The discussion on Critical Race Theory (CRT) in education reminds me of the famous old movie line in Cool Hand Luke, “What we’ve got here is a failure to communicate!” CTE is the latest controversial phrase among the education community and parents. Vocal advocates support and oppose CRT, while many schools jump on board this newest bandwagon. Will CRT reduce racism or isolate feuding races? Will the CRT ideas finally close learning gaps? Does CRT focus erode instruction and decrease learning results? Some experts attempt to answer these questions. However, no one knows fully what is included under the CRT umbrella or the potential impacts.
In my 50 years in education, I have heard this refrain before, not about race but multiple other topics. Each of these started as sound ideas to improve student learning. However, once it became a popular notion in education, everyone with their agenda jumped aboard under this common banner. Historically educators can describe the verbal wars over initiatives such as “open schools,” “new math,” or “Common Core.” Each of these initiatives has elements of good pedagogical practice. Still, once they had a label and became pervasive in schools, the good ideas became bloated, and resistors of change could find aspects to criticize and oppose the whole initiative.
As an example open schools tried to break the rigid mold of 25 students in a classroom by creating flexible school rooms which could be adapted to different student work. But, when schools were built with no walls as the popular design, teachers became frustrated with noisy classrooms. Open classrooms became an anathema. In terms of Common Core, having standards for learning is beneficial, but when the list of standards became ridiculously long and tied to recall tests, the initiative died of its own weight, and the phrase is now close to a swear word. Labels lead to misunderstanding, I remember an insightful education colleague starting, “Be innovative in schools to serve students better, but don’t give it a name.”
My advice to parents, educators, and government leaders is to abandon a broad name and be specific about the practices you advocate or criticize. There are elements in CRT that are beneficial and other extremes that are not. CRT, as a whole, should not be a battleground. The label CRT has become too difficult to define at this point. Discuss the specific knowledge we want students to acquire and the specific behaviors we want them to demonstrate. There is common ground to focus on the needs of children and let talented educators determine how to develop that knowedge and bahavior in the school..
February is CTE Month. This is a designated time when Career and Technical Education teachers, administrators, and advocates are encouraged to proclaim the value of CTE. Schools often pursue proclamations, events, banners, and brochures. You can locate resources and ideas from the ACTE website. CTE is often under-appreciated, and focused publicity events during CTE month serve to draw attention to the valuable contribution CTE programs make to future student success.
Special events are nice, but small gestures are often made repeatedly that make a difference in changing perceptions. So, consider conducting a splashy CTE Month event, but also consider small gestures you can do daily to build awareness of the educational value of CTE.
Following are 28 little things to do during the month to promote CTE. Try one each day during February.
Capture a video of remarkable student work
Identify a new employer partner in the community
Call a parent to compliment good work by their child
Write a news item for the school website
Write a note to the principal thanking him/her for support
Offer to help a school parent association or booster club
Invite a teacher colleague to observe your class
Invite an employer to speak to students
Invite a school counselor to talk to the class about post-secondary technical colleges.
Arrange for students to speak to middle-level students about CTE
Invite a parent to observe your class
Take photos of students with their work-based learning supervisor
Set up a display of student work in another area of the school
Have students text a message to family members highlighting student work
Offer CTSO leaders to speak at local service club breakfast
Prepare a poster of what former students are doing – college, work, etc.
Invite a middle-level teacher to visit the program.
Post pictures of student work on school social media
Prepare your students to give a clear “elevator speech” when asked bout CTE
Invite a former student to speak to the class
Invite a non-instructional colleague to observe your class
Write a note to a political leader thanking him/her for fiscal support
Have students share a photo of their CTE projects on their social media (avoid other student images)
Identify a community not-for-profit in which students can assist.
Have students brainstorm a list of “Why I like CTE?”
Invite school board members to visit the program
Thank a school counselor for assisting a student
Encourage a student to enter a new CTSO competition
External forces such as the COVID pandemic, changing societal values, regulations, and public opinion continue increasing pressure around schools. In addition, for the last several years, schools have struggled with internal forces, including new technology, challenging student behaviors, and higher expectations for student achievement. These external and internal forces continue to build, and schools are facing severe budget cuts after the federal pandemic aid disappears. These pressures will have a significant impact on many schools. However, some schools can deftly adjust to these increasing forces. I call these resilient schools.
