The answer
to all education problems, ( including violence ) SMALL Smart
Stable Schools
Make PORTALS
your home page and use "wiredbrain" password "synergy" for set-up start
pages.
MSN now does the best search
Social
ergonomics
Global Village Schools two
GLOBAL VILLAGE SCHOOLS GVE02
Schools Reborn, a review
We start with three
books.
People serious about teaching and learning should read:
Smart Schools, Smart Kids Why do some Schools Work
by Edward B. Fiske.
The Age of Unreason
, Charles Handy
The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People
by
Stephen
R. Covey
Real people, real schools:
We have 15,000 school boards and committees.
They oversee 60,000 schools for 55 million students. About a fourth of students are in different schools or districts by the end of each year there has been a 25 % turnover. In some places it’s much higher, some lower.
There is a general expectation of what students should learn - what kids from the 5th grade should be able to do - arithmetic multiplication tables, reading, and more vaguely geography, science, history, spelling.
These standards have declined since 1947, so more than half do not know what they are expected to know or do.
They are passed on to the next grade with the hope they can catch up.
The reality is that if a teacher gives bad grades for poor performance there is trouble. If they give good grades for little effort and poor performance there are no complaints or external pressure to get the performance up to standard. Everyone passes. By high schools more than half the students are behind, many below 6th grade levels of math and reading. Since they can’t read history, literature is rather a mute point. By the end of secondary education about 1/3 are gone having learning almost nothing at the cost of $50,000, about 1/3 have some skills, and about 1/3 are almost ready for post secondary education.
What it would take to made schools work is no mystery.
The secret is that it would not be popular. School boards, superintendents, principles, teachers MUST be popular. As soon as anyone really try to enforce standards there are those who will complain. Someone will FAIL - get bad grades, will be held back !
There is no way that is popular.
The student maybe a minority, maybe handicapped, failure is the teachers fault, it’s the systems fault, its prejudice, NEVER the lack of effort on the part of the student and the parents. Elected school boards can never enforce standards of dress, conduct, performance, on the part of unionized teachers who make up a critical electoral constituency, or parents which make up most of the rest of the voters. Local standards will never pass the popularity contest.
State and national politicians are less dependent on popularity of specific school teachers and parents. Voters will support the abstract idea of good schools, and employer groups are desperate with the poor quality of youth entering the labor market. So some states have tried to impose external standards. NOW if you empress external standards on a system with quality faults, you just drive everyone crazy. Maybe some schools can pass the buck when John fails by talking about external standards - but there will be a lot of bitching.
As everyone should know the only answer is open enrollment. If you fail go someplace else which accepts less. If you exceed standards you get rewards and more opportunities. Like the real world ? If you don’t get a year, or 50 % of a years progress for a year of school you are less effective than someone who can. Competition gets your attention. It can bring pressure to hold to standards - of attendance, dress, conduct, homework, behavior, learning - like the real world.
Take charge! Be responsible! Be proactive! I can't stand it when
students just sit there and expect to be "taught".
Where
is their incitive, their enterprise?
They have learned to be
passive
and bored. School is not "real", not important, and
no fun.
Fiske was going to do a chapter on teacher education but it
"is
the big black hole in the movement to create smart schools."
p 256 Dull, dull, dull - the students I get from the average
school
system are boring.
They started as normal curious kids.
They have
been
damaged by
the system. This is the BIG national issue.
The country lost 3% of its value since Friday. A strong dollar
and a strong country, a weak dollar and a weak country. Where
is American enterprise, creativity, initiative - KILLED BY A
COMMUNIST SCHOOL SYSTEM,
communism doesn't work yet we have a state monopoly public school
system we which in every aspect is just like the old Soviet
system..
Great value for Yen, Franks, DM but who wants Rubles? Our
greatest
asset is our children. Lets get on with it. We know how to
improve
schools - make them better, then better again. No final answers
but a process. But its impossible to do inside a state monopoly
with no competition.
