Character

My daughter was inducted into the National Junior Honor Society this week. Part of the ceremony was the reading of the 5 pillars of the society--Character, Scholarship, Leadership, Service and Citizenship. In the discussion of Character, there was this line. (I won't use quote marks, as I'm sure I'm not getting it precisely the way they read it, but it's like this:)

The issue of character is about self-control.

I found that fascinating. We talk too little about self-control in school. We talk about expressing yourself, maximizing your potential, empowering yourself. But we don't talk much of self-control, self-discipline, or, heaven forbid, self-denial.

When a student is bothering--bullying, intimidating or harassing--another student, we talk of how the bullied student feels, or the consequences of getting caught as a bully. We appeal to self-interest, in other words. Imagine yourself the victim--YOU wouldn't like that, so don't do it to somebody else. Or, if YOU get caught, it'll be bad for you.

We don't appeal to character--self-control. We don't say, you need to have the discipline to be thoughtfully concerned about the people around you.

Both kinds of appeal are going to be difficult. But the former, essentially appealing to the self-interest of the bully, seems to me a dead end. We all abuse other people--in varying degrees and quantities, and we do it primarily to advance or protect our own egos. Sure adults do it in calmer, more sophisticated ways. We tend to do it bureaucratically, if we can. (I'll have to explain that some other time, I think.) But we all incline that way. Lowering someone else elevates me in comparison.

The appeals to self-interest have a difficult time working, for they simply reveal the internal logic that actually stimulates bullying. How would the other person feel? Lousy...that's the point. And I'm getting a payoff! So I'll take the risk of getting caught, because I probably won't, and when I get away with it the benefits are pretty good.

I think maybe this is why my school always see a spike in bullying right after the anti-bullying training. (This plus the "reporting effect"--higher incidence of reports because of 'encouragement' to recognize bullying more.)

Next step? (...as we say in education) That's the hard one. Character education that focuses on self-control. But we have to do this in a comprehensively consistent fashion. Problem is that all our social norms and expectations push us away from self-control.

There's too little of the kind of awareness and acknowledgment that G.K. Chesterston, the fascinatingly wide-ranging thinker, exhibited in response to a newspaper invitation to explain 'what is wrong with the world.' He wrote simply:

�Dear Sirs:

I am.

Sincerely Yours,

G. K. Chesterton.�

When Engagement is Not Enough

One of my goals as a dean of a school of education has been to expand the notion of what teacher preparation includes. To that end, I have been strongly pushing for the development of community engagement courses and academic programs in my own school and across the college. This is grounded in my ongoing academic research and in my belief that one cannot be a good teacher, administrator or staff in a PreK-12 school without realizing (on academic, experiential, and conceptual levels) that schools are deeply embedded within and an important part of their local communities. To that end, I have been working on series of pieces that expands on the notion of community engagement as much more than just service, service-learning, or experiential education. This is the first part of this series.

***

The community engagement movement � after a generation of activism and research and immense energy and effort � has reached an �engagement ceiling.� It is now time to plot the second wave.

This movement � composed of a loosely inter-related set of programs, practices, and philosophies such as service-learning, civic and community engagement, public scholarship, and community-based research � has become an assumed and expected part of the higher education landscape. More than half of all faculty, according to UCLA�s ongoing American College Teacher surveys, believe that instilling a commitment to community service is a very important or essential aspect of undergraduate education; NSSE data suggest that service-learning is one of very few �high impact practices� that deepen undergraduates� learning; and the Carnegie Foundation recently released its third round of colleges and universities selected as worthy of the �community engagement� classification, whose membership now numbers over three hundred such institutions.

Yet even as the public face of community engagement becomes ever more embraced, there are troubling signs of its internal malaise. Key groups and scholars have begun to openly talk of a movement that has �stalled.� Strong research suggests that co-curricular engagement continues to be a more meaningful variable than singular curricular service-learning courses in fostering a range of key student outcomes. And the plethora of programs, centers, and practices that intermix community service, service-learning, and civic engagement contributes to frustratingly opaque notions of even basic definitions, categories, and hoped-for outcomes in the field.

The trouble is not that service-learning and its ilk have not been successful enough. The problem, I suggest, is that they have been too successful. Too successful, that is, at positioning themselves as a social movement for the transformation of higher education to reclaim and rediscover its civic purpose and meaningful engagement with, for, and in their local communities. But in so doing, in becoming a movement that attempted to reach everyone across the academy, the community engagement movement has become unmoored from some basic precepts. There is neither a core vision nor an overarching network able to guide or link the disparate centers, groups, scholarly communities, national organizations and activists all attempting to, ironically enough, foster an engaged campus and community. The gap between the rhetoric and reality of the �engaged campus� is ever increasing.

The reasons for this are complex, intertwined, and not easily changeable given the long-term economic retrenchment sweeping across the academy: the expanding demographics of �non-traditional� part-time commuting students; the outsourcing of labor to contingent and adjunct faculty; and the �wickedly� complex and contested problem of engaging with (much less solving) community issues enmeshed within multiple racial, political, economic, social, and historical realities. If the goal of the first generation of scholars and activists was to transform higher education, the real issue is who is transforming whom.

I am not suggesting that we wipe our hands, shut the classroom door, and walk away from the pressing societal problems that colleges and universities must indeed be a part of solving. Rather, we must reframe how we think about the engaged campus: namely, community engagement must become an intellectual movement. If the next generation of scholars, students, and community members are to have a chance in fostering a deep, sustained, and ultimately powerful campus and community collaborations, then we must embrace a second wave of criticality towards civic and community engagement in the academy.

By this I mean what other movements, such as Women�s Studies and Black Studies, have accomplished in the last thirty years. They have created, through majors and minors and interdisciplinary concentrations and research centers, a means to influence and impact the knowledge production and dissemination of their respective areas of study. They have succeeded in the impressive accomplishment that it is no longer possible to speak simply or �obviously� about what feminism or blackness �is,� either within their respective fields, across the academy, or, for that matter, in the larger world.

