The National Education Policy Center reviews plans for LeBron James’s new public school in Akron, Ohio.
Overall it gets good marks.
So are the approaches of I Promise in line with research? For the most part, yes: Practices such as providing additional resources, reducing class size, offering wraparound services like food pantries, extending learning time, and offering free college tuition to graduates are all associated with positive outcomes. But the school may face challenges in educating a large population of struggling students rather than creating heterogenous classes of children with higher and lower levels of performance. And the school’s STEM focus could end up shortchanging other important subjects such as social studies and the arts.
The school can tinker with its model. On the whole, what is most encouraging is that it is a good model for public education. No harsh disciplinary practices. A cap on class size. Wraparound services. Free college for those who persist. Extra supports where needed. Best of all, it was not created to put public education out of business, but to make it better.
The National Education Policy Center (NEPC), housed at the University of Colorado Boul-der School of Education, produces and disseminates high-quality, peer-reviewed research to inform education policy discussions. Visit us at: http://nepc.colorado.eduNEPC Resources on School Reform and Restructuringhttp://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/newsletter-LeBron3 of 3
Diane Ravitch's blog 
From Wikipedia:
I Promise School is a public elementary school in Akron, Ohio, opened in 2018, supported by the LeBron James Family Foundation, and specifically aimed at at-risk children. Opening with 240 students attending grades three and four, the school will be fully operational by 2022, eventually teaching grades one through eight.The school deploys a STEM-based curriculum. “The Family Resource Center” and the school’s “family plan” are aimed at the students’ families to ensure a stable learning experience at home. Deviating from traditional timetables, school days last from 8 to 5. Summer vacation is shortened significantly and shorter breaks are scattered throughout the year instead.
From the website: https://ipromiseschool.akronschools.com/
WEEK #1: Tuesday (8/21) through Friday (8/24) All Day MAP (growth) testing every day.
https://www.nwea.org/map-growth/
Just can’t shake that testing thing!
I hope LeBron is following this discussion.
LeBron experienced ‘education’ in Akron, and is trying to help. Not being an educator, he has to depend on not only his personal experience, but what he has ‘learned’ from the zeitgeist.
The only true test of educational effectiveness is the benefit to society at a much, much later date. Immediate ‘test scores’ are meaningless.
As a teacher, I was not comfortable giving my own tests (back in the day when we could write our own tests). But, I was even more uncomfortable with assigning a ‘grade’. Yes, it was easy to do, but the ramifications of that ‘grade’ could be devastating to the student. I had to make it crystal clear to the students how that grade was ‘manufactured’, and I also had to make it crystal clear that the ‘grade’ was not a measure of their worth, or even their understanding, but only a measure of their performance on a series of tests. I emphasized that the tests were to help me understand what they were thinking, and to help me direct future lessons. Most students understood, but parents were not always as ‘smart’ as their kids.
If I (like Socrates) could have avoided tests altogether, I probably would have done so. However, I was caught in a system that expected testing, and I also felt the obligation to prepare the student for the reality that would follow. I tried to do so, gently.
There are no short term ways to ‘evaluate’ the learning of a student. The results take a lifetime to emerge.
The dirty little secret of educators everywhere is that our “grades” are determined through very imprecise and very arbitrary means. This goes for report card grades as well as test grades. The margin of error in grading is staggering.
“The only true test of educational effectiveness is the benefit to society at a much, much later date.”
Can’t agree.
The true test of educational effectiveness is the effect that the teaching and learning process has on an individual’s learning and growing into being how he/she wants to be. Any societal benefits are accrued as each individual fulfills their own being which necessarily entails interactions with others.
Now, before some jump on me for promoting a Randian libertarian me, me philosophy of life and living (as some have in the past here), having the purpose of public education be for the benefit of the individual does not necessarily preclude the fact of the very social and communitarian nature of human existence. I would argue that in one’s own development one would wisely come to realize that one is a part of a community, of society and that one must learn to cooperate and get along with all members so that all may live and thrive to their own desires and abilities, that one cannot be an isolated rock island in the middle of the ocean and expect to survive and thrive.
