Merit and Diversity in College Admissions

The recent Supreme Court ruling against race-conscious university admissions has everyone thinking about racism, privilege, equity, merit, and a host of other issues. Here are some thoughts.

Most college admissions are thought of through three main lenses: Potential, merit, and diversity. I'm ignoring legacy (totally separate issue), athletics, and others that account for relatively small numbers of seats. I'm sure it's more complicated that that, but I think American society generally thinks of admissions with a mix of these three lenses.

Potential: Who *could* succeed at the institution if given the opportunity? This is perhaps the most important lens because schools want students who can succeed. This is a big set, and is not ordered. MANY more students have the ability to succeed at MIT, Stanford, and the Ivies than they admit every year. 

Merit: Assuming we can give everyone a score based on a test and/or HS transcript (a combo of GPA and number of AP/IB courses), this provides a ordered list. I don't believe it's a perfect ordering because of how flawed the tests are, but it's still somewhat of an ordered list. If two students have the same grades, but one has more IB classes, then the latter is higher on the list. In case you haven't looked at the studies, SAT scores do a really bad job of predicting performance in college. Grades do a better job, but also aren't perfect.

Diversity: Most schools want some sort of diversity. I would argue that diversity brings tremendous value to most schools and to society as a whole. As a diverse society, we need scientists and doctors and lawyers and judges and politicians and writers who reflect our diversity. Individuals benefit from a wealth of diverse perspectives. Note that this isn't just racial diversity. Think about gender and economic class and athleticism and artistic talents and so on.

So, with those lenses defined, a few thoughts:

1) Some people tend to ignore the size of the Potential lens, ignore Diversity, and instead focus on the Merit lens to the exclusion of the other two. I suspect that most selective schools start with the Potential lens, (they really need students who can succeed) then look to balance Merit and Diversity.

2) Studies show mirror-image biases: Teachers tend to expect and demand less of Black students and tend to expect and demand more of Asian students. Negative perceptions of Blacks and positive perceptions of Asians become self-fulfilling prophecies.

3) Some people suggest that affirmative action's goal is a form of reparations for slavery. That is NOT the case. Affirmative action is an attempt to address the fact that institutional racism and implicit biases make it harder for Black and Brown students to climb the Merit ladder regardless of their potential. As a society, we do a terrible job of identifying and fostering academic potential in Black and Brown students.

Merit is important, but traditional (and imperfect) ways of quantifying merit should not be the only lens through which we look at college admissions.

Interview with Chuck Cascio: Transforming Education Series

 I was honored to be interviewed by Chuck Cascio for his Transforming Education series. 

Chuck's questions got me to reflect on my journey as a student and educator, and writing out my responses was a very helpful exercise.

Opening Schools While Dealing with the Delta Variant

Schools are opening up as the Delta Variant is ascending. This could be a tough Fall.

What is the outlook for Covid cases?

UVA has a model for how the number of cases could progress. Here is what it looks like for Virginia:

The first peak represents last January. The second peak is the delta wave we are building towards. This model indicates that the worst of Delta could be in September and early October. Here is a quote from the authors: 

If the Delta variant continues to spread, cases could possibly peak at levels higher than previous January peaks. 

What should schools do?

Needless to say, FCPS's hands are currently tied by state legislation. If cases indeed surge as the UVA model suggests, AND the Governor unties the School Board's hands, then:

• Keep concurrent off the table of options. It's a terrible option that serves everyone poorly. 
• Switch to remote when public health and safeguarding your staff necessitate it. 
• Set the expectation that K-6 and special needs students will be the first to return as soon as case levels are low enough to do so safely. 
• Bring back MS/HS extracurricular activities before bringing MS/HS students back to classrooms.  
• CDC guidance indicates that virus spread and public health need to be thought about holistically. Every single thing we do to open up multiplies the spread of the virus. Opening up MS/HS in-person classrooms AND extracurriculars have multiplicative effects. If you are going to pick one, I suggest the latter for the following two reasons. 
• Allowing MS/HS extracurriculars provides students with valuable experiences without necessitating shuffling students from class to class. Unlike in ES, the secondary model of students moving from class to class is bound to spread the virus widely through the school and make contact tracing challenging. 
• Keeping MS and HS students remote would provide more space in which classes for students in ES and with special needs (e.g., Special Education, ELL, etc.) could be held while implementing social distancing strategies.