Interestingly enough, academic programs (such as majors and minors) focused on community engagement have indeed begun to spring up helter skelter across the academy. I helped organize a research institute this past summer for academics interested in developing or expanding such academic programs. We expected twenty or thirty people to show up. Instead, we had to stop registration at ninety, as scholars, administrators, and doctoral students poured in from across the country, as well as a few from Canada, Mexico, and even Ireland. We have now documented over sixty academic programs at varying stages of development across the United States and will be hosting another institute this summer to continue to deepen this dialogue and support such program development.

There are longstanding and deeply impressive programs, such as Providence College�s major in Public and Community Service Studies and UC-Santa Cruz�s department of Community Studies. There is the newly developed Civic Engagement minor at Mary Baldwin College, and the Department of Justice and Policy Studies at Guilford College. In each case, there are dedicated faculty members attached to each program, doing the deliberate, careful, and critical work that is necessary for any successful academic program: advising students, creating introductory courses, questioning the quality of the capstone experience, reaching out to colleagues across the institution and community members outside of it for perspective and feedback and collaboration, advocating for additional tenure-track lines, and questioning whether what they do is ultimately of value and relevance to its critical stakeholders.

This, then, is the face of the next generation of the scholarship of engagement. It is the critical work that cannot take for granted the practice and philosophy of community engagement. For community engagement is a complex and contested practice that claims to engage in �border crossing� and as such engages issues of power, race, and class. It is a practice that has real-world ethical, legal, and political implications as to what our undergraduates actually do out in the world. And it is a philosophy of practice that is seemingly at the heart of a liberal arts education. As such, what we do with, for, and in the community must be open to the same type of scrutiny as any other legitimate academic practice. It needs to be done in academic spaces that foster and strengthen the very qualities we are looking for in the community partnerships we espouse: deep, sustained, and impactful reflection, engagement, and action. That is an intellectual movement.

In the end, of course, this is not an either/or proposition. The academy must embrace both the community engagement and the critical academic spaces. To have engagement without the criticality is to succumb ultimately to a cheerleading mentality of a social movement with thin skin unable to withstand the critique of the academy. To have disciplined academic inquiry without a deep and sustained experiential community-based component is to succumb to an ineffectual model of �hallway activists� where theory and practice are disjoined and disjointed and where the thick skin of academic debate cannot feel or see the needs of the community all around it. But without the next stage, without the second wave of critique within academic spaces, the next generation of the engaged campus will be ever more imperiled.

"Quite a Lot, Really . . ."

Been meaning to write something substantive, but then I found this as part of a review of a book on Wittgenstein and couldn't resist:

Then there is the question of the role of the endnotes in Klagge's study: some are simply references, some elucidations, and yet others mini-essays almost. They constitute some two-fifths of the book, which seems quite a lot really, as Monty Python put it with respect to the amount of rat in the tart.

Now that's what academic writing should aspire to. :)

From H-Net.

Normal Accident Theory of Education, continued

Earlier, I started my Normal Accident Theory of Education. Here are a few key ideas necessary to advance the idea that education is rife with normal accidents or normal failures.

A brief but good overview of some of the definitions of key terms that make up Perrow's theory about Normal Accidents, by Professor Piccard of Ohio University.

High-Risk Systems

This term encompasses risks "for the operators, passengers, innocent bystanders, and for future generations." He applies it to "enterprises [that] have catastrophic potential, the ability to take the lives of hundreds of people in one blow, or to shorten or cripple the lives of thousands or millions more." This means that although he does include chemical plant and refinery accidents, he is explicitly excluding from his focus the primary harmful impacts of fossil-fuel burning (greenhouse gases and toxic combustion products released into the atmosphere), since those effects are diffuse and happen by design, not as an accident.Education and schools are a bit different. Their accidents are not deadly, but they do have lasting impact. Today especially, we look upon school processes and their outcomes as high-stakes. The consequences of failure, then, are serious, though not deadly.

Normal Accidents

Perrow uses this term in part as a synonym for "inevitable accidents." This categorization is based on a combination of features of such systems: interactive complexity and tight coupling. Normal accidents in a particular system may be common or rare, but the system's characteristics make it inherently vulnerable to such accidents, hence their description as "normal."

Education accidents (or failures) are common, though lower intensity than the fatalities that would be associated with a nuclear meltdown or a plane crash.

Discrete Failures

A single, specific, isolated failure is referred to as a "discrete" failure.

A student's failure of one course, or one standardized test, would be a discrete failure. So, where a nuclear plant might have a discrete failure occasionally, the education system produces its smaller discrete failures routinely.

Redundant Sub-systems

Redundant sub-systems provide a backup, an alternate way to control a process or accomplish a task, that will work in the event that the primary method fails. This avoids the "single-point" failure modes.

Interactive Complexity

A system in which two or more discrete failures can interact in unexpected ways is described as "interactively complex." In many cases, these unexpected interactions can affect supposedly redundant sub-systems. A sufficiently complex system can be expected to have many such unanticipated failure mode interactions, making it vulnerable to normal accidents.A student's failure to 'get an education' would be an interactively complex failure. A student must systematically fail courses, annual tests, etc., though these discrete failures may not necessarily amount to not getting an education. It is difficult to determine 'getting an education,' and we have increasingly defined that as passing all the classes and annual tests (or at least the last of these tests, 10th grade in WA state).

