The Education Treadmill

I don’t care for treadmills; for several reasons. First, despite the potential fitness benefits of running on a moving platform, treadmills are a dull routine, pushing a demanding pace, and there is always a danger of falling. Education today has become a treadmill. The day-to-day experience in secondary and post-secondary education has become, for many students, a relentless pace of running in search of a goal with little change of scenery—course after course after course with tests in between. Most have unclear relevance to the world outside. Students are pushed to “stick with it,” for the more education you get, the better your chance for career success. To a certain extent, that correlation is accurate. We spotlight those professionals who complete the treadmill education journey and move into well-paying jobs. But what about the students who don’t complete, that fall off and never finish? The students who give up are the vast majority of our youth. What are they prepared for? Those that don’t make it receive a smirk from those who did, just as we chuckle at the novice jogger who falls off the actual treadmill. There must be something wrong with them.

Alarming statistics on youth unemployment released this week by the New York City Comptroller’s Office triggered my thoughts about what role education has played in creating this problem. The report states that unemployment among 16- to 24-year-olds stands at nearly 18% in the city, as compared to about 9% in the rest of New York state and 8% nationally. In comparison, overall unemployment is currently 5.6% in New York City and 3.4% in the nation. In addition, the unemployment rates for young Black (18.5%), Hispanic (23.3%), and Asian (23.3%) workers in the city are higher than their white (16.2%) counterparts.

Youth unemployment is always the highest demographic. However, this should raise the alarm for the future of these youth and the economy, even more so in the vast NYC economic engine. . Several economic factors, such as the pandemic, and rising minimum wage, likely contribute to this concerning number. However, educators should not ignore any responsibility for this dilemma. Unfortunately, most educators remain focused on running the “treadmill” and blame this issue on a lack of employer altruism and poor personal decisions.

Too many youth in this unemployed pool lack a career focus, technical skills, and work habits to make them productive employees. As a result, employers are reluctant to hire. The education treadmill did not work well for the unemployed. A limited number of NYC secondary students had access to programs such are Career and Technical Education early-college technical programs like P-TECH, or work-based learning. These career-focused programs work closely with employers and community organizations to better prepare students to transition to the work world before or after college. Unfortunately, most students in school follow almost an anti-career focus that seems like a treadmill of only preparing students to jog on to the next level of education. The measures of success are passing exams, earning credits, and grade point average, all education constructs disconnected from the real world.

Schooling has value, but students deserve a more career focus in school to discover their interests and aptitudes. Deciding on careers is a gradual decision rather than keeping pace on the education treadmill to college graduation and then looking around for employment.

Following are some thoughts for each of us in erasing this image of an education treadmill to a dynamic system where all youth are the most prepared for 21st Century employment.

Education policy and political leaders need to place a stronger emphasis on career-focused education and provide incentives to remove barriers to innovative programs.
Educators need to acknowledge that all students need a career focus, and it is not something for a student who chooses not to attend college. Attending college should be a means to a career goal and not an end goal. Teachers, as successful college graduates, quickly encourage students to attend college. However, teachers should become familiar with and advocate for the multiple learning career options for students.
Parents should encourage their children toward continuous learning to provide choices in life and speak up about schooling that does not exhibit rigor or relevance.
Employers should acknowledge their role in preparing future workers by partnering with schools to provide work-based learning opportunities and supporting career programs.

Puzzles Are Not Boring: Embrace the Challenge

Now that Northeast golf season is over, I spend my spare time assembling puzzles. My wife thinks puzzles are boring, but I enjoy the challenge of putting the pieces together correctly to form a beautiful picture. The challenge of finding the best way to approach possible assembly is very satisfying. The traditional process starts with the edges, assembling clearly defined images, and ultimately piecing together all backgrounds. There are other strategies as well that you figure out along the way to solve the difficult portions of the puzzle, sorting by shape and color shades. To me, it is certainly not boring – the challenge engages me. Some lessons can be learned from puzzle building that can be applied to Career and Technical (CTE) teachers and make instruction consistently engaging for students.

There are parallels between puzzle construction and teaching in general. Education can be described as putting the pieces of the puzzle together. For CTE instructors planning instruction is a puzzle with so many essential technical skills for students to learn and so little time. Students have different abilities and prior experience and need time to develop proficiency. The effort required to retain these technical tasks can seem boring to some, particularly when a student struggles or is even uninterested. Yet, applying skill and problem-solving imparts great satisfaction when completing that beautiful result.

My approach to puzzle construction is engaging, but a linear one could be very dull. A linear path tests one piece against every other 500 pieces, trying to find the correct fit by trial and error. Then testing the same 498 against the next piece and so on. All of this would work to complete the puzzle, but a linear approach would require over a half million tasks – indeed, a tedious task.