None of the choices ahead are easy ones, and I don't envy the School Boards that have to wrestle with them. Still, if our communities can take decisive action now, we can push down the peak and get back to normal quickly.

Opening School in the Fall: The Problem with Concurrent

K-12 Schools are planning how they will open in the Fall. Here are some thoughts on the options.

Back to Normal (AKA "Pandemic? What Pandemic?")

Many schools around the country plan to return to pre-pandemic normal in the Fall. The only concerns with that are that some people (both students and teachers) ...

1. Have significant health issues that make them particularly susceptible to a serious case of COVID and/or preclude them from taking the vaccine.
2. Have learned that virtual learning has significant benefits that help them deal with social, emotional, physical, or logistical issues. 

Being in-person is great for most students and staff, but it would be somewhere between critical and nice if there were a virtual option as well. An NPR/Ipsos poll indicates that (for a host of reasons) 29% of parents want to stick with remote learning indefinitely. 

Back to Normal, but with the Option of a Separate Virtual School

Some school systems are standing up virtual schools for those teachers and students who can't return to in-person school. This requires buying or creating the curriculum and software that are needed to make virtual learning really work. It also requires having teachers, administrators, counselors, ELL specialists, instructional coaches, and other supports that are focused on the virtual environment.

Concurrent

Some schools will choose to continue concurrent instruction they are currently using. In this model, teachers will be responsible for both in-person and virtual students at the same time. I have major problems with this.

1. The curriculum, tools, assessments, and supports that are best for in-person learning are not the same as those for virtual learning. As a result, either in-person or virtual students (or both) will be given a solution that is a poor fit for their situation.
2. Students who are remote will get much less attention and support than they need, while the need to address both populations will cause teachers and other staff huge amounts of stress.
3. Virtual K-12 schools around the country have created systems that support virtual students and staff, and they are different from in-person systems. Doing a good job of supporting ELLs and special ed and struggling or gifted students is different in a virtual setting. As are community building and collaboration and counseling and family engagement. These challenges require different systems in a virtual environment than we use in brick-and-mortar schools.
4. I have spoken to teachers (and other staff) who hate concurrent instruction enough that they will resign, retire, or take a leave of absence if forced to continue the concurrent instruction they are doing now. 
5. Reports from school districts around the country who are using concurrent instruction should give us all pause. Here is a quote from an NBC News article Educators teaching online and in person at the same time feel burned out: 

"Teachers are reporting high levels of stress and burnout around the country, including in Kansas, Michigan and Salt Lake Tribune reported, principals say their teachers are having panic attacks while juggling both.

High levels of teacher stress affect not only students and their quality of education, but the entire profession, said Christopher McCarthy, chair of the educational psychology department at the University of Texas at Austin.

'When teachers are under a lot of stress, they are also a lot more likely to leave the profession, which is a very bad outcome,' he said."

Many teachers and students welcomed the return to classrooms for hybrid this Spring because it means we are on a path to normalcy. But concurrent instruction is not sustainable, and will lead to VERY poor learning outcomes as well as significant staff attrition. Concurrent seems like the easy solution, but just because it's being done now doesn't mean it should continue. 

Through this school year, I have heard people raise equity as an issue totally disingenuously, so I'm sure they will do so in this case as well. We serve all students better when we give them educational systems and supports that match their needs. If we are going to allow students to choose virtual, then the only equitable way to do that is to do it well. Having them as add-ons to a physical class serves nobody well. As one educator told me recently:

If equity is about giving kids what they need, the best way to achieve that is to have a setting that supports the unique needs of the different learning platforms with teachers specifically trained to meet the needs of the kids in front of them.

Standing up separate virtual schools is the only way to serve virtual and in-person students well. 

The Shift to Concurrent

Teachers are returning to school buildings.  

I know the decisions have been made, and concurrent instruction is happening, but I want to clarify my concerns on the education side of things (I think I've gone on before about the public health side of this).

At our local high school, about 85-90% of the teachers are returning to classrooms, but, fewer than half of the students are returning to the building. 