Tight Coupling

The sub-components of a tightly coupled system have prompt and major impacts on each other. If what happens in one part has little impact on another part, or if everything happens slowly (in particular, slowly on the scale of human thinking times), the system is not described as "tightly coupled." Tight coupling also raises the odds that operator intervention will make things worse, since the true nature of the problem may well not be understood correctly.The education system is loosely coupled, which means discrete failures here and there can be overcome. Persistence of discrete failure, however, which is, definitionally, evidence of interactive failure, can occur...with everyone's knowledge (so these failures are not incomprehensible--see below).One point of concern here. Perrow argues for decentralization of loosely coupled systems in order to allow flexible decision-making in the performance of the system. School reform portends increased centralization, though. This will increase the likelihood of normal accidents.

Incomprehensibility

A normal accident typically involves interactions that are "not only unexpected, but are incomprehensible for some critical period of time." The people involved just don't figure out quickly enough what is really going wrong.A normal accident occurs in a complex system, one that has so many parts that it is likely that something is wrong with more than one of them at any given time. A well-designed complex system will include redundancy, so that each fault by itself does not prevent proper operation. However, unexpected interactions, especially with tight coupling, may lead to system failure.System operators must make decisions, even with ambiguous information. The process of making a tentative choice also creates a mental model of the situation. When following through on the initial choice, the visible results are compared to those expected on the basis of that initial mental model. Provided that the first few steps' results are consistent, the fact that the mental model was tentative is likely to be forgotten, even if later results contradict it. They become "mysterious" or "incomprehensible" rather than functioning as clues to the falsity of the earlier tentative choice. This is simply the way the human mind works, and systems designed with contrary expectations of their operators are especially vulnerable to system accidents.

Operator Error

It is indeed the case that people sometimes do really stupid things, but when most of the accidents in a particular type of system (airplane, chemical plant, etc.) are blamed on the operator, that is a symptom that the operators may be confronted with an impossible task, that there is a system design problem. In a typical normal accident, the operator's actions may contribute to the problem, or even initiate the sequence of events, but the characteristics of tight coupling and interactive complexity also make their contributions.This brings us to the question--what is 'the education system' and who are the operators? If the system is the parents, home, community and school, then the operator is the individual student. If the system is just the schools, then the operators are the teachers and other school personnel. If we call the schools the system, we in effect leave 'incomprehensible' the functioning of the other parts of the student's educational life, and leave the student as something of a cipher. an entity being acted upon rather than an principal-operator of an educational system created--by his/her parents AND the schools--to make an education available to him/her.

For want of a nail ...

The old parable about the kingdom lost because of a thrown horseshoe has its parallel in many normal accidents: the initiating event is often, taken by itself, seemingly quite trivial. Because of the system's complexity and tight coupling, however, events cascade out of control to create a catastrophic outcome.So, a cascade can come from a string of bad or inattentive teachers. Or, a cascade can come from a school and teachers monitoring and intervening, but other parts of the whole system (parents, student, etc.) not responding. I'm sure the former happens. I see several cases of the latter every year. Most common form--we identify a student who needs an intervention in math or reading, and suggest a one-quarter class for this, and the parent opts to keep their student in band or art. Parents' choice; school will be held responsible.

Organizations

Organizational issues routinely confront the analyst of normal accidents. Because the interactions among subsystems are not predictable, the operators must be able to take prompt and independent action. Because of the tight coupling, in which operators of one part of the system influence the tasks confronting operators of other parts of the system, centralized control is required. These two conflicting requirements cannot be readily resolved, and the organizational attributes that work well for one side are likely to be dysfunctional for the other.

Schools and school personnel are increasingly bound, not independent, in their actions. There are school districts that tell teachers exactly what they'll be teaching on a given day. And, of course, as soon as the stakes are raised on the standardized tests, we incentivize teachers to focus more on the test, and, for some, to even cheat.

Okay, more later.

Microsoft and Markets in Education

I tried to highlight Bill Gates and Microsoft as an example of why we should be careful with what we think data snapshots show. Microsoft is also a cautionary tale regarding our assumptions that 'market forces' are necessarily a good thing, and will produce better outcomes in school.

This also serves as 'word study' number two. Earlier, I wondered which kind of democracy we mean when we talk of it in a school reform context. Thinking more deeply about markets would also be helpful.

While I took a little shot at Microsoft, one thing that may indeed be worth remembering about Microsoft is that they are a market winner. Those data snapshots I provided...they aren't all that Microsoft is about. And, of course, what is the most impressive about Microsoft is the volume of money they make.

But you don't have to think them a monopolist, to know that the 'playing field' in the computer business is not level. Microsoft's dominance has had numerous effects on the computer world, but investors may be little interested in that.

If I were an investor in Microsoft, I'd want returns. Whether Microsoft achieved great returns by constantly turning out new, effective, cool, hip (whatever) products, or by their market dominance with old, uncool, stodgy products, wouldn't necessarily matter.

Even a casual observer of Microsoft could argue that they've spent a lot of energy advancing their brand and market status...maybe as much energy as developing new and useful computer applications. All to great benefit for shareholders. Probably less benefit to the computing public.

So, markets and competition look different over time. Some players win and advance. More innovation keeps them strong and vibrant in the market, but so does rent-seeking. And they do some of both.

Why would schools operating in a climate of 'market forces' be any different?

I want some market discipline injected into school reform process...the issue is how much, where, in what ways?

Just a taste of my concern...we want schools to be subject to competition. Markets impose a discipline on consumers, too, though. In markets, all consumers are not equally free to choose whatever they want. We're all constrained by prices and our own buying power. Is that aspect worth translating into the school environment?

More later.

Democracy and Schools

Markets and choice and democracy are words that are getting thrown around a lot in the discussion of school reform. Unfortunately, the words are left rather abstract, and so their use is a bit slippery.

Take 'democracy,' for instance.

Democracy has two meanings. One is the process by which we all access and participate in the machinery by which we make decisions about how we live together. To a political scientist this means the instruments that are available to express and aggregate our opinion, then deliver it to the political leadership, and participate in selecting who that leadership is. Note that voting is a relatively small aspect of the available instruments.

