John Thompson, historian and retired teacher in Oklahoma, noticed that the Carnegie Unit is under fire. Do you know what a Carnegie Unit is? It’s a measure of time spent learning a subject. Here’s the definition on the website of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching:
The unit was developed in 1906 as a measure of the amount of time a student has studied a subject. For example, a total of 120 hours in one subject—meeting 4 or 5 times a week for 40 to 60 minutes, for 36 to 40 weeks each year—earns the student one “unit” of high school credit. Fourteen units were deemed to constitute the minimum amount of preparation that could be interpreted as “four years of academic or high school preparation.”
Why is this controversial?
John Thompson explains:
I was stunned when reading the opening paragraph of Mike Petrilli’s “Replacing Carnegie Unit Will Spark Battle Royale.” Petrilli is the president of the corporate reform-funded Thomas B. Fordham Institute, with a history of fervent support for Common Core. But now, Petrilli warns of the ways that the Carnegie Foundation’s and Laurene Powell Jobs’ XQ Institute’s competency-based model could open a “Pandora’s Box.” He writes:
The scant coverage of this initiative—and the limited number of players involved—implies that many see this as just a technocratic reform, one that merely seeks to replace “credit hours” with mastery-based approaches to learning. Don’t be mistaken: If it gets traction, this move is likely to spark a battle royale that will make the Common Core wars look like child’s play.
While recognizing the Carnegie Unit – where graduation standards are driven by time in class and credits earned – is flawed, Petrilli correctly argues “we can’t just focus on ‘disrupting’ the current system.” Moreover, he says the heart of this disruptive model would be “a lot more high-stakes testing.”
Petrilli notes that a rapid, digital transformation of schooling “has huge potential upsides for high-achieving students.” Even though Petrilli was one of the true believers in college-readiness who pushed Common Core without, I believe, adequately thinking ahead, he now asks whether they should set the graduation bar “at the ‘college-ready’ level” if that “means denying a diploma to millions of young people who are nowhere near that bar today and not likely to clear it tomorrow?” For instance:
How do we deal with the enormous variation in student readiness upon arrival in high school? Will the new system allow students prepared to tackle advanced material to do so, even if it means further stratification along line(s) of achievement, race, and/or class?
In 2019, Chalkbeat reported on the slow growth and mixed successes and setbacks of Jobs’ innovation schools. Back then, Matt Barnum wrote, “what kinds of change, exactly, XQ wants people to get behind remains unclear to some.” And he quoted Larry Cuban on the number of schools that abandoned the effort, “To have that kind of mortality rate at the end of three years — that would strike me as high given that huge amount of money.”
And, I’d certainly worry about transformative changes, such as those pioneered in Rhode Island, that are “driven” by XQ’s Educational Opportunity Audit (EOA). Given the failure of data-driven reformers’ efforts to create reliable and valid metrics for measuring classroom learning “outputs,” it’s hard to imagine how they could evaluate the learning produced by the large (perhaps limitless?) number of their untested approaches.
I followed the few links to Tulsa’s experiment, under Deborah Gist, to “re-imagine” high schools.” In 2019, the district received $3.5 million for three schools for “Tulsa Beyond,” using a “nationwide high school redesign model,” which was “funded through Bloomberg Philanthropies and XQ Super Schools.” It would be hard to evaluate any reforms’ outcomes during the Covid years and today’s rightwing attacks. But, then again, those reforms were based on the claim that data-driven accountability can do more measurable good than harm.
Only two of the three Tulsa schools have published state “grades” before and after their experiment. Daniel Webster H.S received a “D” in both 2017-2018, and a “D” in 2021-2022. Nathan Hale H.S received an “F” in both years. Again, I don’t have data to make a serious evaluation of the Tulsa reforms, but it is the corporate reformers who have promised a method of evaluating them. And they should carry the burden of proof, as opposed to dumping the costs of failed gambles on students.
Petrilli’s article, and the sources he cited, convinced me that the push to replace the current system without learning the lessons of edu-political history and adequately planning for a post-Carnegie Unit era is extremely worrisome. I checked with another corporate reformer who I have opposed, but also respect, about the lessons of history that mastery-learning advocates should consider. He said, “Nothing ever gets learned.” Given the failed track record of the disruptive change, as well as Petrilli’s advocacy for it, we need to pay attention when he goes on record saying that the under-reported story of “‘multiple pathways’—via multiple diplomas” could create “multiple pitfalls.”
