Public education resists significant innovation, technological change
In the mythology of educational reform, there are only winners. The governor, Legislature, school board, teacher and student will all benefit from reform.
The Common Core State Standards (CCSS), Local Control Accountability Plan (LCAP) and Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) were designed to improve student learning. The objective of the LCFF, as other programs in the past, is to fund schools in a manner that will close the achievement gap between low achieving students and high achievers. The LCFF earmarked supplemental funds specifically for targeted groups of students, that is students who are English learners, who are from low-income and foster homes, and migrant students.
However, many targeted students are not at the low end of the academic- achievement scale and many non-targeted students are at the low end of the scale, but supplemental funds, as an add on, go only to the targeted students.
The supplemental funds received by the Ramona Unified School District (RUSD) were spread across all salary schedules. Supplemental funds should supplement and not supplant other sources of revenue for the targeted students. The only thing that changed in RUSD’s budgeting this year is the state funding formula relative to some “categorical” programs and the supplemental funding received for targeted students.
The RUSD staff made a noble effort to get the community involved in the LCAP, but involvement of the community was minimal. Some said, “Leave it to the professionals.”
I’m not placing an overall value on the system. It worked well for many students, including our grandchildren.
I believe that education costs far exceed inflation and there is no significant increase in outcomes for students. There is hardly a teaching task or a way to learn that can not be accomplished in a multitude of ways. I will argue that significant battles in education today, as in the past, are centered around, pedagogy versus content and equality of school outcomes — “closing the achievement gap.”
Emphasis on equality of outcomes is imbedded in the LCFF and CCSS. It is said that “ the purpose of CCSS is to have “consistent and clear education standards.” The notion of “clear and consistent standards” is troubling to me. It sounds like a planned society.
The CCSS are embraced by many and a counter argument is difficult to wage because nothing is more obstinate than a fashionable consensus, which CCSS has become. Doubt is troubling but certainty is absurd. Without implementation funding, would CCSS be a priority? All children can learn and all have equal value.
The arguments over the content of textbooks, library books and science are endemic. This is an argument, like history itself, with no end. What values should or should not be taught? Politics is the manner in which our country determines whose values shall prevail.
The basic argument about CCSS is a long and continued argument between pedagogy and content. “Content is the answer to the question what to teach, while pedagogy answers the question of how to teach ... If content decisions come first, then the choices of pedagogy may be limited. A choice of concentrated content precludes too much student centered, discovery learning, because that particular pedagogy requires more time than stiff content requirements would allow. In the same way, the choice of a pedagogy can naturally limit the amount of content that can be presented to students. Therein lies the source of the conflict.” (David Klein).
The RUSD teacher training sessions that I peeked in on seem to be centered on pedagogy.
A remark of Piaget sticks with me to this day: “Children are little scientists.” They develop and learn a lot by enjoying life and bumping into things both literally and figuratively.
The classroom is important for learning, but it does not stand alone. A case in point: In 1935, I along with classmates played a marbles game called “rings.” We played “keepers,” knuckles down and no “steelies.”
I believe our teacher thought playing marbles was a waste of time as far as “learning” was concerned. Knowingly or not, we learned in the first grade about gambling when we played “keepers.” We learned a lot of arithmetic, geometry, sportsmanship, how to communicate with playmates, how to get along with people, even in a competitive situation, and what made them angry. I think our teacher’s basic position was that she could teach us all that there is to know about marble playing in one lesson and more arithmetic in a day or two than we ever could learn playing marbles. I would imagine she would say, “Never take ‘activity’ for achievement or expanding one’s knowledge base.”
After playing marbles a few days there was not much new to learn. Gambling was the big attraction.
Industrial arts students, after helping RUSD with reducing its deferred maintenance backlog by painting more than two or three school walls, it becomes just something to do and pass the day. This does not disparage the value of work. Teachers and students should be involved in acquiring “knowledge” during the instructional day.
When the smoke and hoopla settles over the current reforms, will there be improvement in what happens in the classroom? I pray so, but think not. What has been done will be done again and again; there is nothing new under the sun. (Eccl. 1:9). This certainly applies to educational reform and “closing the gap” the last 50 years.
A lot of good teachers, administrators and other RUSD people put a lot of effort in the current round of educational reform. But some say ”herein lies the rub.” Public education is a cartel and resists significant innovation and technological change — change that continues to disrupt all industries.
A real need in education exists to observe things as they really are. Further, individual schools, teachers and administrators who are successful in achieving important objectives must be rewarded and not treated similar to those who are less successful. The end result will be higher quality debate and choices over better known alternatives.
I am told by some students they feel the classroom can be more challenging and that instructional time is wasted on things they know. The absence of a challenge leads to boredom. My bias is content. The Socratic method of learning is alive and well.
“Outrageous expectations must be the standard for students, beware of conformity, conformity leads to mediocrity, mediocrity leads to regression to the mean ... and therein lies the great abyss.” (the late Stan Corey). All it takes is an effective teacher, willing student and a supportive home. The great teacher fills in the gaps, if any.
To RUSD students: “Life is like a coin. You can spend it any way you choose, but you can only spend it once.” Choose wisely.....
John Rajcic, a Ramona resident and school board member, stresses that this is his opinion as an individual and he is not representing the board.