The discussion of what makes schools work has been going on for
50 years and schools have only become worse. (from Tyler's Eight
Year Study) Every reform with a name has been tried and messed
up. Why not do something that works - professionalize the trade
and give power to little self-governing groups who can do what
they need to do without a command and control structure. Like
other professionals.
We need change, real change. Real change is difficult. Thin
spider
web of habits become chains.
The process of healing and
revitalization
starts with the body not the mind.
There have been two recent
public T.V. programs on Mind-Body connections. One by Bill Moyers
explored the health implications of non-western medical
practices.
Norman Cousin's Healing describes his experience with a terrible
sickness. Other
mind
body
practices such as Zen, yoga, some forms of the martial arts,
visualizations
in sports psychology, TM, bioenergetics, (Alexander Lowen, M.D.)
and other forms of mind body integration reduce stress (Benson
at Harvard) and increase performance and health. This much is
understandable.
Mind/body control is not a religious issue and the practices are
not religious.
The practice is physical not metaphysical.
To understand the idea of quality some forms of
"higher"
awareness or what is called a
paradigm shift
is essential.
Quality
flows from the process and cannot be imposed on it by top down
methods, tests, inspections, slogans, and blame. Deming main
insight
and the reason for statistic control, is that we need to
understand
"system" functions as different from particular
attributes.
What variance is cause by the system, what is random noise and
what is a
personal
problem?
When a teacher gets unprocessed students who have been passed
along for reworking they have more uncertainty in the system than
the methods available can handle. When in physical production
the materials are not standard, the machines are out of tune,
the working conditions awful then the worker cannot be blamed
for poor quality.
Covey wrote about
Character,
how until the 1920' character was a major part of schooling, then
it became personality. Bennett has a new best seller on
Virtue -
he says it is not a singular religion or national idea but
universal
attributes supported in all cultures at all times; such as
family,
loyalty, work, honesty, sincerity, kindness and concern for
others,
respect, discipline, and orderly mind and a healthy body.
These
virtues are clearly related to quality.
The first step is body awareness.
The procedure is to learn to
control
attention.
The increased awareness of the full dimensions of reality leads
to a new comfort with new ideas. Security is the first need
(Maslow)
then we move up to higher levels of motivation. Maslow's
Further Reaches
of Human Behavior explores these areas as a form of virtue beyond
the self. In Covey it is explicit that only "higher"
values can be the basis of stable, centered, principled action.
These principles could be stoic, platonic, or religious.
The
issue
is in the practice not in the theology.
Principles arise out of a quality situation not to be imposed
on anyone by anyone. Leadership is by example. Do as I do, be
what I am. (B values) It's a heavy responsibility.
PFLAUM'S PFAMOUS PFIVE: VIRTUES
1 SLOGAN:
THERE IS
NO FREE LUNCH,
PHYSICS: ENERGY & MATTER IS NEITHER, CREATED NOR DESTROYED
- MORAL: RESPONSIBILITY - BETWEEN THE STIMULUS AND THE RESPONSE
IS A CHOICE OF HOW TO RESPOND
2 SLOGAN: IF NO ONE DOES IT, IT DOESN'T GET DONE - PHYSICS:
ENTROPY ALWAYS INCREASES -MORAL: PEOPLE NEED TO WORK - BE
PROACTIVE
BE ASSERTIVE - TAKE INITIATIVE & LEADERSHIP - PROACTIVE
3 SLOGAN: IF YOU DON'T KNOW WHERE YOU ARE GOING YOU END UP
SOMEWHERE ELSE.- MORAL: MOTIVATION & INFLUENCE -
CONSCIOUS
CHOICE BASED ON VALUES - BEGIN WITH THE END IN MIND PHYSICS: FOR
EVERY ACTION THERE IS AN EQUAL AND OPPOSITE REACTION - It is not
always easy, there will be difficulties. What matters most?
Priorities!
Time management!