When teaching becomes linear, it becomes boring. Linear learning is defining each skill and practicing each at a time with the promise that you will use it later. In some ways, standards-based instruction in the Common Core curriculum encouraged this linear approach. However, even if there are many learning pieces, they do not need to be taught one at a time. CTE, while it has lists of complex skills and knowledge, students are not learning in a rigid linear fashion but focusing on a finished product in acquiring the skills and procedures to complete that product. Therefore, good CTE instruction must resist ever becoming a linear approach to learning even as we embrace more precise standards and required assessments.

Following are three strategies for engaging CTE instruction based on the puzzle metaphor.

Remind students of the finished product. One thing that makes CTE learning so engaging to students is that they have a clear vision of a finished product, such as a lovely, nutritious meal, a hairstyle, and a functional computer network. Puzzle building can become tedious without a vision of the finished product. Frequently examining that finished image helps to reinforce the patient work necessary to complete the puzzle. Likewise, in CTE, students must be continually reminded of the building they are constructing or the animation they are creating. Sometimes applying new skills to reach proficiency is tedious and frustrating, whether it is troubleshooting a computer network or welding a metal frame. Acquiring technical skills takes patience and practice, and “keeping an eye on the prize” helps to ensure perseverance and persistence toward proficiency.

Let students make choices in working toward the finished goal. There are many ways to construct a puzzle, and each person can develop their own strategy. There is still only one way the puzzle pieces fit, But there can be flexibility in how those pieces are constructed. If there was only one way to build a puzzle, such as sequentially trying every piece against one specific piece until the right one is found, it would be a boring routine. In CTE, there is usually a single solution to a finished product, but giving students options along the way to put steps and procedures can make the learning task more engaging and exciting.

Encourage patience with frequent compliments focusing on the positive. For example, building a puzzle with a partner creates opportunities to compliment one another when finding a problematic piece or finishing a portion of an object. These compliments reinforce one another and strengthen the resolve to complete the puzzle. In CTE instruction, the teacher is the constant coach to provide frequent compliments focusing on improvement that can inspire students to develop proficiency in their skills.

Keep this analogy of puzzle building as you continue to assemble your puzzle of engaging each student in high quarry CTE.

Finding Ways for Both Career/Tech and Academics

I am currently working on a national project to explore ways to expand the integration of academic standards and instruction with Career and Technical instruction. Academic subjects of Math, Science, English, and Social Studies are separate subjects with separately certified teachers. CTE as well exists as separate subjects with unique teacher certifications. In state regulation, these are separate parts of secondary schools possessing their own curriculum. In practice, there is often instructional overlap. For example, as math teachers seek context for using geometry, they assign students technical problems or when Automotive teachers stress measuring with precision. Yet, states set graduation requirements based on earning credit in separate subjects. There are no graduation requirements for simply identifying problems, researching knowledge, and applying skills to design and implement solutions. This tradition of defining learning and teaching in specialties conveys a message that school and particularly academic courses, are not relevant to the real world.

Most educators believe there is a benefit in students acquiring foundation knowledge and engaging in real-world projects that develop technical skills and apply academic knowledge. The challenge is finding room for both in the time-based schools. Policy decisions often come down to either/or. For example, is it more important for a student to take that fourth credit of science or spend time learning graphic design skills in which a student shows interest and talent? Changing the status quo is also problematic, as no superintendent or politician wants to shift the balance of currently employed teachers.

I recall my own experience in high school experience many years ago with this either/or choice. I attended a small rural high school with a liberal arts university in the town. The population included many farm and rural students and the children of college faculty with expectations of attending college after high school. I took the most advanced academic subjects in high school, but as a “farm kid,” I also took agriculture courses. My career goal at the time was college and veterinary work so my course choice for both made sense. As I approached my senior year in high school, schedule conflicts did not allow me to enroll in Physics and the 4th-level course in Agriculture. Rather than having to choose, my teachers and the Principal found a creative solution. I was enrolled in both simultaneously. Each day, I decided which class to attend based on the work, making sure to take each graded test. I relied on friends and my brother who was in the agriculture class, to keep up with the content. I passed both courses and earned two credits from one class period. I am sure the school violated state regulations because I did not attend the total number of hours to earn the credits. However, this creative solution worked for me, and educators were willing to break the rules.

There are many different models of academic integration that can enable students to acquire academic knowledge and technical skills. Integration can take many form, such as co-teaching, parallel courses, consulting teachers, and newly combined courses. State policy need to encourage more local creative solutions for students to acquire both, meet student needs, and not be forced to choose. This may mean changing current regulations and traditions.

The committee I am on is attempting to raise awareness of needs and offer ideas and support to make academic courses more relevant and Career and Technical courses rigorous in applying knowledge. Contact me if you are interested in learning more about this work on Academic CTE Integration.

Tarnishing the “Gold Standard”

The New York State Board of Regents is engaged in discussion and feedback on high school graduation requirements. This effort started three years ago but was delayed due to the pandemic. One of the more controversial issues is what to do about the “Regents Exams.”