Resilience is being able to recover from or adjust easily to change. I have learned from many of the schools that I have visited that adapting to change is about something other than adopting best practices or even following research-proven programs. Instead, resilience creates conditions for a school to use staff talents to meet student needs uniquely. School leaders must abandon any hope of maintaining the status quo and be able to lead their organizations to adapt to these changing conditions as resilient schools.
School reform tends to closely examine successful schools and replicate their practices, such as Professional Learning Communities (PLCs), block scheduling, or mimic visioning and strategy planning. However, simply trying to replicate these practices may not be the answer! Instead, the answer is creating the underlying strength of resiliency. Resiliency is not resistance or resignation. Neither is it protecting the comfortable status quo. Resiliency is the quality of adaptation to changing conditions and perseverance to achieve goals.
There are three strategies school leaders should pursue in creating resilient schools: developing an integrated and aligned system, 2) understanding schools as living systems and 3) improving organizations through adaptive leadership.
Developing an Integrated and Aligned System
When we think about services in our society, we focus simply on the vital occupation in that service. For example, we focus on doctors in medical care, pilots in airline transportation, or soldiers in the military. The reality is that doctors, pilots, or soldiers could not function and do the complex tasks involved in their job without a support system around them. Doctors rely on a system of technicians, assistants, researchers, data analysts, and administrative support to do their jobs well. Pilots rely on air traffic controllers and maintenance staff to ensure that thousands of flights take off and land safely. The recent airline delays were not a result of poor pilots but the result of faulty computer systems.
In the case of education, we focus on the teacher as the visible role in schools. But as challenging as teaching and learning is today, teachers require a complex integrated system of professionals and data systems to support them. In some cases, teachers have yet to receive adequate data systems or support in technology, counseling, or nutrition to support their work. School leaders need to consider the entire system to enhance teaching and learning and not simply focus on the quality of individual teachers. Additionally, that system needs to be aligned around supporting the critical delivery of learning experiences. Often because of contracts, regulations, and just plain tradition, schools neglect to build the capacity to support current teachers and teaching. Many schools carry on functions that have little connection to instructional goals. It makes little sense to have many people working within an industry if they are not focused and aligned toward providing the important service. For example, remote learning during the pandemic causes us to rethink the traditions of attendance and the traditional school day/week/year. School leaders must consider building an integrated system that works efficiently and focuses on delivering high-quality learning experiences to every student.
Understanding Schools as Living Systems
Schools are a system but one with unique characteristics. Some simplify the school as a system by drawing analogies to manufacturing or computer systems, where it is essential to isolate the system and improve the quality of resources or information taken into the system. That would simply demand that schools improve by admitting better-quality students. Manufacturing and computers are examples of closed systems attempting to maintain consistent performance and high-quality outputs by eliminating unwanted contaminants and distractions.
Schools are an open system, like a living ecosystem constantly influenced by the environment around them. It is often impossible to isolate schools from outside influences. What happens in the community and families or neighborhoods comes into school daily. Schools also have no control over the education that occurs before students come to that school as a preschooler or as a transfer. Schools must accept every student and try and do the best that they can to help to develop their potential.
There are lessons from open systems that can guide us in operating under the unique characteristics of schools as a system. In the living environment, organisms change and adapt by constantly sensing their environment, modeling the behavior of others, building strong relationships, managing their resources wisely, and taking appropriate risks. In schools, we need to enhance communication systems and have timely data that can inform teacher actions and adjust instruction daily. We need to encourage teachers to model the behavior of other teachers and encourage collaboration and peer observation. Relationships are fundamental in building a solid community that collaborates and works together with a strong sense of community. We must also use resources wisely and make careful decisions about allocating staff and resources to ensure that it benefits the community. We also want to encourage risk-taking and innovation to bring new ideas to develop the following practices that will improve school organizations.
Avoid simple comparison of schools as a closed manufacturing system. Instead, recognizing the unique characteristics of a school as a living system and just as a farmer creates the conditions for the growth of a crop, school leaders must create the requirements for the growth of the school and its students.