4 SLOGAN:
. PHYSICS: THE RESULTS YOU FIND
DEPENDS
ON HOW YOU GET THE INFORMATION - YOU CAN NOT BE CERTAIN ABOUT
BOTH POSITION AND MOTION AT THE SAME TIME (UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE)
EMPATHY (SEEING THINGS FROM OTHERS POINT OF VIEW) ALWAYS
INCREASES
- PEOPLE DO BETTER WHEN THEY CARE, AND ARE CARED FOR! People left
to themselves, in isolation from others are weak but in unity
there is strength. MORAL: COMPASSION - INTEGRITY - SINCERITY -
THE GOLDEN RULE
5 SLOGAN:
THINK
WIN/WIN COMMUNICATIONS
- FIRST UNDERSTAND THEN BE UNDERSTOOD - PHYSICS: SYNERGIES -
CATALYZES
- UNIFY - MOBILIZE - FOCUS = CENTERED = GROUNDED - LIFE FORCE
MORAL: LEARN TO IMPROVE SOCIAL, MENTAL, EMOTIONAL AND SPIRITUAL
assets S Total Quality
Discussion Total Quality
In 1950 W. Edwards Deming, an industrial engineer, introduced
to Japan a method of statistical quality control. Over the last
several decades Deming's approach has become well-known as
quality
control circles. An analysis of Deming shows there is a basic
misunderstanding of evaluation in manufacturing. Similar
confusion
is shown by belief that objective testing is likely to improve
educational quality. A central point in this discussion is the
difference between standards and quality. One comes from
INSIDE
the other from
OUTSIDE.
Multi age grouping in schools can achieve quality when people
of various ages work together to achieve results of distinction.
"
The Total Quality Classroom" (Bonstingl, 1992) applies
to education Deming's 14 principles for
Total Quality Management
(TQM). John Jay Bonstingl sees relevant similarities of business
organizations and schools. Alan M. Blankstein (1992) explains
how five of Deming's principles translate into school terms.
Principals
and superintendents are management or leadership; teachers are
employees, leaders, and managers; students are employees; student
knowledge is the product; parents and society are customers;
legislators
are the board of directors. Lewis A. Rhodes explores TQM concepts
concerning values. He points to importance of the totality of
educational organizations. Work processes encompass a unified
system.
Synergy
The critical concept.
The whole is more than the sum
of the parts. People as a group are greater than individuals on
their own.
The human species evolved as a troop. We are not strong or fast
or fierce. We learned to communicate within groups of less than
80 members.
The power of communications created synergy.
The
troop
could be powerful by cooperation. Those troops that developed
good communications and solidarity survived and those that didn't
died off.
The big brain is a result of language, symbols, and
communications having a clear evolutionary advantage but only
in groups. It doesn't do that much good to talk to yourself. That
is who we are as a species.
Therefore it is important to have
functional groups or we have the moral, social, political,
economic
and psychological decay we see around us.
The first group is the
family.
"In a school, everything important touches everything else
of importance," notes
Theodore Sizer recognizing "the
synergistic character of a school" (Sizer, 1991, p. 32).
"No Pain, No Gain" suggests restructuring often
involves
painful break with tradition. Effective change demands attention
to all parts of a school. "
The Quality School"
(Glasser,
1990) is an adaptation of the book by the same name where
psychiatrist
William Glasser, M.D., examines educational application of TQM.
In analysis of control theory, motivation theory, and non-
coercive
management employed by "lead-managers," Glasser
recognizes
naturally resulting high- quality educational outcomes.
Our system must encourage lead-management in teachers and
principals.
It must discourage "boss- management," a scientific
management approach employing fear, coercion, and intimidation.
Because of district office bureaucratic power struggles, Glasser
feels lead- management usually must be initiated at the building
level. He sees teachers and principals as leaders who can make
a real difference in producing high quality American schools.
Quality Versus
Standards
One comes from inside the other is imposed from outside.
