|
Home > Fall Forum > 1999
Conversation to Collective Action
Amy Gerstein's Remarks
1999 Fall Forum
We are living in times where faster always seems better. Lately, I am annoyed
when email isn't working and I have to fax something–let alone put it in
the mail. As educators we know this impulse to go faster far too well. While it
may be better for some things to happen faster (creating a master schedule, tracking
a budget), it is worse for other things to happen faster (project-based instruction,
examining student work). From my vantage point, what is perhaps most pernicious
about this era of faster is better are the expectations for school change. That
we can "turn around a school" in a matter of months. That we can see
within one-year significant improvement in student achievement almost immediately.
We know that substantial change takes time.
To compound this craze of quick fixes we are also living in a time of simple
measures. Most of the public actually believes that simple measures, like standardized
test scores, are an accurate and robust indicator of student learning. Everyone
in this room knows that these scores do provide some helpful information–but
we also know that these scores provide limited information at best. There is,
as some evaluation experts call, a kind of "numbers lust" that characterizes
our work. If we can't reduce the effects to numbers then we can't demonstrate
improvement. The stakes are getting higher all the time. If we don't show quick
fixes by these simple measures, our jobs are at stake and our students may not
graduate.
You all know this. I won't take time to paint the picture in more detail. We're
living in it.
For 15 years we have concentrated on pursuing our Common Principles, on finding
creative and honest ways to honor our values. For 15 years we have worked on the
basis of what we know in our bones --that the status quo was not good enough,
that the most outstanding effects for students and for teachers are found in places
where most, if not all, of the Common Principles are fully expressed. For all
of our professional lives we have known that most of the common measures the education
community tends to rely on are woefully inadequate in describing what we care
most about in our students–their habits of mind and heart.
The research on CES schools has drawn rich portraits of our schools and of
the change process. CES researchers have written thick descriptions–have
painted textured accounts of a teacher transforming her practice or a school transforming
its culture. Research on our schools described the dilemmas of moving toward authentic
assessments and the fatigue that often accompanies our bold practice.
It takes time to describe how we have changed the culture of our school from
one where we complained all the time to one where we talk together about student
learning. It takes time to explain the significance of a student arriving 90 minutes
before the first bell or of another who stays late in the library.
Much of the research succeeded beautifully in giving a fuller picture of what
our kids learn. From Ted Sizer's Horace trilogy to the pictures of authentic
assessments drawn by Joe McDonald, to the detailed descriptions of the lives of
students in Pat Wasley's Kids and School Reform or Deborah Meier's The
Power of Their Ideas. CES publications like HORACE and our many books and
case studies provide persuasive evidence that our students use their minds well.
These studies have been quite helpful to all of us. Sometimes they helped us
feel like we weren't crazy. Sometimes they provided a road map highlighting pot
holes to avoid. Often these stories gave us a sense of what the journey looks
like.
Our research did not, however, emphasize student achievement effects in terms
of standardized tests–not because there aren't any but because describing
how our students demonstrate using their minds well deserves rich detail…not
simple numbers.
As powerful as these complex portraits have been, we need to describe our work
in simpler terms. We have not done that systematically.
We need both rich portraits and simple, easily understood measures. Because
we need to tell the public in terms they can recognize and absorb quickly. A combination
gives complex measures (like case studies) and simple measures (like standardized
tests) a more complete portrait to reflect on and boast about.
When you arrived here this evening, you received in your packet a tremendously
important document Principles at Work. Don't look for it now. I need you
to pay attention to what I want to say. Check it out later. The CES National
staff has just completed a major effort to collect and analyze data from 49 "high
implementing" schools. What's "high implementing" and who determines
that? These are schools which either volunteered or were recommended to share
the results of their work because they have implemented all or most of the Common
Principles. They do not represent the entirety of the high implementing schools
in our network. There are plenty of others. But they do represent an impressive
slice of our Coalition–almost 42,000 ethnically diverse students.
Tonight I am enormously proud to describe what we have learned. You will notice
that the evidence I'm describing is in the terms that our various audiences need–common
measures and snapshots. These findings give us some powerful evidence. And they
also raise a number of important questions.