“As a teacher, I was not comfortable giving my own tests (back in the day when we could write our own tests). But, I was even more uncomfortable with assigning a ‘grade’. Yes, it was easy to do, but the ramifications of that ‘grade’ could be devastating to the student. I had to make it crystal clear to the students how that grade was ‘manufactured’, and I also had to make it crystal clear that the ‘grade’ was not a measure of their worth, or even their understanding, but only a measure of their performance on a series of tests. I emphasized that the tests were to help me understand what they were thinking, and to help me direct future lessons.”
You’re one of the few teachers with that understanding of grades and I applaud you for taking the time to discuss them with the students. I also discussed the falsehoods of grades with my students.
However, there is an “undertoad” here. (anyone remember the novel in which that phrase was coined?) The undertow, undercurrent of thought here is that tests are seen by almost everyone involved in education as a device used for, for the benefit of the teacher (and others for other things) as a diagnostic assessment device instead of being seen as a tool to be used by the student to help the student learn how to learn the subject matter better for themselves. And they only made up 20-25% of the total semester grade with enough “extra” points available that usually could cover most points missed.
The latter is how I viewed my teacher made tests which were over what we had covered in class and which the students made their own corrections as needed. So I never had qualms about my teacher made assessments as you, Daedalus describe. They weren’t intended for me, but for my students. I didn’t need those assessments to tell me anything as my class activities were designed so that I was constantly assessing the many aspects of the student’s learning of Spanish on a daily basis. And actually the tests were not a very good indicator of student learning as they could not cover all the aspects of learning a second language. On parent/teacher conference nights I used to have the students (unfortunately not many were there) tell their parents where they were at in their own learning.
The “tests as a diagnostic tool” is just one of the many wrong focuses that permeate current teaching and learning processes and serves not the students.
(I realize that you are not a fan of Brookings). Here is a fascinating article about the segregation of teachers. Less than 2% of all public school teachers in the USA, are black males. see
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/brown-center-chalkboard/2018/08/15/teachers-in-the-us-are-even-more-segregated-than-students/?utm_campaign=Brown%20Center%20on%20Education%20Policy&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=65348137
Charles,
Brookings is a respectable centrist think tank. On education, it veered sharply to the right after hiring George W. Bush’s research director, who is gaga for choice.
First, “Bravo LaBron!”
Almost everything is perfect….
But (as a former Physics and Mathematics teacher) I agree that the ‘focus on STEM’ is an ‘Achilles(‘?) heel’.
First, let me say that the acronym ‘STEM’ is defective in that there is no difference between ‘T’ and ‘E’. Both are applied science (as opposed to basic).
Next, Mathematics is pure deductive logic, a game, like chess. You are given rules and play with them. The only reason Math exists as anything beyond being a game is that some types of math are useful to other ends (many Math teachers LOVE the game, but don’t understand that many other people find it boring and useless in their everyday lives).
Finally, Science is the use of induction, the use of past experience to better predict the future and describe our current condition. It is the language of nature, of evolution. I might point out that Art (visual, theatrical or musical) does the same thing. Such is also the hope for History.
The ancient Greeks understood, clearly, the difference between inductive thought and deductive ideas arising from experience. They also understood that inductive informed deductive (not the other way around). Science has no business being lumped with T&E or Math. Many universities still (correctly) have ‘Colleges of arts and sciences’ as well as ‘Schools of Engineering’.
I chose to blast ‘math teachers’ a bit, but let me also go after ‘science teachers’ and ‘humanities teachers’, as well….
Many ‘science teachers’ really don’t understand ‘science’ all that well. They have a handle on how to get the right ‘answer’ (usually involving math), but don’t understand the vast uncertainty that drives the ‘scientist’ to examine ever more closely not only our external experience, but our emotional one as well. Using their limited expertise in a particular ‘science’, many science teachers sometimes (like math teachers) simply act like technicians and make students think they are ‘smart’ by using specialized jargon. Sadly, it happens (I had many instructors that fit that mold, and the ‘softer’ the science, the more likely this would occur). These are not good science teachers (one caveat: If the goal is to prepare a student for a future course where jargon and technique is assumed, then the teacher would be remiss if they didn’t teach those things.. on the other hand, many students are NOT going to be professional scientists, and even if they are, there will be some time available to ‘expand their understanding’ of the way the philosophy of science fits into human history and dovetails with their personal experience).