The second is about the fairness and justice of the outputs of that machinery. Do we have equity, equality, human rights and needs met reasonably?

The first is about equality of access, the second is about equality of outcome...and these are different.

We can have a functioning democracy that generates very inequitable outcomes. In fact, we do.

In fact, the variable levels of 'social entrepreneurialism' (I stole that euphemism) in people means that a participatory system will generate differential outcomes for people.

Market forces, then, are not solutions before they are simply a variation in the participatory arrangements.

So, while I am a righty who likes markets, I am also aware that whatever market elements we embrace, in 5 years we'll be arguing over their deficiencies and skewed outcomes.

The Normal Accident Theory of Education

Education, both as an individual activity and social process, is a complicated, expensive and sloppy endeavor. The institutions that undertake to educate youngsters are effective and productive in some ways, and ineffective in others. Public, private, vouchered, charter schools--even parents at home--all evoke this variability, though in different ways. This is so because, being a complicated undertaking, education is susceptible to normal accidents, or normal failures.

To say a system is complicated, in the sense I'm using it here, means that system is composed of various parts whose relationship is characterized by some degree of complexity. That is, the many components of the system are connected together, and their interactions are vital to right functioning of the system. The degree of looseness or tightness of the coupling of these parts reflects the system's slack�ability to absorb problems without failing. Complex, as opposed to linear, systems are characterized by simultaneous processes within the system, and these processes affect other elements of the system.

Tightly coupled complex systems are subject to normal accidents. Unexpected interactions (of the system parts) generate unpredicted and (in a complex system) often unnoticed effects on the performance of other parts of the system. If a complication arises, it may be too late before anybody even realizes the problem, let alone does anything about it. Nuclear power plants are a tightly coupled complex system. The Valujet flight that fell into the Florida Everglades did so because of a normal accident in oxygen canister management.

Schools are loosely coupled complex systems. Plenty of slack is available in the organizational system of a school. Think of a teacher unable to make it to work one day. The school shifts people around, doubles up some classes, gets the principal to cover, or something like this, which means the whole system continues its basic functioning without much serious consequence.

Schools are complex, though, in the simultaneity and, often, divergence in the roles and goals of some the constituent sub-systems. Think about the sports teams, the arts programs and the math departments goals and self-perception of their roles. Add in the counselors, administrators and parents. And, of course, the students! To put it another way, there are a lot of stakeholders who have different expectations and views about how best to meet Billy's and Susie's educational needs. I've seen this in my own recommendation that a student participate in a reading support class prior to our standardized testing, but the band or choir teacher doesn't want the student removed from his/her class (which is the only time the reading class is available), and the parent demands for band, against the administrator's encouraging. While it's important that Billy 'have success at band' and 'enjoy school,' if he doesn't meet standard on the exam, it will be seen as a 'failure,' plain and simple.

So, education is a normal accident (if we mean 'failing to meet' not just standard but a variety of other expectations beyond the testing) waiting to happen in that the whole system�from home and parents to the school house and class rooms--must meet the needs of an incredibly wide variety of students with variant levels of preparation, commitment and support.

Schools are then a normal accident waiting to happen in the way we neglect the reality of the above and choose to redefine the organizational goals as 'meeting standard' in some few test areas for all students. This narrows the work of the organization, and then creates a situation in which we miss or minimize other needs a student might have.

And, well, there's more. But I'll save the elaboration for another post.

The Education of Juror 14

Yes, a story, but a true one, and, as we say, quite good experiential learning.

AM

The whole thing started strangely.

"Good morning, Mr. Milton. This is Tiffannee." (I'm sure that's how it was spelled.)

"I'm calling from Opinion Research Associates (or some such) in suburban Knoxville" (or some place whose name and general location I know, but whose specifics�character, place, theme, etc.� escape me).

"I'm not trying to sell anything. I'm calling because you've been selected to participate in an opinion research survey. Do you have a few minutes?"

I like these. It's fun to try to outmaneuver the questions while not demeaning the questioner, an innocent hourly employee who just wants to get the calls done. I was in bliss during one presidential election season in which I had registered as "undeclared." The parties' pollsters must have thought I was the elusive and all-important swing voter, so in the course of a few months, I got to play the evasive swing voter no fewer than 4 times each with both the big parties. I could so easily figure out which party was sponsoring the "survey," that I lost interest in asking, and eventually, in answering.

In my favorite call, I was asked whether I would tell the President, then a Democrat, if I supported Democratic Congressman Whozit's bill restricting handguns. (Democrats calling.) When I said 'No,' I'm certain, given where I lived, they ticked the 'Republican/NRA/Whacko' box for me. I told the questioner that I didn't like it because it was way too mild a bill, but since a stronger bill really isn't part of the landscape of discussion in our society, I knew they'd think I was a pro-gun type.

"Yeah, ok," was basically the response I got. You know, the sort of 'Hey, they don't pay me enough to deal with this malarkey' kind of 'yeah, ok.'

"Sorry, this is what you get for calling a political science PhD candidate who spends a lot of time at home pushing his toddler son around on his Tommy the Tooting Train."

Woo, woo. Chug, chug, chug�

�All Aboard! "Sure, Tiffannee." I'll take the bait, I think to myself.

"First," she interjects, "I have to ask if you're available next Saturday from 8:45 to 4:30. That's when the"�and now the word escapes me, but it is important, as the crux of the strangeness resides here�"[whatever it is] will take place."

I was available, so she asked if I knew these and those people (parties to the case). I didn't, so we could proceed. What followed was not one of those fun surveys, but a description of something to come next Saturday, something I could only construe as part market research, part mock trial, part lawyerly information gathering. I wasn't quite sure what it was going to be, but I persuaded myself it would be even more fun than outguessing the major political survey takers, and they were going to pay me $150.