Can quality be defined, or is it more accurate to view quality
as a recognizable characteristic? Quality isn't something you
lay on top of subjects and objects like tinsel on a Christmas
tree. Real Quality must be the source of the subjects and
objects,
the cone from which the tree must start. To arrive at this
Quality
requires a somewhat different procedure from . . . . "Step
1, Step 2, Step 3" instructions . . . (Pirsig, 1974, p.
262).
"Quality can be defined only in terms of the agent. Who is
the judge of quality?" (Deming, 1986, p. 168). Deming sees
determination of quality as involving three agents, including
workers and managers as well as customers. Deming's philosophy
represents a conceptual shift in how we view organizations.
Quality does not result from inspection. Inspection and standards
reduce rather than promote excellence. Quotas, inspections, and
slogans exhorting persons to work harder and faster do not
motivate.
They merely defeat the purpose. We must pay attention to process,
but effective process cannot be prescribed. It is developed
through
attention to guiding principles. Process in any organization is
unique.
Harmonious relations should bloom spontaneously as flowers do.
It is a poor workshop where operators and foremen are considered
to be part of the machinery and required to do a job specified
by set standards.
What constitutes a human being is the ability to think. A
workshop
[and a school] should become . . . places] where people can think
and use their wisdom (Ouchi, 1981, p. 228). Inspection of
schooling
through instruments such as standardized tests does not improve
quality. Emphasis on teamwork rather than on individual
competition
enhances productivity.
Grades and similar assessment measures do not promote excellence.
They defeat it. Some leaders forget an important mathematical
theorem that if 20 people are engaged on a job, 2 will fall at
the bottom 10 per cent, no matter what . . . .
The important
problem
is not the bottom 10 per cent, but who is statistically out of
line and in need of help (Deming, 1986, p. 56). Asking teachers
and schools to rework mistakes following years of system failure
is not a feasible path to improved educational outcomes.
Parents and communities must work with teachers and
administrators
in developing and adapting a process capable of yielding
educated,
skilled, value-driven youth. Adapting Deming to schools involves
restructuring our educational organizations as dramatically as
the Japanese restructured their business organizations.
Dewey's presence can be seen in efforts to adapt Deming to
education.
Thinking and Doing
Schools must, as Dewey advised, reconnect thinking and doing.
Group and teamwork, projects, integrated curriculum, peer
tutoring,
and teacher as facilitator reflect views of both Dewey and
Deming.
Multi age nongraded grouping is a logical framework where such
educational approaches can work.
In education as in industry "defects are not free. Somebody
makes them, and gets paid for making them" (Deming, 1986,
p. 11). Rework of defective goods is not free; it is expensive.
The product of schools is student knowledge. When student
knowledge
is defective, it must be reworked, compounding time and expense.
Members of the educational community who define quality --
students,
teachers, administrators, and society must have input into our
system of education. As organizations mature and grow in size,
they tend to become more structured and bureaucratic. Bureaucracy
separates thinking from doing (teacher-proof curriculum,
textbooks,
etc.).
Under scientific management the doer merely follows instructions.
Doers are often placed in difficult and unmotivating
circumstances.
There may be fool-proof systems, but often the fools are too
clever.
This results in more inspections, more layers of management, more
bureaucracy.
Years after publication of A Nation at Risk (1983), American
Federation
of Teachers president Albert Shanker notes implementation of
numerous
and various school reforms throughout our country. Largely, these
attempts have not positively affected student learning (Shanker,
1990). Often in education sound ideas are found
"ineffective"
following poor implementation. Sometimes implementors fail to
follow guidelines closely enough.
Cooperative Learning Strategies and Children.
ERIC Digest. Author(s): Lyman, Lawrence; Foyle, Harvey C. ERIC
Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood Education,
Urbana,
Ill. THIS DIGEST WAS CREATED BY ERIC, THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES
INFORMATION CENTER. FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT ERIC, CONTACT
ACCESS
ERIC 1-800- LET-ERIC
Cooperative learning is a teaching strategy involving children's
participation in small group learning activities that promote
positive interaction. This digest discusses the reasons for using
cooperative learning in centers and classrooms, ways to implement
the strategy, and the long-term benefits for children's
education.