Improving Organizations Through Adaptive leadership
Four Quadrant Leadership
The final strategy is to recognize the situational aspects of leadership. Leadership is not a set of practices or a “to-do” list. Leadership is much more dynamic and includes taking actions appropriate for the conditions. Leadership is not about a position or job title, and leadership is about action and developing teacher leadership and student leadership within a school. The four-quadrant model of Quadrant D Leadership describes the different aspects of leadership which must occur based on appropriate conditions. First, in every school, there is a necessity for Authoritative Leadership, particularly in safety and security cases, ethics, and legal and financial issues. However, Authoritative Leadership will not create the conditions necessary for a school to adapt and grow over time. There are conditions when schools must become more collaborative in building relationships among staff in effective team decision-making and action, termed Collaborative Leadership. However, Collaborative Leadership may not be sufficient if the school staff continues to maintain the status quo and do business as usual. As the conditions for learning change, schools must create and reduce new visions and opportunities for learning, termed Creative Leadership. There are times when leadership must step forward and make this new vision and encourage innovation in instructional practice. Finally, Adaptive Leadership can be considered a combination of creativity and collaboration. This is the aspiration for leadership that has to occur over time. Principals and assistant principals, and teams should constantly reflect on their leadership actions to determine the degree to which they’re embracing the characteristics of Quadrant D Adaptive Leadership in building a resilient school.
Summary More effort is needed to replicate the practices seen in other schools. Resilience requires good leadership following these three strategies looking at an integrated, aligned system, recognizing schools as a unique living system, and using adaptive leadership skills. Many schools already possess these strategies. I hope your school is one of them or moving in that direction.
Another senseless shooting by a 6-year-old first-grader at an elementary school in Newport News, VA, triggers strong emotions and sympathy from each of us. How could this happen? Is this the beginning of a world gone mad where a 1st-grade classroom is a site of anger and violence? First, we all wish the victim recovers and the child and his family get the support and professional help they need.
It will take time for all the children, education professionals, and families in Richneck Elementary School to heal from the emotional trauma. What actions do we take for the rest of us, parents, teachers, and leaders? Within the thoughts expressed by the many public upon hearing of this tragedy, there are calls for “hardening elementary schools” with metal detectors, random bag checks, and transparent backpacks. Social media provides a vehicle to post words while our reactions are strong and emotions are raw. Putting emotions into words may help us to relieve the stress and frustration from trauma. However, it is never healthy to plan actions based on emotions.
In short-term actions, we need to take care to hug our friends and family as a reminder of the fragility of life and harmony. As parents and educators, we must listen to and support our children to be sure they get the mental health support and love they need. We also need to continue to adopt safety and security procedures. It is with long-term action that we need to be thoughtful rather than emotion-driven.
Schools are remarkable learning spaces, sometimes chaotic, always challenging, and often inspirational. I learned this not from reading but from experience as an educator listening and observing students and teachers in hundreds of schools (both great and not-so-great). Schools are not impersonal dispensers of wisdom or supervised daycare for children, although schools do those things. Education professionals stimulate student learning by first developing trusting relationships with students and facilitating social interaction where students learn as a group. Students on their own can acquire information from a book or a digital source. But transformational learning comes from people you respect, trust and admire, all done with social interaction. Think about the difference between learning by reading a book on your own versus a book club. Deep learning is social.
Some of my most powerful perceptions of effective schools have come from students’ honest words about how the school has impacted them. I recall one female student in a large urban high school and her response regarding school security. I often ask the question of students, “How would you change this school?” This young student lamented the requirement for student IDs and entry procedures from security staff. She was a Senior and arrived at school one morning and had forgotten her student ID. The security guard at the entrance, whom she had seen every morning for more than three years and whom she knew by name, asked for her ID. Since she did not have it, he asked her to leave and retrieve it before she should enter the school, even though he knew she was a student at the school. The security guard was doing his job and could have been reprimanded for letting the student in without the proper ID. The student added to me, “This school was becoming more like a prison than a school.” I have never forgotten this comment.
If we deal with weapons and violence in a manner that appears to the students as something other than a welcoming refuge that respects and trusts them, we will have lost the purpose of schools. Our actions to protect students should be thoughtful in a way that benefits students accepting there will be infrequent tragic violence that will tug at our emotions. Our children deserve schools that are friendly, remarkable learning spaces.
Today I was thinking about instruction while modifying my online graduate course in instructional design. I feel extra pressure teaching a course to other educators on instructional design because the implied perception is that if you’re going to teach design practices and design, your course should model a great design. Therefore I carefully craft my objectives and design rubrics to assess student work. I scale back content to only what is essential to read and Intersperse videos for acquiring knowledge.
All effective teachers constantly think about how to tweak their lessons to increase student engagement and achievement. As I was updating this online course, how could I make the course more engaging and relevant to the student’s needs?