Later, I would find that my comrades were equally vexed. The letter we had all gotten said "jury research project," though "market research" was splashed generously through the letter's several paragraphs. Rereading the letter now throws no brighter illumination of what I just finished participating in.

The same day the letter came, I got a second phone call, which I remember better, except for the caller's name, so let's call him Philip. Philip was calling to make sure I was still coming.

"Yeah, it seems like teachers, like yourself, understand better. You all seem to know the idea of market research." Market research, I remember those words clearly because they befuddled me. I had spent the past several days imagining that one side or the other in a pending lawsuit wanted to do a mock trial and examine our responses to various aspects of their case. If politics has its 'trial balloons' and 'focus groups,' litigation must have its 'market research,' I figured. I convinced myself satisfactorily enough that I didn't think about it again.

"Be sure to be there by 8:45," both Tiffannee and then Philip reminded me over and over. "You have to be there by 8:45 in order to participate, and you have to stay to 4:30 to get the $150."

"Look," I said, "I'm a prompt person, and I hate getting there at the appointed time only to find that this was the front end of the arrival window and everyone is actually allowed to trickle in for the real start time, which is some distant hour." So 15 minutes isn't all that distant, but it's the principle.

"Just be sure to be there by 8:45."

By now, I guess, I'd overlooked several unusual things�the unusualest being this: Why are law firms from the Puget Sound region hiring an opinion research firm from somewhere in the Deep South to secure participants in a mock trial? Must be a pretty big case, I thought, but not too hard or for too long. We had plans for the 150 bucks, and I was kind of pondering that bonus drawing for an extra 100 if you, in fact, participate for the whole day. The money, and the chance to slyly deploy my prodigious analytical skills, was more than adequate to distract from any further wondering about just what I was getting myself into.

Saturday, 8:40. Five minutes to spare. Sign in, get my ID tag (Juror #14), and a few forms to fill out. Squeeze in to one of the chairs lined up, tightly, under and along a richly paneled wall with elegantly framed windows�all with blinds drawn.

Stuck all day, in what looks like a mini-courtroom. We jurors face a set of desks, which sit at right angles to us. On our right, a stylish old partner's desk, flanked by the state and US flags. The "judge" must sit there. Across from the judge, on our left, counsels' tables. Their chairs look an awful lot more comfortable than the one I'm in.

And, what kind of opinion or market research will they be getting from us in such an officious arrangement? Even for a mock trial, the whole thing feels eerily overbearing.

Not much time to think about it�forms to complete. What kind of person am I? What's our household income? Do I know these and those people�same list?

8:55, done. Hand back the forms. The sign-in list shows that one juror didn't check in until 8:50. The threat of being excluded is going unfulfilled, but, I presume, there'll be one fewer person for the bonus drawing....And we're ready to go.

9:00, at least one juror colleague is still filling out paper work. So it's going to be more than 15 minutes.

9:05, Nurcan, the facilitator of the day's activities assures us we'll start in a few minutes, and invites waiting jurors to enjoy the Danish and coffee. Several of my colleagues move to the other room, and sit down with their refreshments. We're not starting any time soon, so I ask my neighbor about the Steven King book she's reading. Never having read one myself�indeed, I've probably read 10 fiction books in the last 10 years, all I can think to say is, "Did you know that he wrote The Running Man under a pseudonym? You know�the Schwarzenegger movie? With Richard Dawson, too?"

Ways Andrew Should Wait More Patiently. SURVEY SAYS!... Don't talk to neighboring jurors.

9:23, we're going to start. Oh, Nurcan�the founder of this legal process facilitating firm, which presumably does this routinely�realizes we're one chair short. Wait some more.

9:25�.STARTING! Nurcan first assures us this is a real case and our decisions will have real consequences for real people. Lots of talk about our responsibilities, threats of being hauled before a judge if we talk about this case outside this room, reminders not to speak about it during breaks, etc. Our brief instructions about 'standards of proof and evidence' are elaborated with a reminder about how it's just "like what you hear on TV shows like CSI."

Now, I'm mad. Invoking a TV drama to explicate the civic requirements of the justice process means they're wanting me to take this more seriously than they take it. So with a boldness that later earns me immediate and spontaneous and consensus nomination to be foreman of our jury, I ask what "real consequences for real people" means.

"Will our decision today have some sort of legal standing," I ask. "I was told we were doing opinion research." Murmurings from Jurors 1-13 confirm that everybody understood something different from what we were now experiencing.

Nurcan coolly put us off. "I don't know why they told you that�.I'll have to look into that." This, even though she had just borrowed, from one of my fellow jurors, a copy of the opinion research firm's letter to us.

"So, is this a trial," another juror asks.

"Your decision will have a real effect on real people, and that is enough of an answer." A slightly foreign bearing in Nurcan's English serves to make it a little easier to dismiss us. A mildly aloof demeanor that seems partly constituted of an "I don't quite understand you" expression requires us to just let it pass.

All at once an Agatha Christie-ish, 10 Little Indians type of feel swept over me. We're in an odd house, drawn here under different pretense than what is really happening. Told we must do certain things but not told why we're doing them. Is there a record player around? To play the recording about all the things I've done wrong? 14 ceramic figurines to knock off, one at time, as we all succumb?

And, look at the ceiling�the ubiquity of the video cameras is pressing in on me�literally, as we must�MUST�sit hip to hip and knees in the backs of the row ahead in order to all fit in the frame. Wait a minute�they never asked my permission to video tape me. Keyword alternatives for a YouTube search race through my mind.

'Fake Trial' 'Jury Fail' 'Dumb Jury Subjects' 'Fake Jury Study'

I'm convinced that by Sunday morning any of these will retrieve what's about to become the "snuff film" of my dying dignity. But as it turns out, I wouldn't have to wait that long. Nurcan brought it all about much quicker.

