By Cary L. Tyler

I have heard it for years from good students as well as struggling students:  High school can be tedious, course work forced, and the biggest complaint, the pace is either too fast or not fast enough.

Here we are, 2012, and surrounded by the greatest ability to provide differentiated (individualized) instruction via teachers and teacher use of technology, as well as resources such as Khan Academy, TedED and You Tube for Educators, but we still have ninth grade, tenth grade, eleventh grade, and twelfth grade.

Why not focus on ability-based education? Some Detroit schools are looking at this for their failing schools, but I am advocating that this happen for all schools. Schools in Colorado, Alaska and Maine have also trended in this direction.  Research and practice has already shown that it is more efficient than our current approach.

[Aside: Kansas City tried this approach with five of their elementary schools in 2010, but had to abandon it this year as they admitted it conflicted with their accreditation period and also their superintendent took off just after implementing the system.]

Yes, the initial argument is indeed valid: Switching to an ability-based environment would be a major shift in how we view education.

Some worry that all educators may be doing is throwing kids in front of computer screens and hope it all works out. Others may fear that the lower skilled student could receive even less support, or that high schools lose their talented students early and thus miss their chance at extracurricular successes that may occur in the senior year.

However, including the initial reaction from my own former students on Facebook concerning this question, the needs of our students outweigh the current functionality of our high schools (and perhaps, even our K-8 institutions).

As a parent told me recently, just like athletes do not master certain sport skills at the same time as others, neither do students of the same age master curriculum and concepts at the same time. Even honors students do not progress in the same fashion. For example, I excelled in English and history (even with my bounce-off-the-walls personality), but math killed me. I did not have time to master it before the teacher moved to the next chapter, and the cascading effect damaged my grade point average.

I ended up hating math by my junior year, and it also affected my ACT score and thus, I paid more for college than I might have had I the option to slow down and get reinforcement of my math skills.

One of my former colleagues brought up a good point:  Eliminating the grade levels, especially at the high school setting, might compromise maturity and social growth. However, I am also seeing seniors make more and more maturity and social growth mistakes because of their frustration and boredom; mistakes that can not only damage their future aspirations, but in the short term do social damage that today’s Facebook/Twitter generation will not soon let someone forget.

However, let the high school athlete or drama student go to a fourth year of high school, but instead of worrying about credits, let the college come to them. Let 101 classes become the norm, or provide options for students to take trade courses.

By going to a mastery system, maybe more students will graduate actually knowing something than “D means diploma”. Eliminate the “D” and instead require students to master a subject. If it takes four years, fine. If a student is bright enough to finish in three, more power to them.

To paraphrase a 70s TV show: We have the ability; we have the technology to better educate our students, better allocate our resources, and also better respond to the ever changing needs of these kids if we break free of an antiquated system.

It will not be an easy change, but it is one that does not require that much of a mess. Start at the high school level and, without necessarily changing requirements, begin allowing students more choices (online/college/trade as well as on campus courses) to complete their high school education and prepare for post-secondary approaches.  Advance students academically, but also provide social counseling to those who want to move on but may not be as prepared as parents, teachers, or the child would like to be to make that transition.

Additional links concerning mastery:

• http://www.knewton.com/blog/knewton/adaptive-learning/2011/11/18/5-myths-about-mastery-based-learning/
• http://thejournal.com/articles/2011/08/10/beyond-seat-time-advancing-proficiency-based-learning.aspx

by Cary L. Tyler

It is increasingly obvious that, for some reason or another, while people may be able to read a book, they may not be able to understand what they are reading, or are intentionally oblivious to what they are reading.

The recent controversies and conversations regarding the book and movie Hunger Games have disturbed me, but what also is troubling me is that people are allegedly reading these books, yet are stunned with what they have seen on screen.

Credit: Teen.com

The skin color of the character Rue was never a question in Suzanne Collins’ novel, yet there were people who were stunned that Rue was actually black. But it did not stop there.

Credit Lionsgate Pictures

Apparently some members of the media felt that Jennifer Lawrence’s body did not match their perception of the novel. Here is an excerpt from an ABC News blog. In it, they quote The New York Times as saying: “A few years ago Ms. Lawrence might have looked hungry enough to play Katniss, but now, at 21, her seductive, womanly figure makes a bad fit for a dystopian fantasy about a people starved into submission.”

Really?  While the article is referring to the psychological damage this kind of conversation can have, there is another problem here. Did anyone actually read the book?

Lawrence’s character, Katniss Everdeen, would not be emaciated. She hunts and provides for her family and also for others in District 12 as best as possible. She is routinely in the woods surrounding her home and is healthy enough to be able to contend with the “careers”.