WHY TRY COOPERATIVE LEARNING?
Cooperative learning promotes academic achievement, is relatively
easy to implement, and is not expensive. Children's improved
behavior
and attendance, and increased liking of school, are some of the
benefits of cooperative learning (Slavin, 1987). Although much
of the research on cooperative learning has been done with older
students, cooperative learning strategies are effective with
younger
children in preschool centers and primary classrooms. In addition
to the positive outcomes just noted, cooperative learning
promotes
student motivation, encourages group processes, fosters social
and academic interaction among students, and rewards successful
group participation.
CAN COOPERATIVE LEARNING BE USED IN EARLY CHILDHOOD CLASSES?
When a child first comes to a structured educational setting,
one of the teacher's goals is to help the child move from being
aware only of himself or herself to becoming aware of other
children.
At this stage of learning, teachers are concerned that children
learn to share, take turns, and show caring behaviors for others.
Structured activities which promote cooperation can help to bring
about these outcomes. One of the most consistent research
findings
is that cooperative learning activities improve children's
relationships
with peers, especially those of different social and ethnic
groups.
When children begin to work on readiness tasks, cooperation can
provide opportunities for sharing ideas, learning how others
think
and react to problems, and practicing oral language skills in
small groups. Cooperative learning in early childhood can promote
positive feelings toward school, teachers, and peers.
These
feelings
build an important base for further success in school.
WHAT ARE THE ADVANTAGES OF COOPERATIVE LEARNING FOR ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL STUDENTS?
According to Glasser (1986), children's motivation to work in
elementary school is dependent on the extent to which their basic
psychological needs are met. Cooperative learning increases
student
motivation by providing peer support. As part of a learning team,
students can achieve success by working well with others.
Students
are also encouraged to learn material in greater depth than you
might otherwise have done, and to think of creative ways to
convince
the teacher that you have mastered the required material.
Cooperative
learning helps students feel successful at every academic level.
In cooperative learning teams, low-achieving students can make
contributions to a group and experience success, and all students
can increase their understanding of ideas by explaining them to
others (Featherstone 1986)
. Components of the cooperative learning process as described
by Johnson and Johnson (1984) are complimentary to the goals of
early childhood education. For example, well-constructed
cooperative
learning tasks involve positive interdependence on others and
individual accountability. To work successfully in a cooperative
learning team, however, students must also master interpersonal
skills needed for the group to accomplish its tasks. Cooperative
learning has also been shown to improve relationships among
students
from different ethnic backgrounds. Slavin (1980) notes:
"Cooperative
learning methods"
Back To Global
Village:
Cooperative Learning: Grouping Students for Success
Coperative Computer Learning with Cooperative Task and Reward
Structures
Susan R. Seymour
Introduction
America is in a recession that is strangling budgets and
challenging
educational administrators to stretch existing resources.
Compounding
this challenge is the ever changing field of computer technology
and the dire need to educate a technically competent work force.
Currently, the United States is falling behind technological
leaders
such as Japan and Britain in our attempts to educate a
technological
work force. Although the reasons for this lack of success in
teaching
technology are diverse, the most common barriers are financial.
These financial barriers are most noticeable in the regional
inequities
between suburban and rural schools and are manifested in the lack
of computer equipment in schools, or outdated equipment not being
replaced. (Mruk, 1987)
Therefore, the teaching of computer
technology
is faced with a distinct educational problem: how can we educate
more students using limited computer resources without
sacrificing
student aptitude or enjoyment of the learning event?
Cooperative learning provides a plausible solution. Cooperative
learning is a teaching strategy that encourages student success
by alleviating overt competitiveness and substituting group
encouragement.
In cooperative learning, individuals work with their peers to
achieve a common goal rather than competing against their peers
or working separately from them. Research on the benefits of
cooperative
learning has shown an increase in academic achievement, positive
attitudes towards learning and increased student satisfaction.