We heard a brief presentation by both sides�what seemed like opening statements with a little bit of evidence. Then off to lunch. No, wait�again. Nurcan forgot the 45 minutes of video excerpts of the depositions of the two principles. First the video, then, at 11:45, 45 minutes for lunch. At 12:30, ready to go, Nurcan's assistant announces, "20 more minutes."

After 65 minutes of break�and more warnings not to talk about the case, ever�we're off to review a few documents and deliberate, with all of us crammed on one side of the table, faces pointed at a camera on the ceiling. On pain of death, I can't say anything about what we did or didn't decide.

Debriefing with the two attorneys, and questions like, who did you think was behind this?

"The defendant," (a big organization) we all agreed. No indication if we were right.

"Did you think this was making a mountain out of a molehill," they enquired.

"Yes," we again all agreed.

"Did any of you think the defendant was lying?"

Some did.

"Did any of you think the plaintiff's testimony had problems?"

Some did.

Never at any point did we get even a dribble of information about what was "really" going on. We were left guessing or wondering�unless of course the $150 was enough to buy a diverting quiescence in the hearts of the individual jurors. It didn't in mine, but not because of the amount as much as the nature of the money.

One last warning before we go.

"Let me tell you a story," Nurcan says. "You think Pierce County is a small place�I mean big. It's not. You can't talk to anybody about this case. Not your spouse, not at work." Odd story�started slow, and never really got better.

But she'd said the confidentiality worked both ways. So, since I didn't give any contact information on Saturday, she'd have to get it from the opinion research firm. And the lawyers would have to start even further back, asking Nurcan to go the research firm, etc. Now, do I think that if they really needed to find me they'd stop themselves from violating our confidentiality agreement? I don't, but if I black out all detail that could identify me, or that they could use in conjunction with watching that videotape they never said they were taking, and since there really wasn't a juror 14, they won't be able to figure out who I am.

Sunday�

As I revel in the bizarre strangeness of the whole day, and delight at spinning out this little yarn, an impulse almost imperceptible and now only faintly remembered sets me in front of the computer. The web is a phenomenal thing.

Within about 10 minutes of browsing I discover I'd gotten it all wrong. I couldn't have been wronger, in fact. A Google search by the plaintiff's name retrieved a story from a local newspaper which reveals not only the fact that this lawsuit was filed two years ago, but her attorney's name, and the fact that this same attorney had recently won a similar case for an amount of money half way between 6 and 7 figures.

A Google search by the attorney's name leads to the web site of a sizable (and aggressive) local law firm. Reading through the list of attorneys at the firm, I recognized another name from our "no-know" list. The firm is kind enough to provide photos of their attorneys, so there it is for me to see�our two unnamed presenters from Saturday are, in fact, counsel for the plaintiff.

If you've ever discovered something dramatic and secret and surprisingly unpleasant about someone, you've had that "did I even really know this person?" feeling, the kind that makes you reconsider all your general history with that person, and some of the specific events they were involved in, and which compels you to rewrite the tone and mood of that history and revise your understanding of the outcomes of those events.

If you've ever had that happen, then you know precisely what I went through at 11:30 Sunday night. Everything was different now, darker, more banal and yet more sinister at the same time. What exactly had I signed on the confidentiality agreement that they did not give me a copy of? Hadn't I always gotten to keep a copy of those kinds of legal documents before?

And why did they never tell us verbally or in writing (if it's on the confidentiality agreement, I don't remember) that we were being videotaped? Unless it's buried in the confidentiality agreement, I don't remember signing a consent to be taped, and everyone agrees that written consent�on a specific video consent form�is the best protection for all involved. How many times have I been annoyed with the abundance of forms for just such purposes?

Could they now deny ever taping us? I don't have the tape to show it. But hadn't Nurcan lined up our chairs just so (leaving us uncomfortably close, at that) under a camera? And firmly said NO�without explanation, when one juror asked to move around the table? And as I left hadn't I seen a large TV monitor�then showing a snow pattern�upstairs in the same room where one of the attorneys was gathering his coat and bag?

Then I remembered reading about the ethical requirements of studying human subjects. As The Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research describes it, they were supposed to get my informed consent, which involves giving me, among other things, "sufficient information on which to decide whether or not to participate, including the research procedure(s), [and] their purposes."

Why, I even remember conducting a study once in which we had to tell the subjects verbally and in writing that they were free to leave the study at any time, and they had to sign a paper saying they understood this. Telling us we wouldn't get the $150 if we didn't participate in the whole process isn't exactly the same as having us sign a paper saying we understand we could leave.

I didn't win the bonus drawing, and I'm almost glad I didn't. I did sign one last paper, though, and here the tale ends as strangely as it started. On completion we signed out. Nurcan's assistant made a mark in the last column of the row with my name. It was to note "Envelope Received." Not "Payment Received." Not" $150." Envelope Received. Inside, three 50 dollar bills.

It may as well have read, "Juror 14, Compromising Completed."

No Child Left Behind: What Lies Ahead?

(Crossposted from my dean's blog)

In March, the Obama administration announced its plans to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). The last time the act was reauthorized, in 2001, it was called No Child Left Behind and became the cornerstone of the Bush administration�s education efforts. NCLB brought with it an increased focus upon testing and accountability in schools.

What have we learned from the act during the past decade? What changes would improve it? In my own search for answers, I asked faculty members from various education specialties for their views, which I share here.

Professor David Slavit on accountability

Right now Secretary Duncan talks about NCLB as being too punitive and prescriptive because of its accountability measures. Why do we have accountability? Because we don�t trust people to do their jobs.

Surveys show that most people think their own children�s teachers are quite good, but that teachers in general are not. This says a great deal about the kind of negative messaging people receive in this country about teachers, and the political harm this has been doing to teachers for the past decades. The basis of any reauthorization needs to assume one thing: Teachers are professionals deserving of trust and respect. The many teachers whom I visit on a regular basis are some of the hardest working people I know. And certainly some of the most caring.