First, our schools are small and safe.
CES schools in this sample are small. Smaller than the national average. While
nationally, only 17% of elementary schools have 350 or fewer students, 47% of
CES elementary schools have 350 or fewer students. 31% of the nation's high schools
have 900 or fewer students as compared with 52% of ours. Not all of our schools
started out small–they made some hard choices to get that way.
School size is a necessary ingredient for knowing our students well–for
creating environments where students solve conflicts through talk rather than
violence. Because they are smaller, our schools are safer.
Nationally, crime incidents are reported at an average of 1,000 per 100,000
students. In high implementing CES schools, our rate is 15 per 100,000 students.
Our schools are safe.
We know, that when students and adults feel safe, powerful learning can take
place. When schools are a safe haven and a refuge from the violence that occurs
in our society, we can create the context for rich learning. Creating safe schools
is fundamental to who we are. Because we have Principles which call for a tone
of decency and knowing our students well.
While all over the country, schools are investing in metal detectors, high
tech security systems and guards-- our schools have long invested in knowing the
students well enough to provide the kind of community where students are safe
and cared for. This is true of all kinds of CES schools–rich, poor, urban,
suburban, and rural.
Every time I visit CES schools, I'm struck by the ways in which the students
describe what it is like to be known. How they can't be absent from school without
the phone ringing - how they aren't allowed to slip by with low quality work or
tardy behavior.
In addition to being safe places where the teachers and students know each
other well, our high implementing schools have caring, competent and qualified
teachers. I'm proud to say this room tonight is full of teachers who exemplify
these qualities. This Fall Forum will give us all an opportunity to see how true
that is. Each and every workshop and roundtable will be compelling evidence of
that!
Lets look at some more numbers–about our teachers
In these schools, resources are devoted to teaching and learning–just
as our 9th Principle calls for. This is evident by looking at the percentage
of total staff who is teachers. The national percentage of total staff who is
teachers is 52%, whereas in our sample, 80% of the entire staff are teachers.
This represents an effective allocation of resources allowing students to be known
well. We know that these numbers indicate tough choices that had to have been
made in the design of these schools.
Our 8th Principle, which calls on teachers to be generalists has
not compromised how well prepared our teaching corps is. This is important because
research correlates teachers' academic preparation with student success. When
you compare the national percentage of teachers who have a degree in the subjects
they teach with the CES sample, the difference is stark. 75% in US high schools
as compared with 98% in CES high schools.
But let me paint a more detailed picture of these caring, committed, and qualified
CES teachers. Recently I visited a school, grades K-8. I could tell many stories
about the impressive instruction I saw, or the innovative curriculum, or the close
collegial relationships I witnessed throughout the day. Instead, I'd like to tell
you about an after school meeting I walked in on. Apparently, the upper grade
teachers and administrators had been working on developing a rubric which described
the developmental stages of mathematical learning. When I walked into the room,
they were analyzing one student's learning–two of the teachers were describing
how he appeared to master different mathematical concepts. He didn't fit neatly
into one category or level. The whole group compared his work with examples of
other kids' work. They sorted the work. They dragged out more work. They struggled
to define a "1" or a "2" or a "3" on their rubric.
I was frankly amazed at how long they struggled with this. I was also impressed
with how they kept invoking the parents and the students, "how can we explain
these concepts to parents?" And "how can we explain them to students?"
Rather than beginning with a set of external standards, or quickly assigning
grades and moving on, they were creating standards by beginning with their knowledge
of the students and their families. They used outside standards as a guide and
resource. And they used the students they knew well to help them build a tool
to use with students, parents, and each other to guide and assess mathematical
thinking.
This is just one story of the caring, competent, and qualified teachers we
know make up our Coalition. These teachers help our students achieve at high levels.
At this year's Fall Forum we are fortunate to have over 200 students in attendance.
Our students will be leading workshops, performing, and serving on our Fall Forum
evaluation team. As we listen and watch we will see what they know and can do.