So 90% of our teachers are returning to school buildings to improve the education of fewer than 50% of the students. I worry that teaching concurrently will generally degrade instruction, especially for remote students. I'm sure this isn't true for all teachers or contexts (e.g., special needs, vocational ed, and others), but based on my work with teachers around the country, the shift to concurrent is not an easy one.

I would argue that even if your goal is to keep students from "falling behind," the right strategy in November should have been to say that schools will stay remote for the remainder of the school year. Everyone could have focused on really great virtual instruction instead of spending so much time, money, and emotional energy preparing to return to school buildings.

And, there is a racial layer to this as well. Which students are returning? Data from around the country indicate that white students are returning to buildings in numbers FAR greater than students of color (e.g., New York, Nashville). This is not surprising in light of a recent Axios poll that indicates that Black and Latino parents are twice as likely as white parents to be extremely or very concerned about schools in their community reopening too quickly. 

Put this all together, and I think it's reasonable to predict that returning to buildings for concurrent instruction will widen opportunity gaps.

Teachers: Good luck. You have been put in a tough position, but I know you will do your best. I appreciate all you have done and all you will do.

Parents: This is a huge shift. Check in on your students often. 

Why Fix the Best School? Because It's Broken

The Thomas Jefferson High School for Science & Technology is consistently ranked as one of the best public high schools in the country. We can debate the metrics that are used for such lists, but it's hard to argue with the results the school produces: Tons of exemplary students who gain admission to impressive colleges and universities and go on to amazing careers. TJ is a success.

So why would anyone suggest changing anything about the school? The table below shines some light on the problems.

Three things jump out at me from this table. First, Hispanic and Black students aren't even applying to TJ nearly as often as we would hope. Second, once they apply, the admissions test knocks many of them out of contention immediately. Third, it's an even worse picture for economically disadvantaged students. 

If you look at these numbers and think "Well, the Asian kids are just smarter," then we have different assumptions about the nature of race, so you can just move on. I have no reasoned response.

If you look at these numbers and think "Well, the Black and Hispanic kids are not as qualified (through no fault of their own), and letting more of them in will significantly dilute the academic strength of the TJ student body," then we can have a reasonable discussion (though I disagree with you). 

In a recent School Board working session, the Superintendent presented his TJ Admissions Merit Lottery Proposal, and I like it. For the first time, the admissions process can reflect the reality that many students could benefit from the rich experiences at TJ -- not just excellent test-takers. Most students who meet the new requirements (e.g., moving the minimum GPA up from 3.0 to 3.5) will be able to thrive at TJ. A few points: 

1. The current system does a great job of identifying great test takers, but there is more to academics than test taking. I actually don't care about creating a strict ordering of everyone who can take a test well. It's important that admitted students be qualified, but more than 500 students in Fairfax, Loudoun, Arlington, and the other participating districts are qualified to attend TJ. 
2. TJ teachers can figure out how to bring out excellence from students who took Algebra I in 7th or 8th grade and have a 3.5 GPA in their core middle school classes. Their classes will be SLIGHTLY less homogeneous, but not much. 
3. More Black and Hispanic students will apply than in recent years. I would guess that many students of color haven't particularly wanted to go to a school where they are culturally alone.
4. The TJ community will benefit from having more diverse perspectives and skill sets, while communities around Fairfax County will benefit from having connections to TJ. 
5. For the class of 2022, 2 middle schools combined to send 140 students to TJ (about 40% of the county's total), while 15 middle schools sent too few to report (small single digits).

The lack of diversity in TJ's student population has inspired hand wringing before. One question that struck me from this article was from an alumna who asked "Why are her white peers just noticing the problems now?" Honestly, I suspect that the declining representation for white students is a significant trigger. Nothing gets the attention of someone with privilege like being underrepresented. There are probably other reasons including the increased emphasis on equity in our society, but I'm a bit of a cynic.