Rigor/Relevance Framework
I reflected on the Rigor /Relevance Framework from the International Center for Leadership in Education. I have experience with the R/R Framework since much of my early writing was explaining how to use the framework in planning instruction and assessment. The framework’s four quadrants of teaching and learning distinguish between high and low rigor and high and low relevance. I want to push my instruction to Quadrant D, High Rigor/High Relevance.
I also read today about some of the current work of a not-for-profit organization called the Right Question Institute. This organization and many outstanding teachers are constantly looking for ways to increase the rigor of their instruction by moving from being focused on the right answers where students recall answers to where teachers focus more on using the right questions, which will stimulate more critical student thought, inquiry, and reflection. Teachers need to focus on the right questions.
The Rigor/Relevance Framework introduces a second dimension of moving from the acquisition of knowledge to the application of knowledge. This is about moving from passive student work to engaging student projects. So the goal of good instruction is not only asking the “right questions,” it is about expecting the students to do the “right work.” Is that work relevant and leads to the learning objectives?
I recently changed my online course to add more authenticity to the work and avoid these educators from voicing the same question many students ask, “When will I ever use this?” The assignments in this online course are now identified as authentic projects. Students demonstrate learning through five projects, including developing a demonstration video, designing an instructional model, creating a schema as an instructional guide, and developing an online learning module for a selected audience. To be honest, there is one traditional paper to be written (it is still essential to request educators to continue elevating their writing skills).
As teachers work on reflecting on their instruction, just as I did in this course, there needs to be clear learning objectives (based on standards). Teachers must strive for high rigor and relevance by asking students the right questions and assigning the right work in authentic projects. This will go a long way toward moving education to greater relevancy and respect.
I always think of myself as a positive person. When confronted with problems or issues, I usually strive to control my emotions, reason, and be optimistic about moving forward. Friends and colleagues often refer to me as the “glass-half-full guy.” However, lately, I find myself more often discouraged and less optimistic. I am perhaps spending more time keeping current with news concerning the events in the world. The negative nature captures the media headlines, whether in the economy, politics, or social behavior. My environment has also changed since I am no longer working full time, which gave me opportunities to meet many new people and observe many different schools. Those personal observations provide a more accurate perspective and make us realize that there are vastly more positive experiences in the world than negative ones. When you lack first-hand observations and rely on the media for your information, you have no personal experiences the counter the negative. It tends to make you more cynical, and it takes willpower to maintain that positive attitude.
As I reflect on the decades of my education experience, I can see progress in many areas and hope that my contributions have positively impacted some. Yet, there remains much to do in improving student achievement, particularly in the wake of the pandemic. The media points out student achievement declines and increasing demographic gaps. Parents are frustrated, and teachers and administrators are burned out. It is easy for education and political leaders to propose solutions to these problems with government tools, primarily money and regulation. While regulation and money are essential, they are not the most effective way to forge a path to improvement.
One of my past educator experiences was visiting several outstanding high schools in this country. With my colleagues, we reflected on the common characteristics of these exceptional schools. What made them different? They served challenging populations that many schools do, yet they did not suffer the same problems. They were highly effective. The most common characteristic seen in all schools was the remarkably high level of staff collaboration driven by leadership and positive personal and professional values. This collaboration enabled groups of teachers to solve problems and create innovations, often without going through a chain of command or higher leadership to get permission. They knew the organization’s goals and the leadership vision and constantly worked to increase its effectiveness.
This aspect of frontline problem-solving to improve organizations, as I saw in these high-performing schools, is not a unique nor an original approach. One of the organizational models which takes this approach is appreciative inquiry. In contrast to a traditional problem-solving model, which defines the problem, identifies potential solutions, and picks a solution to move forward, the appreciative inquiry takes a broader approach. Instead of focusing on the often negative situation, the appreciative inquiry model focuses on what works well within the organization and how those successful practices could be expanded or modified to address the problem. It takes an approach of problem-solving from focusing on the positive rather than dwelling on the negative. You can learn more about appreciative inquiry from this video or some of the many publications.
In the new year, I am resolving not to let the challenging issues in education and society dim my positivity. Despite the many challenges in education, thousands of teachers do great work with students every day. I resolve to appreciate their work and find ways to support it and replicate that in every classroom in a school. In my writing, I constantly remind myself of all the good things happening in education and continuously ask questions about how those positive practices can be expanded to benefit more students.
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.
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.
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.
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.