On the other hand, most ‘humanities’ teachers were rather bad at science and mathematics. They may have simply not enjoyed ‘math’ and seen no importance in their lives, and had science teachers that were not ‘good ones’. Another possibility, however, is that they disengaged because science was ‘hard’. Like the late, great Aretha Franklin, their science teacher demanded that they ‘Think!’. This is uncomfortable, when it’s much easier to spout opinions and get good grades for expressing them. And, we were all young once.
Once, an ‘advanced education’ for the very few included the first part (the Trivium) involved with effective expression (Grammar, Rhetoric and Logic [almost entirely deductive]). After that came the more advanced Quadrivium (always incorporating Astronomy/Cosmology and music). Being a STEM guy, I’m not supposed to know that, but.. well….
“Being a STEM guy, I’m not supposed to know that, but.. well….”
And STEM guys struggle with spelling, eh, Deadalus? 🙂
Hate to reply to myself, however… in the paragraph starting with ‘The ancient Greeks, it should have said… “The ancient Greeks understood, clearly, the difference between DEDUCTIVE thought and INDUCTIVE, based upon ideas arising from experience.
Didn’t know if you’d pick up what I was giving you some good natured grief about.
As one who has had his name misspelled for all his life I tend to catch those kinds of things. Got it now?
STEM is one of the most over-hyped ideas in 21st century education, especially at the elementary and middle levels.
SCIENCE (biology, chemistry, physics, geology, astronomy, and meteorology, environmental) includes knowledge/facts/laws/theories, skills, logic, reason, discoveries, experimentation, explanation, prediction, measurement, analysis, and applied math.
TECHNOLOGY should include a full study of the human made world.
Inventions, systems, processes involving but not limited to energy, transportation, communication, manufacturing, structures, agriculture, computers, etc.
ENGINEERING (civil, mechanical, electrical, software, aerospace, agricultural, chemical, mining, and environmental) is a topic specific to the design/planning of devices, structures, and systems. Different in many way from technology education.
MATH as is currently taught in math classes is a game with numbers. It is mostly devoid of application to science and engineering.
OVER-HYPED because very few elementary teachers can properly teach much beyond nature studies and arithmetic. Which is fine, but don’t advertise it as STEM for 3rd graders.
OVER-HYPED because only a very tiny handful of secondary teachers have the training to properly teach technology or engineering.
The majority of STEM activities have more to do with trial and error problem solving by children who do not have the background knowledge or experience to do it properly. Mostly a well intended sham.
You’re being way too logical Rager!
So many are so caught up in the hype. . .
. . .the hype of marketing, the hype of ad words, of “key” words, words that don’t mean what they mean. . .
. . . wait a minute, now I’m getting into Guiliani territory. . .
. . . it’s the Amurikan way!
Are you trying flip the Giuliani Postulate on its head?
HYPE is HYPE
“On the whole, what is most encouraging is that it is a good model for public education.”
You’ve got that backwards.
I could find many community public schools that would be a good model for his school. . .
. . . before the standards and testing malpractices regimes took hold.
And even now, one only has to look to the middle to upper SES community public school districts to see wonderful models for all of K-12 education.
But, but . . .
. . . we NEED SAVIORS for the CHILDREN. . .
and not just GREAT WHITE HOPE ones (notwithstanding Eva).
We have had the blueprint for successful public schools for decades.
Our colleges and universities, stores, offices, hospitals, courtrooms, schools, factories, farms, and start-ups are filled with the successful graduates of America’s public school system. You can look in the shadows of our cities to find those who were unable or unwilling to follow the blueprint.
Duane,
Note the first four days at I Promise are taken up with ALL DAY MAP TESTING.
What a bummer for the students, eh!
And what an educational stragedy* by the school, eh!
*Stragedy (n.) a strategic tragedy originally thought to be a good move that turns out to be a bone-headed blunder.
While it is too early to judge LeBron’s school, it has several components that will provide support and encouragement to at-risk students. I am impressed that LeBron is willing to invest in the young people of Akron and work with the public schools. Their plan has the capacity to change the trajectory of young people’s lives, and this is music to the ears of this retired teacher.