Review of the Related Literature
Effects of Cooperative Learning on Student Achievement
The effect
of cooperative learning on academic achievement has been well
documented and research suggests that cooperative learning
produces
greater than the achievement than traditional learning
methodologies.
In fact, a review completed by Slavin in 1984, found that 63%
of all cooperative learning studies analyzed showed increases
in academic achievement. Slavin's review isolated the prominent
characteristics responsible for increased achievement scores and
discovered that cooperative task structures and cooperative
reward
structures were the two determining factors in the success of
cooperative learning. This data is supported again in Slavin's
1990 meta-analysis when he concludes that methods emphasizing
group goals and individual accountability are consistently more
effective in increasing student achievement than other forms of
cooperative learning. Although this holds true for the majority
of research, a study completed by Okebukola (1985) included
individual
accountability and group goals and showed no significant positive
effects on achievement. In addition, research conducted by Rich,
Amir, and Slavin (1986) incorporated individual accountability
and group goals but showed negative effects on achievement.
Cooperative Learning Effects Other Than Achievement Cooperative
learning models have shown effects other than academic
achievement
that contribute to the overall satisfaction of course
participants
(Salend & Sonnenschein, 1989). A wide variety of social
benefits
have been documented. Such benefits include: promotion of
positive
attitudes toward schooling (Johnson & Johnson, 1978),
promotion
of group socialization and cohesiveness (Slavin, 1990), decreased
prejudicial attitudes (Johnson & Johnson, 1978; Slavin,
1990),
encouragement of risk taking (Johnson & Johnson, 1975),
fostering
of self esteem (Slavin, 1990) and increased ability to see
another's
perspective (Slavin, 1990). Cooperative Learning and the Computer
In almost all schools the number of students far exceeds the
number
of computers, however, individualistic education has dominated
the use of computers (Dickson & Vereen, 1983). One student
per computer is the tradition and few have challenged this in
the research arena, although understanding the effects of
cooperation
at the computer could have economic as well as academic benefits.
One untapped resource for education of computers is peer
tutoring.
Peer tutoring is the cooperation between two or more students
in which one student actively takes on the teaching role. It has
been an effective cooperative behavior in fostering intellectual
and social growth (Hill & Helburn, 1981). In a recent study
by Teer Teer & McKnight (1988), students using peer tutoring
gained greater computer and relational skills than students
working
independently. Mehan (1985) suggests a natural tendency for
students
to collaborate at the computer regardless of adult supervision.
Mehan states9 that when students are placed at a computer and
"left to their own devices....(you) work out the details
of task completion themselves, resulting in voluntary instead
of compulsory forms of instructional activity". This
tendency
for students to rely on each other to work out problems is at
the heart of cooperative learning.
Research directly relating cooperative learning with computers
is limited, but some excellent studies have been completed by
Webb (1984) and Oh (1988). Webb's study evaluated group
effectiveness
in the teaching of computer programming to 30 students ranging
in age from 11 to 14.
The study dealt extensively with group
planning
and processing involved in the breakdown and dissemination of
knowledge. Webb also looked at the relationship of cooperative
groups to increased academic achievement and found that
cooperative
group learning was positively related to academic performance
for students learning BASIC (a computer programming language).
A study conducted at Illinois State University by doctoral
student
Hyun-an Oh (1988), looked at the effects of both cooperative and
individualistic incen- tive and task structures on achievement
in computer programming. His study ran for seven weeks during
which he compared the performance of 114 university students
enrolled
in a introductory microcomputer course under three treatments.
The treatments were variations of cooperative task, cooperative
incentive, individualistic task and individualistic incentive.
Oh's findings indicated that there were no differences in
achievement
between cooperative learning with computers and individualistic
learning with computers. He also concluded that incentive made
no difference in student achievement for either cooperative
structures
or individualistic structures. This conclusion was drawn from
the fact that students who had no incentive performed as well
as students with incentive in both cooperative and
individualistic
treatments.