Here are a few bold predictions:

• First of all, defenders of the status quo are going to lose their ever-loving minds. They will make impassioned pleas and defend the current system as the epitome of meritocracy.
• If this merit lottery ends up being enacted and the number of National Merit Finalists goes down, those defenders of the current status quo will freak out again and say "I told you so!" My response: I'm ok with that. When you rely on a test for admission, then it is no surprise that those students remain good test takers. I will not judge TJ based on how many exceptional test takers attend. That merit is judged primarily by a single test is ludicrous and narrow-minded. What is being rewarded with the current system is test preparation.
• Some families are going to move (or at least appear to move on paper) so their kids can have more favorable chances of selection. Any system can and will be gamed.
• Academic achievement will rise a bit at many middle and high schools. All of a sudden, kids from underrepresented areas of the county will realize that they have a chance of getting into TJ, and will work to become qualified for the lottery. 

I applaud Dr. Brabrand and the folks at FCPS who put together this innovative proposal. It will improve educational opportunities and outcomes across the county, and will make TJ a better place to learn.

Helping Your K-8 Kid Learn Math

As many school districts plan atypical scenarios for the Fall, many parents are asking a couple important questions:

1. If I want to homeschool, what curriculum should I use?
2. If my kid is still "in" school, but doing a ton of work independently, how can I help them?

Choosing a Math Curriculum

Actually, I wish more people would ask what curriculum they should use. Many intelligent people imagine that they can just do it themselves or buy a book off amazon and get it done. It's not that simple. Curriculum matters, but where should you turn?

In 2012, New York state commissioned the creation of a really great set of curricula for K-8 Math and English Language Arts (ELA). The result of that effort is EngageNY, which is generally considered some of the best open education resources (OER) out there. When that contract wound down, part of the team that created EngageNY decided that they were not done, so they created UnboundEd.

UnboundEd has updated and extended the EngageNY product to create solid content with good focus, rigor, and coherence. Oh, and it's free. They are also really great people who care deeply about equity and confronting our implicit biases. For proof, check out their Bias Toolkit. 

For another perspective for grades 6-8, check out Open Up Resources. Open Up is newer, and perhaps less robust, but they have some good stuff.

There are other options. EdReports.org has reviews of many curricula, so you can certainly poke around there. That said, you could do a whole lot worse than leaning heavily on UnboundEd and sprinkling in a few things from Open Up (grades 6-8) and/or the supplemental resources listed below.

Getting Math Help

What if you or your student gets stuck on some math topic? Note that this is a really different need (and set of solutions) from the curriculum focus above.

1. If you haven't checked Khan Academy, you haven't done a serious search. I would not use this as a curriculum, but the videos can help a learner get over a bump in the road, or can help a parent brush up on something they learned and forgot years ago.
2. BrainPop is another good source of videos. There are a ton of others, and you can find many at OER Commons.
3. Friends and family could help. Who do you know that is good at math? They are likely sitting at home, and would be happy to help and interact with someone new. Lean on your network!

Having the Right Mindset

Stop telling kids that they are bad or good at math. Carol Dweck and others have done and published a ton of research on this, but the core idea is that with VERY few exceptions, most people can become good/better at math if they put in the right effort. Instilling a static mindset by telling a kid s/he is good at math or bad at math takes away their agency. They need to know that effort is valuable and it can lead to getting better.

This isn't about participation trophies and orange slices. This is about rejecting the dysfunctional and wrong idea that our genetics have predetermined what we can be. This is about helping every student know that progress is important and within their control. Lifting weights doesn't inherently make you strong, but with the right program, effort, and persistence, a lifting program can help you build muscle. It's the same way with mental effort helping our math ability grow.

An Alternative Plan for Fall 2020

Dear FCPS School Board and Leadership,

The current conflagration surrounding your proposed plans for this Fall suggest that some different ideas could be helpful. Here is one for secondary schools:

Monday: Virtual synchronous: periods 1-8

Tuesday: In school: Cohort A periods 1-8 

Wednesday: In school: Cohort B periods 1-8 

Thursday: Virtual synchronous: block periods 1-4

Friday: Virtual synchronous: block periods 5-8

Note: The above reflects input from a teacher who pointed out that having a cohort in school on a Monday causes several issues.

Advantages

1. 4 days of synchronous instruction for every student
2. Teachers only in building two days/week
3. Easy to pivot to either all virtual or all in-school
4. More time to clean schools
5. Frees up secondary schools so elementary schools could theoretically take more space. I am not an elementary education person, so I will leave the "how" of that to others.