I agree on the STEM emphasis, but not all of your reasoning and generalizations.
A balanced program of studies in the arts, sciences, and humanities is usually a hallmark of aspiring to excellence in education. Recall that mid-century last, this nation established the National Science Foundation and not long after that the National Endowmnet for the Arts and the National Endowmenet for the Humanities. Unfortunately these programs were never systematically put together with a vision (dare I say) of “high-quality public education and with plenty of opportunities for varied curricula within that broad framework. In that broad framework for thinking about content worth teaching and learning, the three Rs would be instumental to all inquiries along with other tools for thinking, what we now call social skills.
What we have now, thanks to the so-called Common Core and federal legislation, is a lot of indifference to any and all content that does not get into the mandated testts in ELA and Math and the content for Common Core “literacy” crazily categorized and really marginalized.
Meanwhile, STEM appeared in the meme stream, just before the Common Core, with money authorized for STEM late in 2007 as part of “The America Competes Act.” That act was at about the same time that the global economic meltdown was becoming news to members of Congress. I suppose that they thought that the STEM and competition would save the day. What happen then?
We were in “economic recovery” with federal policies rightly ridiculed but no less damaging than Race to the Top, with money shoved into charters and doubling down on test scores as if worthy of worship. STEM was on the menu for education, but in limbo. Then came the Next Generation Science Standards, grudgingly tagged for coordination with the Common Core. The writers were not keen on including Enginnering under the umbrella of studies in the life, physical and earth/space siences, but they did, argably at a token level. In the standards movement, “technology” was primarily conceived of as (a) studies in computer science (with the logic of math embedded in coding) or (b) computer know-how as a pathway in career/vocational training.
In any case, STEM is in, and you are correct that Engineering and Technology have much in common as applied endeavors. You probably know that STEM has been convered to STEAM by arts educators, especially those in secondary education who have long been interested in the various fields of applied design, architecture and environmental design; product, graphic, fashion design; and the so-called media arts, especially motion oriented visual forms (film, streaming digital, TV) . Add to this cornucopia of content the new multimedia field of “experience” design for everthing from the planned sensory appealing experiences in grocery stores to mega-amusements–variants of Disney world. The opportunites for study in this small inventory of arts-related activity is far from comprehensive; add the performing arts, including music, dance, theater, and the literary arts (usually concidered as expressive writing not just informational but also the arts of the spoken word).
In any case, if you want to see some examples of what teachers are thinking and doing under the banner of STEM, take a look at Google’s pull down menue for “images” and typet in the key word STEM or STEAM. What I see is a lot of STEM/STEAM are projects in art that have conventional content rationalized as STEM/STEAM ranging from geometric artwork for math to ceramics, always with some basic links to physics and chemistry and of course the earth sciences. Who knew? Old wine in new bottles.
Here’ is the difference between Technology and Engineering.
You can teach the basic technology (how it works) of a nuclear (fission) power plant to high school students.
You cannot teach a 15 year old how to engineer (design) a nuclear power plant.
Technology and engineering, though closely related, are very different from the standpoint of school subjects for children and adolescents.
If you want to see truly BOGUS engineering standards look no further than the Next Generation Science Standards. The author’s were apparently caught up in the hype of STEM with not enough background knowledge themselves.
Saw some of those next generation science standards for middle school the other day in talking with a young teacher (4th year). Wow, that’s some serious mental masturbation, page after page after page after page after page and on and on and on. All a bunch of gibberish that couldn’t be a guide for anything, much less a teacher. Make it dense jargon filled bullshit and it’ll impress any and all adminimals!
Perfectly stated.
Wait until that young teacher gets a look at the standardized tests that will follow. Here in NYS they will be testing at grades 5 and 8 – and eventually re-writing the science high school Regents exams to comply with NGSS. What an absolute waste of misdirected time, energy, and money.
Agree.
I agree that homogeneous grouping, whether called segregation, tracking, intervention, or otherwise is harmful to all, especially to the most vulnerable. Alternative high schools can provide valuable resources and accommodations, but need to be a last resort. That said, I am still just glad that LeBron’s school is public, not privately and secretively operated by a charter management organization.
Ideally, democracy thrives, the rich pay taxes, and every school, integrated, offers what LeBron does.