The BBC reports that growing numbers of Chinese children enroll in private schools to escape the testing pressures and to experience creative learning.
Archives for category: International
Sixty Chinese students studied for three weeks in Tacoma public schools. They practiced their English, but they had an unusual experience: they learned independence and creativity.
“In America, the classes are very open, and every person has a different idea,” noted 15-year-old Liu Hui Yu, who adopted an American name, Jennifer, for her visit. “It’s free. I like it.”
“I think the greatest thing I learned in America is their way of studying,” added her friend Jiao Xiao Yuan, also known as Caroline.
“They are not studying for a test, all the way around. They really read books, and they write what they feel about the book.”
Read more here: http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/education/article61799182.html#emlnl=Afternoon_Newsletter#storylink=cpy
Chris Tienkin, a professor at Seton Hall University, analyzed the data from the PISA international tests and concludes that they say more about American society than about American schools.
“Reform” policy makers like Arne Duncan and rightwing pundits like Michelle Rhee have used international scores to criticize and demean public schools and teachers. This tactic began with “A Nation at Risk,” which used the scores to predict the imminent decline of the American economy. It didn’t happen, of course, but the naysayers never stopped blaming the schools for their threat to our future, even as our economy boomed.
The biggest problem for our society is poverty, which affects test scores. But the test scores are the least of what matters. Inequality and poverty threaten our future and blight the lives of millions of Americans. The lucky few live in splendor; the desperate poor live in squalor. Public schools are not responsible for the disparity. At this point in history, the blame lies with the politics of greed.
Andy Hargreaves is a professor at Boston College whose work has won wide recognition, including the 2015 Grawemeyer Award.
In this article, he contrasts the schools of Scotland–which value teacher professionalism and collaboration–with the schools of England, where conservative ideologues have imposed the “business capital model.”
He writes:
Scotland values a strong state educational system run by 32 local authorities that is staffed by well-trained and highly valued professionals who stay and grow in a secure and rewarding job. Teachers serve others, for most or all of their working life, in a cooperative profession that supports them to do this to the best of their abilities.
England no longer values these things. About half of its schools are now outside local authority control. England offers a business capital model that invests in education to yield short-term profits and keep down costs through shorter training, weakened security and tenure, and keeping salaries low by letting people go before they cost too much.
By comparison, Scotland models what is called professional capital: bringing in skilled as well as smart people; training them rigorously in university settings connected to practical environments; giving them time and support to collaborate on curriculum and other matters; and paying them to develop their leadership and their careers so that they can make effective decisions together and deliver better outcomes for young people.
Hargreaves writes that the business model is in retreat: The evidence of high-performing nations such as Canada, Singapore and Finland hasn’t been on its side, and countries like Sweden that followed the free-school business model, and saw their results collapse, are reversing course.
The business model works on three assumptions, none of which improves education or teaching:
First: Teachers are already paid too much. When given the chance, cut their salaries.
Second: Professional development is a waste of time. Better to rely on incentives and sanctions that professional growth.
Third: (Echoing our own Michelle Rhee) Collaboration is greatly overrated. Better to have teachers compete.
Hargreaves asks:
So what is it to be for England: the vanguard or the guard’s van of teacher change? With or without free schools, academies and chains, where does England want its teaching profession to go next – to be one that can make high-quality judgments in an increasingly complex environment, or to be a standardised occupation that is flexible and cheap?
Sounds familiar to American readers, who have seen the same failed and noxious policies imposed here by corporate “reformers,” who don’t give a hoot about teacher morale.
Robin Alexander, head of the Cambridge Primary Review and prominent British educator, learned that the conservative Education Minister wants to bring a US charter leader to run the British school inspectorate, called Ofsted. He was not happy. He knows what corporate reform is, and he doesn’t want their leaders in Britain.
Alexander writes:
“A check on the touted names makes it clear that the search is less about talent than ideology. The reputation of every US candidate in which the Secretary of State is said to be interested rests on their messianic zeal for the universalisation of charter schools (the US model for England’s academies), against public schools (the equivalent of our LA-maintained schools), and against the teaching unions. This, then, is the mission that the government wants the new Chief Inspector to serve.
“Too bad that the majority of England’s primary schools are not, or not yet, academies. Too bad that Ofsted, according to its website, is supposed to be ‘independent and impartial’; and that Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Education, Children’s Services and Skills is required to report to Parliament, not to the political party in power; and that he/she must do so without fear or favour, judging the performance of all schools, whether maintained or academies, not by their legal status or political allegiance but by the standards they achieve and the way they are run. Too bad that on the question of the relative efficacy of academies and maintained schools the jury is still out, though Ofsted reports that while some truly outstanding schools are academies, many are not. And too bad that the teaching unions are legally-constituted organisations that every teacher has a right to join and that, by the way, they have an excellent track record in assembling reliable evidence on what works and what does not.