Associate Professor Judy Morrison on science education

Under the NCLB, science education has not received the same attention that reading and mathematics have, because the law did not require yearly science assessments.

Though not necessarily advocating for yearly assessments, science educators would like to see students taking more science courses and being exposed to the reality of science in their science courses. There also needs to be an ongoing conversation about which important scientific knowledge and skills our students should be exposed to so that they become scientifically literate citizens. We need to open their eyes to the development, meaning, value, and limitations of scientific knowledge. As students engage in more authentic science in their K-12 science courses, they will be exposed to the creativity and innovation that science involves, strengthening their passion and causing them to consider careers in science.

If higher standards and more assessments can produce more opportunities for students to receive quality science instruction, then these certainly should be a part of the ESEA revisions involving science education.

Clinical Associate Professor Gay Selby on support for teachers, leaders

There is much about No Child Left Behind that I personally support�most important to me is that it requires schools to examine data, including student achievement data, high school graduation rates, and the qualifications of teachers as to teaching assignments. These areas of examination have �shined a light� on important areas that all too often prior to NCLB were not well examined.

I believe most teachers and principals today are intentional in their efforts to address the learning needs of all students and to improve high school graduation rates. Many teachers have changed how they work together and many innovative programs have emerged to provide the needed support to students. The role of principals also has changed from one of manager to leader�an instructional leader focused on assisting teachers with their classroom practice and student needs.

The downsides of NCLB are the heavy reliance on standardized tests data to determine how well a school is doing and the use of test results to punish teachers and principals as a means of motivating them. It is my hope that a reauthorized NCLB will focus on targeted support for teachers and principals.

The public and policy makers have every right to expect high performance from their schools and every right to hold teachers and principals accountable, but should be realistic about the challenges schools face and recognize that schools need authentic support in their efforts to improve. Only after such efforts should punitive measures be taken.

Assistant Professor Janet Frost on the intent of the law

I greet reauthorization of the act with mixed feelings. The intentions of actually meeting the educational needs of all children were noble, and the federal funding provided the opportunity for extensive professional development work my colleagues and I do that seems to be making a difference for teachers and students. However, the means of accountability and implementation of NCLB seemed misguided.

Most teachers and administrators with whom I have worked have felt that this legislation forced them to take steps that seemed educationally bizarre and the opposite of the legislation�s intent. They learned to focus their efforts on those students whose scores were just below passing, cutting back attention for lower or higher students. Schools reduced or eliminated time for science, social studies, the arts, and physical education � all areas of study that engage students who may be less interested or successful in mathematics or literacy learning. Teachers� emotional energy became so focused on meeting Adequate Yearly Progress that they were less aware or considerate of their impact on students. I learned of students who couldn�t sleep the night before the high-stakes tests because their teachers had told them they were responsible for the school�s score and future. Some principals couldn�t be bothered with improving grade 11-12 students� preparation for college success because yearly progress was focused on grade 10 scores.

Associate Professor Brian French on achievement testing

The attention given to achievement testing will not wane with reauthorization. It will only increase as common standards are applied to schools nationwide. First, there is the challenge of producing high quality assessments. The timeline and budget may not be sufficient to ensure proper development and implementation of tests.

Second, the magnitude of the common core project is almost overwhelming to the states and organizations charged with implementing the assessment system. For example, changing from paper-and-pencil tests to computer adaptive assessments sounds simple. However, having enough adequate working computers is a major barrier to implementation. Plus, there is a heavy bet being placed on technology for success for this system�technology that may not yet exist.

Third, achievement tests are designed for measuring individual student progress. However, the scores are put to many other uses (such as promotion, grades, teacher effectiveness, program accountability) with no assurance that they are valid measurements for those purposes.

Fourth, teachers will be asked, if not required, to make use of assessment scores to modify instruction, see and understand individual student mistakes, and convey student progress to parents. The challenge is to ensure they are prepared to do so.

Choice and Edutainment

Pardon the long excerpt from this article...

In today�s digital marketplace, students of all ages can create experiences tailored just for them. When a teenager searches for movies to watch, an online film site can provide suggestions based on past viewing history. Music lovers can create personalized playlists for everything from a workout in the gym to a study session. And when children play video games, they can choose a variety paths�based on their interests and skill levels�toward slaying a dragon or defeating an enemy.

Then many of these same students walk into their classrooms and sit at their desks to absorb one-size-fits-all lessons or, if they�re lucky, instruction aimed at the high-, mid-, or low-level learner. And in many cases, there is little, if any, technology integrated into those lessons.

In some pockets around the country, though, educators and schools are turning to technology and different teaching and learning approaches to give students a personalized learning experience that mirrors the customized experiences they take for granted....

I'm anxious over the sound of this, for it could too easily become education as entertainment. If we start letting students take for granted that they get education experience customized to them, then don't we invoke a risk that if they don't like the experience, they can reject it...like skipping ahead on their iPod?

Miracle schools, vouchers and all that educational flim-flam

is the title of this piece by Diane Ravitch. It appeared at the website of Nieman Watchdog of the Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard University, as part of the "Ask This" which is subtitled "Questions the Press Should Ask." Oh if only reporters and writers on education were knowledgeable enough about education to ask questions such as those posed by Ravitch, perhaps we could cut through all the misleading and inaccurate information, the attempts to manipulate the public discourse on education to exclude the voices of those - including both Ravitch (a personal friend) and myself - who say that our supposed pattern of educational "reform" is like the emperor's new clothes - there is no there there, as Gertrude Stein once opined of Oakland.

You should read Ravitch's piece. To whet your appetite, let me offer Diane's first paragraph here, and then explore a bit more below the fold:

Be skeptical of miracle schools. Sometimes their dramatic gains disappear in a year or two or three. Most such claims rely on cheating or gaming the system or on intensive test prep that involves teaching children how to answer test questions. These same children, having learned to take tests, may actually be very poorly educated, even in the subjects where their scores were rising.