In addition, if one actually read the book, the Capitol makes sure that the 24 contenders are well fed and strong so that the actual event is that much more “fun” to watch. It is safe to say, given the technology the Capitol possesses, that each of the tributes not only are getting plenty of food, but also plenty of nutrients that would quickly get these characters ready for the robust, brutal nature of the Hunger Games.

This is embarrassing. Teachers are expected to be educating students on analyzing literature not only for academic purposes but for recreational ones as well. I suspect my former and current students, if they paid attention for even nine weeks, will be shaking their heads in disbelief as I have at recent events. It has never been in my realm to teach to a test. I want my students to know HOW to read. Words on paper are useless if they are not going to be properly understood.

I sincerely hope that in the rush to standardized testing we have not allowed too many of a generation to only have a cursory understanding of what they read and watch. If this is the case, then the manipulators out there will have received a morbid blessing. Their job will be so much easier in the near future, because they will not have to worry about someone catching subtle yet important nuances in their contrived discourse.

This is especially the case when too many “readers” do not catch important information that is sitting right in front of them.

Additional reading: Check out this post from the New Yorker on the issue of race in the Hunger Games: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/books/2012/03/hunger-games-and-trayvon-martin.html?mbid=social_mobile_tweet

Are we paying for an institution or an education when we attend college?

This query is growing in light of educational concepts such as TED, Khan Academy, technologies such as the iPad and better online access and instruction, and powerful oratories on change, including Seth Godin’s self-proclaimed manifesto on education called Stop Stealing Dreams.  Almost daily now, the “norm” for education is considered questionable at best, antiquated at the least.

It has been easy to go after K-12 instruction: No Child Left Behind and standardized test failure issues are like shooting into a bucket at point blank range, but thanks to increased and improving online instruction and academic uses of technology plus allegations of grade inflation and rising college costs in the last ten to fifteen years, the post-secondary approach to education is now also falling into increased scrutiny.

MIT and Stanford have not made the criticisms easier: Take Stanford’s latest approach to education, in which Sebastian Thrun collaborated with another professor turned Google director of research (Peter Norvig) and put a course on artificial intelligence online for anyone to take. Although one could only get a certificate for the course, 20,000 students took the midterm and are doing weekly assignments.

For further reading of Stanford’s approach: http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/03/ff_aiclass/all/1

Godin then shifted to the current university system: “Schools are facing the giant crash of education loans and the inability of the typical student to justify a full-fare education. It will be just a few years after most courses are available digitally—maybe not from the school itself, but calculus is calculus. At that point, either schools will be labels, brand names that connote something to a hiring manager, or they will be tribal organizers, institutions that create teams, connections, and guilds.”

I have longed felt that universities have overextended themselves. Too many classes are taken yet most of the important knowledge has been gained via internships, apprenticeships, and other real-world training exercises. Keep in mind that I went straight into teaching from journalism: I did not have one education class when I started at Van Buren Middle School in Albuquerque in the fall of 1991.

The only thing I had was desire and the memory of what worked for my teachers. I was also blessed by a principal who believed I had the talent (Gary Hocevar) and he promptly surrounded me with veteran teachers. I learned on the fly. I still had to take classes, but the classes made more sense while on the job than if I had taken them in isolation. I was quickly able to throw away the useless and the ridiculous.

Thanks to Stanford, MIT, TED, and well developed online classes, it is increasing obvious to people seeking a real and meaningful education that there are too many useless and ridiculous things about the post-secondary environment (for example, most adult learners past 25 really do not care or have time for fraternities and sororities or other social settings the 18-21 year old might yearn for, and also do not have the resource to potential waste on pre-requisites that often are not pre-requisites but fill university belief systems).

In recent courses at Boise State, I have learned about the push toward more real-world instruction in education and how powerful learning comes from practical application. Artificial intelligence and how it can be used in the world is a rapidly growing concept, and those in the field cannot wait for a chance to apply for school and for financial aid or for an opening in the course. They need or want a fresh and/or new approach now, and Stanford provided one.

There are also apparently a large number of people who love to learn simply because of the love of education, but again are willing to exclude the name of an institution, and the costs, and take a class for free.

This will not work across the board (I hope to discuss this later this spring), as we have way too many students who do not possess with the ability and/or the skills to be independent learners and need the structure colleges can provide. However, it is time to rethink what is required to get an undergraduate and graduate degree. Let’s cut the extraneous and focus more on real-time and real-world application.

Again the question: Are four years really needed, or are students simply paying for a system, instead of an education?