create a competitive educational system in this country, we need to do what other countries do that are most successful at educating their populations: Establish national standards and proficiencies, and let go of local and state control of schools entirely, which he blames for the dreadful state of America's schools today. He suggests we abolish local school boards, though acknowledges advocating for this is an uphill battle at best.

He notes that,
"The United States spends more than nearly every other nation on schools, but out of 29 developed countries in a 2003 assessment, we ranked 24th in math and in problem-solving, 18th in science, and 15th in reading. Half of all black and Latino students in the U.S. don’t graduate on time (or ever) from high school. As of 2005, about 70 percent of eighth-graders were not proficient in reading. By the end of eighth grade, what passes for a math curriculum in America is two years behind that of other countries."

This is what local control of school districts has gotten us of late, he argues, and that a national approach-- including much greater funding at the federal (vs. local) level -- will help us become more competitive in the realm of global education.

Before anyone screams that I must be a latent pinko/commie, I confess to having an approach/avoidance reaction to his ideas, as it often seems the more the federal government gets involved in projects, the more bureaucratic and less effective they become. That being said, this man's ideas are interesting. The most productive/effective schools may be in countries where the federal government sets high standards, takes charge of funding education, and has a uniform assessment system for documenting progress. We certainly do need to try something new, since what we are doing isn't working. It's worth a microscopic look at the educational systems and cultures of the highest-achieving countries.

There are likely other variables at play: Cultural, social, family variables likely drive levels of academic expectation and achievement, and teacher performance levels.

In a strange way, Miller argues, there is more freedom -- not less -- in this nationalization he proposes. Here's another quote from the article:

"In all of these efforts, we must understand one paradox: only by transcending local control can we create genuine autonomy for our schools. “If you visit schools in many other parts of the world,” Marc Tucker says(Tucker heads the New Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce -- a 2006 bipartisan panel that called for an overhaul of the education system), “you’re struck almost immediately … by a sense of autonomy on the part of the school staff and principal that you don’t find in the United States.” Research in 46 countries by Ludger Woessmann of the University of Munich has shown that setting clear external standards while granting real discretion to schools in how to meet them is the most effective way to run a system. We need to give schools one set of national expectations, free educators and parents to collaborate locally in whatever ways work, and get everything else out of the way."

"Nationalizing our schools even a little goes against every cultural tradition we have, save the one that matters most: our capacity to renew ourselves to meet new challenges. Once upon a time a national role in retirement funding was anathema; then suddenly, after the Depression, we had Social Security. Once, a federal role in health care would have been rejected as socialism; now, federal money accounts for half of what we spend on health care. We started down this road on schooling a long time ago. Time now to finish the journey."

Without a school board would our bickering end? Would we need a superintendent, or would principals answer directly to some federal administrator?

I am sure we have much to learn through study of the world's most successful educational systems, and I don't think we should be afraid to consider radical changes, after thorough examination of the details, given that we now seem to be running at the back of the pack. It's only up from here.

OSU fires basketball coach

Now I'm not personally big on sports, but it did interest me to see that OSU just fired its head basketball coach after a several-year losing streak. We can argue this is unfair, that he should have had more chances to improve, that he recently had changed whatever he had done wrong in past years, etc.

This is how things work in the big world: Top people who don't meet goals are replaced.

Did this head coach have a formal evaluation before being let go? (Didn't sound like there was time for one.) I know, he didn't apparently have the same type of employment contract held by Robinson, but that's not the point.

In the real world, when the leader doesn't get the performance out of those she/he leads (for whatever reason), the leader is replaced.

" Josh's wife"

So two readers have decided I am "Josh's wife" because they've heard her state views like mine. Just goes to show that I am not the only person who has my views! This is making me think maybe I should meet Josh's wife, since apparently we have something in common.

The serious thought here is: My views and situations are not unique to me. There are many people out there who (pick one or more) have young children, avoid board meetings because they leave one feeling enraged and/or feeling not heard, think Robinson needs to resign for healing in this district to even have a chance to begin, think all the blogging by LT is more hurtful than helpful, like and respect Rick Alexander for working toward positive change in this district whether or not we agree with him 100%.