The new single set of tests would be different, but the question for staff was what to name the new tests. The decision was not to create a new name for the new tests but to continue to call them Regents exams because the term Regents Exam has automatic respect. I recall someone mentioning that it was the “Gold Standard” of assessments. During that discussion, I questioned requiring every student to pass the test to get a diploma. Instead, I suggested requiring the tests and closely examining schools that gave diplomas to many students with low scores. The group quickly overruled my opinion.

The new exams were different while still having the same Regents name. Since it was universally required and tied to earning a diploma, it demanded pedagogical, legal, psychometrically, and political changes. The tests changed from fixed scoring, where 100 meant 100% of answers were correct, to scale scoring, meaning your performance met a standard considering question difficulty. Further confusing this change is that the scale score was based on a 100-point scale rather than a 4-point scale typically used in scaled achievement tests. Over time there were debates over cut scores. Should it be the same for students with disabilities? Is there a different level for excellence or college readiness? Cut scores have been a moving target over the last few years.

Some vocal critics claim these exams, of which students must pass five separate exams to earn a diploma, are artificial, outdated, and arbitrary hurdles that prevent students from earning a diploma. Many educators admit the exams have become amplified in importance, demanding too much attention by “teaching to the test” and evaluating teacher and principal effectiveness on pass rates. Those on the side of retaining the exams insist there must be standard measures of learning outcomes to hold the school accountable.

A portion of my education career was spending two decades working in the New York State Education Department. I left the department in 2000 so I can claim no credit or receive any blame for policies enacted in the last 20 years. However, I was involved in the staff discussions in the mid 90’s when the policy of exams and graduation requirements were changed. At that time New York had two sets of high school exams. One was the optional Regents exams in various subjects which had a century-old history of being rigorous measures of students learning. The other set of tests were newer and were considered lower level assessments. The Board of Regents changed the exam policy and felt that this two-tier system perpetuated inequity in schools, often along racial and economic lines.

I spent two decades working in the New York State Education Department as a portion of my education career. I left the department in 2000, so I can claim no credit or receive any blame for policies enacted in the last 20 years. However, in the mid-’90s, I was involved in staff discussions of exams, graduation policies, and requirements. At that time, New York had two sets of high school exams. One was the optional Regents exams in various subjects, which had a century-old history of rigorous measures of student learning. The other set of tests was newer and was considered lower-level assessments. The Board of Regents changed the exam policy and felt that this two-tier system perpetuated inequity in schools, often along racial and economic lines.

Well, the new exams, while still the same Regents name were different. Since it was universally required and tied to earning a diploma it demanded changes pedagogically, legally, psychometrically and politically. The tests changed from fixed scoring where 100 meant 100% of answers correct to scale scoring meaning your performance met a standard considering question difficulty. Further confusing this change is that the scale score was based on a 100 point scale rather than a 4 point scale typically used in scaled achievement tests. Over time there were debates over cut scores. Should it be the same for students with disabilities? Is there a different level for excellence or college readiness. Cut scores have been a moving target over the last few year.

As a result of these changes, which seemed like logical decisions at the time, we find that the Regents Exams are no longer the Gold Standard. But they have evolved into a complex mishmash of education jargon and demand inflated importance in high school learning. As a result, local decision-making and the body of work that students undertake in high school are ignored. Instead, it is all about the tests.

I doubt the Regents Exams will survive in this discussion. I proudly recall studying for, taking, and passing high school Regents exams when I was in high school 60 years ago. But, unfortunately, the current version does not generate public confidence or good educational purpose.

I am a supporter of tests; research has shown that well-designed assessments contribute to high levels of student achievement. However, tying the Regents exams as a graduation requirement has led to too many unintended negative consequences. The high school diploma should be based on the larger body of student work. Not all of that work is the same for each student. Some exams should be part of that body of work regardless of name. Finally, the state should refrain from punishing students by denying diplomas to students who fail to meet standards on state tests. Instead, the state’s role should be to hold accountable schools that award diplomas to students with low achievement rates.

Writing Again

It is time to be writing again. Throughout my five decade education career, my thinking frequently considered new ideas for my teaching, my work and education in schools. Some of those ideas were frivolous and unrealistic, but others were ideas that could be molded into positive learning improvements. I am fortunate that in my decade education career I have been able to influence state policy, write curriculum, design professional development and inspire teachers and leaders. In every case, it was taking the time write and refine my ideas that turned creative ideas in to clearer, doable practices.

I am no longer working in any specific organization and enjoying more free time that some call retirement. I stay current reading and teaching educators in graduate programs as an adjunct professor. I still have thoughts and ideas about learning, some for my teaching and perhaps others in their work.

I am committing to write more frequently in this blog to convert my random thoughts to refining ideas which might inspire others to consider, challenge or even adopt. The blog format gives others a chance to offer feedback.