Good morning Diane and everyone,
On a related topic, New York is planning on having multiple pathways for high school graduation – projects, etc. Regents exams may be part of it or not. This was in the news recently here.
What the idea of the Carnegie Unit does is to recognize that time spent on learning is important. Throw that out and you lose so many things that are vital to a real education. Time spent in a class should be time spent with the ideas of a person who has spent considerable time with a body of knowledge. Time to ask questions at a point necessary for deeper understanding. Time to wander down tangential pathways that are not necessarily directly related to immediate subject matter but are vital to the connections that make learning what it can be.
Lose the requirement of time at the risk if all academic society.
Attacking the Carnegie unit is a way to attack traditional human instruction which has allowed the US to produce around 40% of all the Nobel Prize winners and more than 11,000,000 patents. Billionaires do not care about equity and opportunity. Their main priority is making profits, and they view cyber instruction as another way to disrupt traditional instruction and make money. There is zero evidence that cyber instruction is better. In fact, the results of the pandemic and “learning loss” show quite the opposite.
Cyber instruction is less effective, more isolating and more mentally challenging than traditional human instruction in a social setting. Perhaps some older, motivated students may benefit from learning certain subjects on-line, but it is no panacea for public education.
Right, retired teacher. 👍
Every time I read or hear of another reform, I shake my head and sigh. Sad that those hair-brained-notions get traction.
Stupid, stupid, stupid.
Couldn’t have said it better, retired colleague.
Amen, Roy!
Agree.
What the “reformers” don’t mention is that in college, the credit hour or unit of classwork is how students plan their workloads. If one assumes a 45-hour work week for students, a three hour per unit ratio means that student needs to enroll in 15 units of work. Each unit carried a three hour workload with it. So, a three unit class probably meets three times per week for one hour and then the other six hours of work are outside the classroom (reading, writing, study, etc.). One joke, at least for us science types, is that laboratory classes were assumed to have no outside work . . . right!
So, in this manner students can make sure they are taking enough work to fulfill their educational goal. Now even with this system there are other considerations: a unit of Japanese is not as easy as, say, a unit of physical education for most students. So, students need to take into account their own strengths and weaknesses and balance the anticipated workloads when they plan their schedules. (This is why the recommendation of “take all general education classes early and get them out of the way, is sheer madness for science majors. We used those GE classes to blend in with our upper division heartbreaking courses. Not needing as much attention, they provided some relief from the arduous course of our major subjects.
Too many “Eduformers” do not understand this workload measure and just assume that it equates to “seat time” for slackers. It is not. Students who struggle with a topic may need to spend considerably more time than the three hours per unit guideline. And students who want A’s as opposed to C’s need to take the time needed.
We’ve seen what deregulation can do in universal vouchers where parents spend public money on tickets to theme parks or purchasing Legos, and they call it “education.”
NYS is moving toward abandoning the Regents as graduation requirements and toward “project-based assessments,” a major step backwards… kids need internships and courses relevant to the rapidly changing work environment.. AI is moving towards replacing untold millions of workers, let’s not handicap kids further
It would be interesting to see if kids would choose a big project over taking an exam. The Regents exams are 3 hours – you’re done. Students get a LOT of prep in class. And with the scoring it’s pretty tough to fail. Projects will take a lot more time. And…who will oversee these projects??? You can’t just leave kids on their own to complete them. Will this make more work for teachers who are already loaded with work? Lots of questions here.
In the secondary school 25 kids in a class, teaching five classes a day, supervising 125 projects is not viable, maybe stapling the computer chip in the earlobe and directing ChatGBT to take over is our fate
How will this work on the receiving end?
What would I see as an employer — a list of competencies passed? What is the level of detail — every subparagraph standard of Common Core? Who in HR will sort through that for the hiring manager when 100 applications come in?
What would I see as a college admissions officer? Would this be standardized — who would do that? Or would each state/district/high school create its own format? Would colleges ask the high school counselors for the competencies of interest to them?
Mastery education actually prevents learning. If all one has to do is “master” a test or task based on skills, one needs not learn any content. If my students only need to show that they know how to read, they don’t have to read anything after elementary school. They don’t have to learn anything from reading literature.
Laurene Powell-Jobs is the dumbest human being in the history of dumb. Her foundation put out a bunch of TV ads last year saying that if you have a problem communicating your feelings to your mom, don’t talk to Mom; send her a song using your iPod and iMusic from the iTunes store instead. Dumb. XQ is the work of a fool and her paid acolytes.
Hey John. Well said as usual. Be sure you read the letters to the editor of the New York Times. The tide is turning.
Cap