Another serious thought: Like I wrote about speculative comments about LT's identity, I'm not going to publish any more speculation about who I am or who I am not, so no need to submit comments like that in the future.

Board behavior and other thoughts

A reader has asked about my views on the behavior of Lebanon Community School District board members. I have not attended a board meeting in some months, so I don't have an opinion about behavior at recent meetings.

Given that when I did attend board meetings, it was common for me to read a report of that meeting in the Democrat-Herald and feel I must have been at a different meeting than the reporter, I hesitate to put too much stock in newspaper meeting reports.

What I can say is I attended several meetings when Tom McHill was chair, and several when Rick was chair. My impression was that McHill was arrogant, that Sprenger and Fisher just tolerated rather than heard opinions from the audience when they didn't agree with the opinion being voiced, and that Rick and Josh actively encouraged and listened to parents and community members of divergent views.

That being said, I do think it's in the best interest of all for cordial communication and respect of others with opposing views, whether they are other board members or constituents.

It is interesting to see letters in The Express and D-H now, supporting Robinson and damning Rick. I keep recalling the photo I saw in one of the papers months ago, of a crowd -- a seemingly large crowd -- of folks holding signs and speaking to the board and encouraging members to terminate Robinson.

It seems that shrieks of "illegal" have drowned the voices of reason: It is common now to hear people state so authoritatively and with certainty that Rick and Josh behave recklessly and illegally as board members. The truth is, if you get 3 attorneys in a room you are likely to get 3 different legal opinions. Didn't the current district legal counsel approve the contracting out of custodial services that was later judged to be illegal, costing the district significant money? (I am sure you all will correct me if I am not recalling that correctly.)

How about the district contracting with some other well-respected law firm well-grounded in school law, and letting go of the current attorney who seems to be buddies with Robinson. The district pays this attorney to represent the district's best interest, not Robinson's best interest. It seems to me the current long-time board attorney wants what's personally best for Robinson vs. for our community.

I know.....when Robinson sued Rick and Josh he did hire a private attorney to handle the lawsuit, vs. using the district's attorney. But fresh, competent legal opinions about board behavior would be most welcome.

District Report Card

All us parents of students in Lebanon schools were mailed a copy of the district report card: To quote both the 2006-7007 LHS School Report Card and the district's overall report card, "Federal Adequate Yearly Progress Rating: NOT MET." For the high school, there is an "Oregon Report Card Overall Rating: LOW."

Of special note is the writing assessment: Apparently 39% of 10th graders passed that test, which of course means 61% failed. Even looking only at "comparison schools," those with similar demographics, this year 47% of those students passed, as did 55% or Oregon's 10th graders. Now these are pathetic rates one and all, but how did we do so poorly?

Our other high school scores were pathetic as well: Last year, only 50% of our 10th graders passed the math section, using a new "lower standard" devised this year. Using the "prior standards," according to the report card, only 33% of our 10th graders passed math. Either way, at least half our 10th graders failed the math test!

We can argue that statewide students scored poorly on these tests (though our students scored more poorly). We can argue that the tests are poorly-designed (possibly true -- why not consider a nationally-normed test vs. one we made up in Oregon?). We can argue that this year the computers broke down so tests were given manually which our students aren't used to.

I've seen the comments about how it's only fair to compare Lebanon's poor results with other districts of similar lower socio-economic status. I find those comments insulting and a cop-out by those who want to justify their belief we have effective administrative leadership in this district.

It has been proven time and again that with the right approach and leadership and belief in the community and in the student's abilities, incredible educational gains can be made in schools with lower socio-economic rating than ours. Don't sell our students short.

Now look at the Financial Data section and the dollars per student spent on: direct classroom expenses (below statewide average), classroom support (below statewide average), building support
( below statewide average), central support (above statewide average).

So we are only above or equal to the statewide spending average when it comes to money spent on the district office/administrative support. Where are our priorities?