Part of the challenge your current plan presents for secondary school is that it is SO awful for students. Two days of synchronous instruction is simply insufficient. 

Another challenge of the current plan is that it exposes teachers to risk 4 days/week. My plan reduces that to 2 days. Another idea is to have teachers with medical issues be fully virtual, with an Instructional Assistant in the room to facilitate the in-class technology while the teacher is virtually present via video. Note that with the proposed plan above, this would only have to be done for Monday and Tuesday. 

I know that you are being inundated with complaints and suggestions and pleas from various fronts. I am not trying to solve a problem for my kid. I'm much more worried about a) the many students who really need more synchronous, guided instruction, b) the teachers who are worried about their health, and c) the families who are torn by two options they know will serve their students poorly.

FCPS: Some Thoughts on the Plan for Fall 2020

A friend asked me what I thought of the FCPS Return to School plan for opening this Fall, so here goes ...

1. There are no really good choices. The School Board and FCPS Leadership are all doing their best in a crappy situation. Further, school-based administrators, teachers, and other staff are heroes. They have been dealing with changing plans and guidelines for months.
2. I totally understand the need to nail down staffing, transportation, and other resources, but it's pretty tough to ask parents to decide now whether they will be in school or fully virtual for the full year.
3. On the other side, I imagine that more teachers will want to teach virtually than will be needed. Many teachers have health issues (either their own or their family) that will make dealing with the in-school Petri dish a worrisome idea. I totally understand that many people have been going to work, but a school environment is probably significantly worse than an office when it comes to germs.
4. For several reasons, I still wish they had considered a blended approach. https://blog.docentlearning.com/2020/06/opening-fairfax-county-schools-this-fall.html
5. Having teachers and other staff in the buildings so much, and with the cluster that was the experience this Spring, I fully expect many teachers and admins to retire in the coming weeks. There are many who are already eligible to retire, but have continued to work for myriad reasons. The threats this coming year will likely pose to their health, happiness, and sanity will tip the scales for many. 
6. Staffing challenges will be legion. From a bigger than usual wave of retirements (see above), to finding subs, to figuring out who will teach virtually vs. in school, every school will have major staffing headaches.
7. Child care is a huge issue on several fronts. Anyone with elementary-age children will have a problem. In particular, I worry about teachers who will have to be in school 4 days a week, and have elementary-age children who will only be in school 2 days a week. 
8. Going back to #2... I dislike the idea of only 90 minutes of synchronous instruction for each secondary school class every week. 
9. The Online Campus has a big catalog. I'd seriously consider looking through it to see if it makes sense for my kid to take a few classes that way. The experience might not be as good as the in-school experience, but a) the Online Campus curricula are designed for virtual use and b) the experience won't degrade if there is a spike in the pandemic that necessitates schools going back to a virtual setting.
10. I think FCPS is already way behind where they need to be with staff training and curriculum planning. Having 60% of instruction/learning happen asynchronously is a huge shift that really requires training and collaboration. Not every teacher should solve this. Solutions need to be developed as teams and shared widely.
11. I've got questions: What will happen with extracurriculars? What if we are out of Phase 3 and everything is basically open? How will the system navigate the likely changes in the Phases we're in?

That's all I can think of for now.

Opening Fairfax County Secondary Schools this Fall

Dear FCPS School Board and Leadership,

This Spring had its challenges. I'm not going to re-hash them, but want to praise the many teachers and administrators who still made effective learning happen for their students. I was impressed by and grateful for my daughter's devoted, talented, creative teachers.

Here are some thoughts about secondary schools as you plan to open FCPS this Fall:

1: Your Proven Online Solution: Use Fairfax's Online Campus to push many courses online that already have virtual versions. Perhaps the base experience for many classes could be shifted to the Online Campus course, with in-person instruction once/week (as long as health conditions allow) as well as weekly synchronous virtual class sessions (see below). FCPS has the content and infrastructure to make this work. Also note that leaning heavily on Online Campus will make it easier to pivot to all virtual learning if the health circumstances require it. 

2: Teacher Support: Teachers who will be blending virtual and in-person instruction need ...