“When we consider the paragons across the pond who are reportedly being considered or wooed in Morgan’s search for Michael Wilshaw’s successor, mere ideology descends into dangerous folly. One of them runs a charter school chain in which the brutal treatment of young children in the name of standards has been captured on a video that has gone viral. Another leads a business, recently sold by the Murdoch empire (yes, he’s there too), that having failed to generate profits in digital education is now trying to make money from core curriculum and testing. A third is the union-bashing founder of a charter school chain that has received millions of dollars from right-wing foundations and individuals but whose dubious classroom practices have been exposed not just as morally unacceptable but, in terms of standards, educationally ineffective. A fourth, yet again a charter chain leader, has published a proselytising set text for the chain’s teachers tagged ‘the Bible of pedagogy for no-excuses charter schools’ that, according to critics, makes teaching uniform, shallow, simplistic and test-obsessed. Finally, the most prominent member of the group has been feted by American and British politicians alike for ostensibly turning round one of America’s biggest urban school systems by closing schools in the teeth of parental protest, imposing a narrow curriculum and high stakes tests, and making teacher tenure dependent on student scores; yet after eight years, fewer than a quarter of the system’s students have reached the ‘expected standard’ in literacy and numeracy.
“As head of Ofsted, every one of these would be a disaster. As for the US charter school movement for which such heroic individuals serve as models and cheerleaders, we would do well to pay less attention to ministerial hype and more to the evidence. In England we are familiar with occasional tales of financial irregularity and faltering accountability, and of DfE using Ofsted inspections to bludgeon academy-light communities into submission. But this is as nothing compared with the widely-documented American experience of lies, fraud, corruption, rigged student enrolment, random teacher hiring and firing and student misery in some US school districts and charters, all of which is generating growing parental and community opposition. Witness the Alliance to Reclaim Our Schools and this week’s nationwide ‘walk-in’ in defence of public education. Yet the culture that American parents, teachers, children and communities are combining to resist is the one the UK government wishes, through Ofsted, to impose. Ministers believe in homework: have they done their own?”
Bad ideas travel fast. Britain has a conservative government, and its education minister is looking to the US to find a leader for OFSTED.
The Sunday Times, owned by Rupert Murdoch, says that the chief inspectorate should be a charter leader.
Eva Moskowitz? Chris Barbic? Joel Klein? Kevin Huffman? Michelle Rhee?
Take your pick.
Edward Fiske, former education editor of the New York Times, and Helen Ladd, distinguished professor of economics at Duke University, recently spent a month in London studying two successful low-income districts. Since they live in North Carolina, they were well aware of that state’s recent plunge into charter schools, vouchers, and a district composed of the state’s lowest performing schools.
They drew several lessons from what they saw. First, the schools were well funded.
But what impressed them most was the district-wide approach to school improvement.
They write:
“The power of districtwide strategies. Leaders in both Hackney and Tower Hamlets adopted areawide strategies to improve student outcomes. Rather than focusing on a handful of low-performing schools, they sought to strengthen the overall capacity of the borough to serve all children in the area. They established a culture of cooperation and mutual responsibility in which strong schools helped weaker ones, headteachers (principals) and teachers collaborated across schools and borough leaders were able to deploy resources flexibly and efficiently in order to minimize any systemic inequities.
“The area-wide approaches that we observed in London contrast sharply with school improvement strategies in the U.S. that focus on improving a few isolated schools while ignoring the broader needs of districts as a whole. Likewise, the London approach is antithetical to having charter schools function as independent entities with no stake in the overall success of the districts in which they are embedded.
“The concept of areawide reform strategies is gaining attention in the U.S. in the form of proposals that would put groups of struggling schools under centralized management. Analysis of the London Effect suggests that these will be successful only to the extent that they exist in geographically coherent areas united by a coherent vision shared by all relevant stakeholders. “Innovation zones” set up by local school boards as part of a districtwide strategy could fit this bill. “Achievement districts” consisting of a hodge podge of geographically disparate low-performing schools under state control most certainly would not.”
They were also impressed with the accountability system, which rely more on helpful inspection than on standardized testing. Also, they acknowledged the importance of programs tailored to help the children with the greatest needs.
Is North Carolina willing to learn from the lessons of London? Unfortunately, the North Carolina learns from ALEC, not research.
Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/op-ed/article60118256.html#storylink=cpy
William Doyle is a 2015-2016 Fulbright Scholar and award-winning New York Times bestselling author and TV producer from New York City.
I have seen the School of Tomorrow.
It is a place where children and teachers are safe and happy.
It is a school where children are encouraged to be children, to play, to daydream, to laugh, to struggle and fail, to assess themselves and each other, to question and learn.
It is a school where teachers test their students every day, not with low-quality standardized tests or faceless screens, but with constant face-to-face observations and teacher-designed assessments.
It is a school where teachers are highly trained, treasured and respected, and given the freedom to teach at their best.
It is a school where teachers collaborate and experiment with ways to help their students learn better.
It is a place where technology is the servant, not master.
It is a school where children are prepared for life, not only with the fundamentals of language, math and science, but with play, arts and crafts, drama, music, ethics, home skills, nature, physical activity, social and emotional support, warmth and encouragement.
It is part of a school system that delivers world-class educational results and educational equity to hundreds of thousands of children.
I have worked at this school. I have watched my own child learn and play there.
I have seen the school of tomorrow.
It is here today, on the top of the world, at the edge of Europe’s biggest national forest.
How did I, a lifelong New Yorker, wind up living on the edge of the Western world in Joensuu, Finland, the last, farthest-east major city in the EU before you hit the guard towers of the Russian border?
In 2012, while helping civil rights hero James Meredith write his memoir, we interviewed a panel of America’s greatest education experts and asked them for their ideas on improving America’s public schools.
One expert, the famed Professor Howard Gardner of the Harvard University Graduate School of Education, told us, “Learn from Finland, which has the most effective schools and which does just about the opposite of what we are doing in the United States.” After researching this unusual idea, I eventually decided I had to give my own now-eight-year old child a public school experience in what may be the most child-centered, most evidence-based, and most effective primary school system in the world.
As a Fulbright Scholar, I “embedded” myself in the Finnish public school system, and taught university courses on media and education at the University of Eastern Finland as a lecturer. And I observed classes at my son’s elementary school, the teacher training school at the university.
Now, after watching Finnish educators in action for five months, I have come to realize that Finland’s historic achievements in delivering educational excellence and equity to its children are the result of a national love of childhood, a profound respect for teachers as trusted professionals, and a deep understanding of how children learn best.
Children at Finnish public schools are given not only basic subject instruction, but learning-through-play-based preschools and kindergartens, training in second languages, arts, crafts, music, physical education, ethics, and, amazingly, as many as four 15 minute outdoor free-play breaks per day, no matter how cold or wet the weather is.
Educators and parents here believe that these breaks are a powerful engine of learning that improves almost all the “metrics” that matter most for children in school, including test scores.
Some of my favorite Finnish sayings on education are: “Let children be children,” and “Children must play,” and “The work of a child is to play.”
With a “whole child” approach, by highly training and trusting teachers, keeping a strong focus on educational equity and collaboration, and not wasting time and money on mass standardized testing and other ideas with little evidence to support them, Finland has flown to the stratosphere of global performance. When you factor in the fact that Finland’s children spend less time in school and less time doing homework than most other developed nations, one could argue that Finland has the world’s most efficient school system.
American politicians and philanthropists are spending, or are about to spend, vast fortunes on trying to develop “scalable” education reforms that can transform and improve American public schools.
I have a suggestion for anyone who wants to improve children’s education. Start by coming to Finland. Spend some time in Finnish schools, talking to Finnish educators, students and parents.
If you look closely, you may see the School of Tomorrow.
William Doyle is a 2015-2016 Fulbright Scholar and award-winning New York Times bestselling author and TV producer from New York City.
He co-produced the hit 2014 PBS documentary film special NAVY SEALS: THEIR UNTOLD STORY, and earlier served as Director of Original Programming and producer and writer for HBO and A&E networks. He has written 12 non-fiction books.
As a political commentator and expert on the American presidency and American history, he is a frequent guest on CNN, National Public Radio and Fox News.
Last year he was awarded a prestigious Fulbright Scholar grant and traveled to Finland with his family to study its world-renowned school system and joined the faculty of the University of Eastern Finland in Joensuu to lecture on “The Schools of Tomorrow” and the future of global media.
William Doyle’s article in the Helsinki Times:
The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), which oversees the Program in International Student Assessment (PISA), has released a lengthy study comparing the nations that take the PISA test.
The conclusions of the report confirm what almost everyone knows: the students with the lowest test scores are those who live in poverty, those who have an immigrant background, and those who live in a single-parent home (which is usually a female parent, who usually lacks the income to support the family). These findings are not surprising.