Please keep reading.

Diane offers some very tough questions to consider. Understand that as an educational historian and as someone very involved in policy questions, the questions she poses are derived from the record, from extensive reading/research into the information that is actually available. For example:

When a charter school reports miraculous results, be sure to ask about the attrition rate. Some highly successful charters push out low-performing kids and their enrollment falls over the years (and the departing students are not replaced). Recently Arne Duncan hailed a �miracle� school in Chicago�Urban Prep�where all the students who graduated were accepted into college. But 150 students started and only 107 graduated. The 107 graduates had much lower test scores than the average for Chicago public school students. The school did a good job of getting the students into college (perhaps that was a miracle) but they were not better educated than students in the regular public schools.

In another instance, one of the �amazing� schools singled out by the 2010 documentary �Waiting for Superman� admits 140 students, but only 34 graduated. That�s a 75 per cent attrition rate. Some miracle.

Or try the brief paragraph before what I just quoted:

Whenever a district has a dramatic increase in test scores, look for cheating, gaming the system, intensive investment in test prep. Testing is NOT instruction. It is meant to assess instruction, not to substitute for it.

Take this points one at a time

cheating - explore the recent USA Today examination of test results in DC public schools under Michelle Rhee

gaming - the so-called Texas miracle on their state tests, given in tenth grade, was accomplished by holding back lower performing kids in 9th grade. Some were held back several times until they dropped out, and if they said they MIGHT get a GED, they were listed at having transferred to an alternative educational program, not as dropouts. Or perhaps after having been held back one year they were skipped to 11th on the grounds they had made so much progress. In either case, they were not tested. All this was documented BEFORE No Child Left Behind was passed into law, and people in Congress cannot say they were unaware. Walt Haney of Lynch College of Education at Boston College wrote about it, as did others, and a number of us passed on the literature to key people in Congress. Yet somehow Rod Paige won a superintendent's award and got promoted to Secretary of Education, in part because of a claimed 90% graduation rate in Houston schools, when in reality only a bit over 40% of those entering 7th grade graduated with their cohorts.

intensive investment in test prep - these seems to be the pattern in a number of charter schools and some public schools claiming significant gains. But what evidence there is that the "gains" on tests are not maintained in subsequent grades, and students as they ascend the educational grades arrive less and less prepared to do the kind of work necessary to be successful even in a high school course of students, to say nothing of what is necessary in colleges, which is why post-secondary institutions have had to expand the number of places in remediation courses.

Ravitch remind us - at least those of us who have been paying attention - that improving pass rates on state tests may mean merely that states are manipulating their cut scores. It is possible to pass some state tests with less than half the questions answered correctly. Since all that are published are scaled scores, converted from raw scores, unless one can see the conversion formula, the scaled scores are subject to manipulation for all kinds of reasons, including the state (or school district for district wide tests) wanting to be able to show "success" or to avoid the politically unacceptable prospect of large numbers of students not being promoted or not graduating from high school.

Not all "studies" are peer-reviewed by independent scholars. Some are not even rigorous, as Ravitch points out about the claim by Carolyn Hoxby that students who spent 9 years in a NYC charter could close the achievement gap differential between, say, Harlem in inner city NY and Scarsdale, perhaps the wealthiest of the New York suburbs. As Ravitch writes:

The press gave that study huge attention and credibility, but no one noticed that there were very few students who had attended a charter in NYC for nine years or that Hoxby did not provide a number for the students who had closed the gap. It appears that her study was an extrapolation, and it was an extrapolation based on NYC and NY state�s inflated and unreliable test scores (see above). When NYC�s charter scores are reported, they range widely from very abysmal (a six per cent pass rate) to exceptional (100 per cent pass rate).

Ravitch also reminds us of the wisdom of the words spoken by Hal Holbrook in "All the President's Men" - Follow the Money. In the case of education, we have the likes of Philip Anschutz, a billionaire who advocates for free market solutions (and for whom, I might mention, Michael Bennet worked before becoming Superintendent in Denver, and then a US Senator, and now apparently the successor in waiting to Arne Duncan as Secretary of Education). He was a funder of "Waiting for Superman" as was a man "previously CEO of a string of for-profit postsecondary institutions." Similarly, the so-called Democrats for Education Reform has a board full of Wall St. hedge fund managers and big real estate moguls. Ravitch suggests asking why they are so interested in charters, and how they are connected with other 'reform' groups such as" Education Reform Now, Stand for Children, the state CAN organizations (e.g., ConnCAN), and a host of other groups promoting privatization and de-professionalization?" She also reminds us, as she did in her book, about the influence of the 'billionaire boys' club" of foundations such as Gates, Broad and Walton.

No high performing nations, as Ravitch reminds us, are pursuing the kinds of approaches we are seeing advocated by such groups and foundations, and unfortunately by the Obama administration. She challenges the administration with a number of questions, on continuing Bush administration accountability problems, on school choice, on merit pay (which lacks any supportive research base in education or in industry, and has clearly been shown to have no effect on test scores, which of course are the measurement of choice of the so-called reformers). Given the President's recent remarks at Bell Multicultural High School in the District, in response to a question from a student, it is worth noting this question from Ravitch:

Why does the president publicly say he is against standardized testing at the same time that his administration is demanding more emphasis on standardized testing?

Read Ravitch. Perhaps pass on the article to the editors, editorialists, and reporters dealing with education at your publication of choice.

Ravitch concludes her piece with simple statement:

Principles for reporters: Be skeptical; don�t believe in miracles; follow the money.

Perhaps were these principles followed, we might actually be able to have a meaningful public discussion on how to address the real needs and issues confronting our schools and our students.


Perhaps were these principles followed, we might actually be able to have a meaningful public discussion on how to address the real needs and issues confronting our schools and our students.