• Content that is designed for virtual/blended delivery. Few teachers have the time or expertise to create the depth and breadth of digital content that they will need to pull this off well. 
• Tools for collaboration and for creating simple content (e.g., simple instructional videos).
• Training in blended and virtual technology and pedagogy. Facilitating a course that depends on technology requires comfort with technology, but also with new pedagogical strategies. 
• Time to plan and collaborate with their colleagues. For instance, there is no reason that each English 10 teacher in a given school should create their own videos. They should be able to share the burden and stay in sync. 

A few quotes from teachers:

"Asking teachers to reinvent the curriculum for online delivery is impossible and a fools errand...will...not...happen."

"... Teachers want to be prepared to help their students should virtual learning continue but we need help."

"Registration for the FCPS Academy course on online teaching opened at midnight on June 15th. The two sections filled in less than 4 minutes!! It’s summer break and hundreds of teachers are up at midnight to register for a course so they can learn how to teach online. By mid-morning over 100 were waitlisted,"

Without all of these supports, the system will struggle again, student learning will suffer, and FCPS will lose many talented, devoted, but frustrated teachers. 

3: A Blended Model: The scenarios presented so far seem to be either fully virtual or fully (in terms of synchronous teacher support) face-to-face. What about a blended solution? For instance what about using a variation of Scenario 2:

• Monday and Tuesday: Half of students in school each day with 8-period day. 
• Wednesday: Virtual periods 1-4 synchronous online
• Thursday: Virtual periods 5-8 synchronous online
• Friday: Intervention block

Some advantages of this blended approach are: 

• More structured time for students. None of the proposed scenarios have students learning synchronously more than two days/week. My suggestion pushes it to three.
• Less in-person contact time so that health risks are reduced.
• Easy to pivot to fully online if health conditions change for the district or for a particular school, teacher, or student. 

4: Reaching Out for Guidance: K12, Inc.'s headquarters is right here in Fairfax County, and they have been doing virtual learning for close to two decades. K12's 100,000+ students include lots of ELLs and IEPs and special education and F&RL. It could make sense to get their input as you frame up virtual and blended solutions, including how to provide counseling, engage with families, and deal effectively with populations that have specific needs. K12 is far from perfect, but they have been doing virtual and blended learning for a long time, so they can probably help FCPS avoid some pitfalls.

Reopening K-12 Schools

As K-12 districts around the country weigh how they will reopen this Fall, they are still licking their wounds from a pretty tough Spring. 

What are some of the factors that schools are weighing (whether they admit them or not)?

Families: On one hand, K-6 schools play a vital child care role, and the importance of this role increases as socioeconomic status decreases. It's inconvenient when someone who can work from home has kids underfoot, but what about parents for whom their job can only be done on site? On the other hand, kids are vectors that can bring the virus from school to home. Navigating this lose-lose situation is not easy. 

Faculty and staff: Bringing students back puts the faculty and staff (and all their families) at risk, and some more than others. How can a school system deal with staff who have significant risk factors?

Students with special needs: This is a really broad category. This isn't just (or even mostly) about students who have physical challenges. What about those with IEPs and 504s that articulate accommodations they need? What about special education? 

Students without privilege: Some students have home lives that aren't compatible with distance learning. Internet access, child care, loud siblings, space, and a plethora of other issues make virtual learning virtually impossible for many students. Plus, there is a big difference between a student who has two college-educated parents working from home all day and a student whose parents have less education and/or comfort with technology. As our local district shifted to distance learning, I'm guessing that some students (like my daughter) shifted to about 60% efficiency. But less privileged kids undoubtedly dropped to 5% or less. Having gone through a third of a school year with this sort of separation will exacerbate opportunity gaps. Any blended or virtual instruction that continues into the next school year will compound (and I mean that in the strictest mathematical sense) the issue.

Students with knowledge/skill gaps created this year: As noted above, some students will have massive knowledge/skill gaps as a result of this year's challenges, but virtually all students will have some deficiencies. How will teachers address those? This mostly has to be figured out department-by-department, but school districts can provide some guidance.