How does the US compare? Apparently there have been no changes in reading scores since 2003—despite No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top and their heavy emphasis on reading and math. There were some gains in science, which is surprising since science was not a priority subject for either of the big federal programs.
So how does the U.S. stack up when it comes to low-performing students? Here are the results from the 2012 PISA exam – the most recent date it was administered:
In math, 26 percent of students were low performers compared with the OECD average of 23 percent.
In reading, 17 percent were low performers compared with the OECD average of 18 percent.
In science, 18 percent were low performers compared with the OECD average of 18 percent.
And 12 percent were low performers in all three subjects compared with the OECD average of 12 percent.
Notably, the share of low performers in math and in reading in the U.S. has not changed since the 2003 PISA test, but the share of low performers in science decreased by about 6 percentage points between 2000 and 2012….
Internationally, the study found that:
The probability of low performance in math, for example, is higher for students if they are socioeconomically disadvantaged, female, have an immigrant background, speak a different language at home from the language of instruction, live in a single-parent family, attend school in a rural area, have not attended preschool, have repeated a grade or have enrolled in a vocational program.
What conclusions does Andreas Schleicher, the director of PISA, reach?
One facet could be increasing access to early childhood education, through which “countries have been able to really make a big difference,” Schleicher said. Other policies that have had a big impact on student achievement include improving training and professional development for teachers and boosting the rigor of academic standards.
“The U.S. recently adopted the Common Core,” Schleicher said of the academic benchmarks being used in more than 40 states and the District of Columbia. “That has happened in many countries, and we can actually see a big impact on this.”
In what way will the increased “rigor of academic standards” help low-income students who are already far behind? How will it help students who live in single-parent homes, or homes where no one speaks the local language? Will Common Core reduce poverty or change the circumstances of children’s lives? I wish he would explain his logic.
The new Minister of Education in Liberia made a deal with the for-profit Bridge International Academies to supply elementary education. The company’s investors include Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg. (NEA is an investment company, not the teachers’ union.)
“The Minister who has been serving the position for less than a year instead of helping to fix has turned to outsourcing reform in the sector to a private institution with negotiations ongoing for the private entity to manage the primary and early childhood education for a period of five years. Bridge Academies which runs education projects in Kenya and Uganda has record of using android mobile phones in providing classroom lessons to pupils.
“Under the Bridge Academies project, the notes and other lectures materials are stored on an android mobile phone and the teachers use the phones to teach, a method where the teacher does not have to be sophisticated to teach. The institution charges US$6 per student per month in Uganda and Kenya as part of its project and also charges other fees for feeding and others. Some in Kenya and Uganda believe that $6 plus other charges by Bridge Academies is a lot of money for the millions in the two countries. In Uganda, many say the amount requires poor Ugandan families with many children to borrow in order to keep all their children in school or to choose which child goes to school.
“Despite charging fees, the World Bank through its sector investment arm, the International Finance Corporation (IFC) invested US$10 million in Bridge Academies in 2014 in order to increase the number of Bridge schools in the country and expand to three countries including Uganda. The IFC also approved a loan of US$4.1 million to Merryland High School, a private, fee-charging secondary school in Entebbe, Uganda in December 2014.
“Bridge continues to get criticisms from the Governments of both Kenya and Uganda for its method of using Android mobile phones to teach students where most of the teachers used only use what is placed on the phone as Bridge resulted to using teachers who are not qualified to teach since the teaching materials are placed on a phone and the teacher only needs to teach what is available. The entity teaching method is seen in the two countries as discouraging the employment of qualified teachers who will interact with the students while teaching instead of using fixed materials downloaded on a mobile phone.
“Current Education Minister Werner whom many described as reformer, instead of working to revamp the education sector, took off time visiting East Africa mainly Kenya and Uganda where he started negotiations for Bridge to come to Liberia and manage the primary education sector on a private-public partnership program. FrontPageAfrica has gathered that Bridge officials are in Liberia to conclude arrangement for a pilot project of the first 50 schools to begin using the Bridge project beginning school year 2016-17.
“As part of the project the PPP providers will design their programmes (curriculum materials, etc., from April to September 2017 while phase two will rollout contracting out the remaining schools over 5 years, with government exit possible each year dependent on provided performance- September 2017 onwards. Eventually the Ministry of Education is aiming to contract out all primary and early childhood education schools to private providers who meet the required standards over 5 year period. According to the tentative timeline the by February/March 2016 the memorandum of Understanding for the pilot 50 schools will be signed and by September 2016, the first 50 schools launch, with baselines and performance measures.”