Now, I'm going to share some data about student achievement. Those of you who
know me well may be shocked that I am touting these numbers. But I do this proudly–these
data matter to our students, to our public and to us. But as I share the numbers,
I will ask you this question: do these data tell us what we want to know? The
central reason we created Principles at Work was to be able to demonstrate
to the public that CES students achieve at high levels. These statistics describe
common measures–because that is what the public asks for. But we know these
measures are insufficient in describing the results of the new ways of working
that our schools have developed. Many of the schools who participated in this
survey provided not only these common measures, but also descriptions of the exhibitions
and performance assessments they have created and used. They told us that the
numbers didn't sufficiently describe their work. So, let me describe a bit about
just how our students are outperforming their peers on a variety of significant
measures.
You can see that nationally, 65% of students enroll in 2 or 4-year colleges
as compared with 74% of CES students.
The national average for the sat is a combined score of 1016 whereas CES students
average 1048.
Our students, K-12, outperform their peers on a variety of district, state,
and national standardized tests in math and literacy. The national average in
literacy is 47% compared with the CES average of 54%. In math, the national average
is 51% and the CES average is 55%.
These scores are not, ultimately, where we want to be–they are not good
enough, but the average score of our diverse schools is higher than the national
norms.
Nationally, only 25% of 8th graders take Algebra, whereas the average
percentage of CES 8th graders taking Algebra is 40%. This data point
is a popular indicator of academic success and opportunities. Many studies show
how 8th grade students enrolled in Algebra are more likely to reach
high level math in high school and therefore apply to 4-year colleges than those
students who did not. This statistic is a great example of the dilemma I referred
to earlier–because these numbers don't tell us what or how students are learning
algebraic concepts. Nor do they suggest what kind of mathematical reasoning these
8th graders are capable of. But many people never ask these questions.
Again, let me be clear. While I am enormously proud of how our students are
doing, I am equally troubled that the context has pushed us to represent student
learning in these ways. As we collect data in simple terms, lets remember, these
data tell only part of the story. We have more complex and sophisticated stories
to tell as well. There are snapshots of 4 schools described in Principles at
Work, and 10 more in the current issue of HORACE but we could have had hundreds.
The good news is that so many of CES' publications and case studies paint the
textured portraits that our work demands and deserves.
The students I met in a recent set of visits to CES schools demonstrated to
me more about the important habits of mind and heart than these numbers do. Their
curiosity, commitment, moxie, and intellect shines through. Sitting with a group
of five and six year olds I was pummeled with questions. "Whose mother are
you?" "Why are you here?" "What will you learn from us?"
"What are your hobbies?" "Why aren't you teaching?" These
were self-possessed inquisitive kids. We had a great conversation and a lot of
giggles.
Sitting with a group of high school kids, I was basically ignored. But they
weren't insulting me. They were too involved in their work. They were in the middle
of a complex chemistry experiment. After two days the results were not what they
had predicted. Frustrated but persistent--they consulted their books and other
lab groups. When asked, they explained their hunches about their experiment. They
could also tell me why they were studying solubility and how it connected to the
bigger questions they were pursuing.
I'm glad whenever I visit our schools because there I see the most powerful
evidence that the Common Principles improve the lives of children. While visits
can provide better evidence–Principles at Work will really make a
difference for this whole network. It will help us all say "here's the payoff
for the slow fundamental transformation–here are the results that CES schools
enjoy–all across the country."
Tonight, to build on these results, I'm calling for collective action. I am
calling for each of us to take our conversation among friends into the next stage–a
stage where our movement seizes the opportunity to stand for what we believe matters
most–creating schools where each and every student uses his or her mind well.
I want the conversation among friends to grow into collective action among colleagues.
In the face of critics who challenge our approach in favor of quick fixes and
easily measured results we need to take collective action to make the results
of our work exceedingly accessible and public.
We can take action in our most immediate sphere of influence - our classrooms,
our schools, our districts, our communities–and then collectively, our movement
can organize to transform state and national policies to design better schools
for kids.