Logistics: It's easy to say that schools should implement distancing, but how can they pull it off? Splitting an elementary school into two half-size cohorts isn't too difficult in theory (though it won't be easy to actually do), and I think you could pull it off in middle school. High school is really tough. One of the big high school problems is that you reshuffle the students after every period. You can solve it for 1st period, but what about 2nd? Someone much smarter than I will come up with some good solutions to this, but at first blush, the logistics seem challenging. Also, all this splitting and shifting creates all sorts of challenges for families (see above). Other logistical challenges include transportation, lunch, hallways, and classroom arrangement. 

Extracurriculars: What about sports and musical groups and yearbook and clubs? Without marching band, life is hollow and devoid of joy.

Virtual/Blended Learning: Many school districts will roll out some form of blended learning for some of their students. Also, districts probably worry that a spike in cases will push them back to pure virtual learning. 

Budgets: Most school systems will be asked to do more with less. Almost every issue above has costs, and many school districts will see their revenues decline. As a result, I suspect that many programs will be discontinued so districts can focus on opening safely. 

So... what should schools do? 

1: Blended Learning: The importance of this is two-fold: Blending can help reduce class sizes (which improves safety), and can help prepare for going to more virtual strategies. That said, blended learning needs to be used strategically. To make blended learning work, districts must:

• Develop virtual/blended learning strategies that are flexible and effective. Among other things, this means finding the right mix of synchronous and asynchronous strategies for each situation.
• Consider separate blended learning strategies for different grade bands and populations. For instance, special ed, ELL, K-2 students, and HS students taking an honors math class all have very different needs and capabilities.
• Identify and buy high-quality virtual/blended curricula.
• Make sure the IT infrastructure for virtual/blended instruction is solid and secure.
• Give teachers training and time so they can learn how to make it work. 

2: Flexibility: How will you deal with a surge in cases in a particular school? What about a particular department within a school? Now is the time to do contingency planning.

3: Test-Trace-Isolate: No school or jurisdiction should open without a solid test-trace-isolate strategy. This May 15 article by Alex Tabarrok and Puja Ahluwalia Ohlhaver at The Washington Post: We could stop the pandemic by July 4 if the government took these steps lays out solid strategies.

Should be interesting to see how this plays out.

Reopening Higher Ed

As colleges and universities around the country weigh how they will reopen this Fall, various voices are being heard. Here are just two:

• Brown University's Christina Paxson in the New York Times: College Campuses Must Reopen in the Fall. Here’s How We Do It.
• USC-Beaufort's Deborah J. Cohan in Psychology Today: Pandemic U: What's the price of opening campuses in the fall?

What are some of the factors that schools are weighing (whether they admit them or not)?

Faculty and staff: Students are generally young and have few preexisting conditions. On the other hand, faculty and staff are older, and many have family members with significant risks. Bringing students back puts the faculty, staff, business owners, and all their families at risk. Honestly, this seems like an OSHA issue to me.

Revenue: When I originally looked at the university bill I paid in January, I just focused on the bottom line: How much am I writing a check for? Now, I look at every line and wonder: Will there be an athletic fee if the gym is closed? What about the meal plan? If everything were virtual, the bottom line would be VERY different. For me, all of those are distinct costs, but for the university, they are all important revenue streams.

The higher education value proposition: I'm not going to wade too far into the "is college worth it" debate, but I found this article by Susan Svrluga at the Washington Post particularly interesting: Is college worth it? A Georgetown study measures return on investment — with some surprising results. One thing this points out is that not all schools (even within a particular university) are equal financially. Most vocational schools such as law and business and engineering will survive this regardless. Those departments that can go virtual well probably should. But what about schools of liberal arts? What about those philosophy and religious studies and sociology departments? They are in a tougher spot. Faculty in these areas care about their health, but they also like having jobs. Honestly, this probably requires its own blog posts, but what if I just go with word association: community colleges, gap year, University of Phoenix, the humanities make us human.

Students without privilege: Many students are barely able to afford college. They scrape by thanks to on-campus jobs and scholarships and loans. This upheaval will make the college dream unattainable for many of these students. Without a job in the dining hall or at the athletic center, some students can't afford to live on campus. On the other hand, some students have home lives that aren't compatible with distance learning. Internet access, child care, loud siblings, space, and a plethora of other issues make virtual learning virtually impossible for many students. It's a lose-lose proposition for them.