We have many different audiences that need to learn about the results of our
work. Each of these audiences needs different kinds of evidence and different
kinds of messages. We have lots of evidence–both a combination of common
and uncommon measures. Some measures we will be able to show quickly, and others
will unfold over time. We need to be strategic about who needs which kinds of
evidence. In some circumstances we may need to be persuasive and fast–in
others we may need to be reflective and deliberative. Each of us can do this.
Each of us must do this.
Let me walk through a few examples.
Time and again I hear from schools that tell me that their district or school
board is challenging their approach. Whether it is because the schedule accommodates
a late start one day a week for common planning; or because they have reallocated
resources to add more teachers; or because the curriculum is interdisciplinary
and doesn't neatly correspond to state frameworks. By the time I hear about these
battles–they are usually over. Ask yourselves, what kinds of evidence might
persuade this specific audience? Just like assessing student work, we need multiple
forms of evidence. Principles at Work is an excellent start. But also,
bring in some student work. Have folks examine the fruits of the curriculum. Use
local and national data to demonstrate what works to our district colleagues.
Another common tale I hear–how do we involve parents more in the substantive
work of this school? Why not invite parents to help examine student work. Many
of us already do a bit of this. We know that looking at student work is an important
check on our instructional goals. Are the students learning what we were hoping
they were learning? By involving parents we might just be able to enroll them
in significant ways and help us deepen our work. By involving parents we just
might have the person power to do some analysis that is too hard to do on the
fly. With parents on board we just might, for example, be able to look for patterns–like
common mistakes students are making; or examples that define the developmental
process of writing.
If your parents need convincing that these Principles work–not only will
examining student work help–but so will this document. You can collect the
same kinds of data and make a local case for your work.
Sometimes, for some audiences–maybe our very own colleagues-- we need
to tell our story with richness and detail. Whether or not you think you have
exemplary data -- talk it up. Talk about test scores. Then talk about significant
projects your students have completed. Talk about student and teacher attendance.
Then describe your staff meetings. Tell all about how students and teachers interact.
Talk about a student who surprised you - talk about another who inspired you.
Talk about how you, yourself have changed your practice. Describe how complex,
slow, and rewarding this work is. Tell your colleagues, with compelling data,
about the habits of mind your students demonstrate. These data and the rich descriptions
of innovative practice will help us learn and improve–collectively.
Here is another reason to take collective action to make the results of our
work accessible and public. We need to track and tune our work. We have an obligation
to check, in a systematic way, to insure that our strategies are improving student
achievement. We have an obligation to adopt an inquiry stance–just as we
want our kids to do in our classrooms. When we check our own work we can tune
it. What kind of evidence will help with that? Use common and uncommon measures.
Look at test scores, look at student and teacher attendance. Record the usage
pattern of the library and media center. Analyze the data for patterns. Are all
of our students improving achievement equally well? Or are some kids consistently
falling behind? Assess our exhibitions–are they measuring what we most hope
for?
At CES National we plan to go public with Principles at Work–and
we hope you will too. We will continue to analyze these data for patterns. We
will collect more data. We will look for relevant trends. We will launch a new
research agenda to correlate student achievement with the Common Principles. We
will use these data to design professional development. We will use these data
to help raise money to advance this work. We will use these data to promote our
goals and values. But we will also use our case studies. We will also tell our
stories.
Our coalition has the capacity to do fantastic work for our students. Our movement
is significant because of our commitments and our track record. These are Principles
that work. It is precisely the enactment of these Common Principles which helps
insure successful lives for our children. I have always believed and now I know
from our collective evidence that practicing all of the Principles helps redress
the inequities of our society. That knowing our students well, supporting and
challenging them to meet exceedingly high expectations and demonstrating the results
of our work is our best shot at making a significant difference for kids. This
difference depends on us helping the public, and our colleagues, understand what
it looks like when students are learning and achieving at high levels. We need
to take collective action to make the results of our work public because unless
we do we will allow the quick fixes and simple measures to define success and
limit opportunities for students. Our power lies in our collective action. Together
we will continue to show the world that our Principles and our work make a powerful
difference for our children.
Thank you.
Page last updated: May 15, 2002
|
printer version