College towns: There is no Blacksburg without Virginia Tech. What about Ann Arbor without the Univeristy of Michigan? Oberlin, OH? College Station, TX? State College, PA? You get the idea. Hechinger Report has Little-noticed victims of the higher education shutdowns: college towns

With students dispersed by the pandemic, towns that depend on them are struggling.

Students with privilege: First of all, I have put students last because they (as a population) are not particularly at risk, and they are resilient. If they all had to live at home and do this virtually, most of them would figure out how to do it well. That said, I'm sure my son is not alone in wanting very desperately to get back to campus (I'm trying not to be hurt). 

Let's be honest and admit that faculty and schools come at this from radically different perspectives. Faculty care about the health of their families, while schools are confronting an existential crisis. Many schools probably worry that going virtual will crush their bottom line, degrade the educational experience, and open themselves up to competition from challengers they never had to worry about before. 

So... what should schools do? 

1. No school or jurisdiction should open without a solid test-trace-isolate strategy. This May 15 article by Alex Tabarrok and Puja Ahluwalia Ohlhaver at The Washington Post: We could stop the pandemic by July 4 if the government took these steps lays out solid strategies.
2. Blended Learning: The importance of this is two-fold: Blending can help reduce class sizes (which improves safety), and can help prepare for going to more virtual strategies. 
3. Flexibility: How will you deal with a surge in cases on campus? How will you re-imagine your traditional gatherings? 

Should be interesting to see how this plays out.

Helping Your Kids Keep Learning: Math

As many school districts close for the remainder of the academic year, many parents are struggling with several issues:

1. If the teacher isn't doing much, what should I have my kid(s) do?
2. What are some good resources for math curriculum?
3. What are some good resources for math help?

What Matters Most?

A: Not losing ground. Studies show that students lose a fair amount of ground in the summer. Imagine a summer that lasts 5 months instead of 2.5! Therefore, I really care about progress. Get them to do something that is close to grade-appropriate. I just don't want them to forget how to do math.

B: Being ready. This is tougher to do, but if a student is taking a course now that has foundational content for next year's course, then I care about those foundational skills and concepts. The trick is identifying those key things. Achieve the Core has really helpful Focus documents for each grade. Look for the solid green squares. These are particularly helpful for anyone in a Common Core state. It's not always so easy to identify the key foundation content, so you might need to reach out to a teacher or curriculum person for guidance. One of the important things to keep in mind is that not everything is critical. You don't need to jam it all in there. Pick and choose carefully.

C: Liking math. If your approach to being ready results in a student who hates math, then you've created problem. I know this is tough, but you need to find a way to keep them moving forward that doesn't spoil whatever affinity they have for math. Not losing ground is more important than being ready, and liking math is perhaps most important.

Math Curriculum Resources

If you are pretty much on your own for helping your kid move forward with math, consider going to UnboundEd and/or OpenUp. They have solid content with good focus, rigor, and coherence. Please avoid entering the wild west that is Teachers Pay Teachers. TPT has a ton of issues I won't go into, but suffice it to say that I'm not a fan.

Math Help

What if you or your student gets stuck on some math topic? Note that this is really different need (and set of solutions) from the curriculum focus above.

1. If you haven't checked Khan Academy, you haven't done a serious search. I would not use this as a curriculum, but the videos can help a learner get over a bump in the road.
2. BrainPop is another good source of videos. There are a ton of others, and you can find many at OER Commons.
3. Friends and family could help. Who do you know that is good at math? They are likely sitting at home, and would be happy to help and interact with someone new. Lean on your network!

Progress is important, but don't stress anyone out. The current state of affairs is inherently stressful, and math shouldn't be part of the problem. I hope math can be part of the solution -- doing some math work could fit as part of a new daily structure that provides some semblance of consistency and normalcy. 

The Cattle Drive: Too Much Calculus

Reading Pamela Burdman's piece at Hechinger Report: Numbers evoke joy and wonder, why doesn’t math class? got me thinking.

I have already argued that we push too many kids to Algebra too early. Now to complain about the other extreme.

High school students are often driven like cattle through their math courses. Those who can withstand the cattle drive make it to the fertile pastures of calculus. Sadly, many of the herd don’t make it and are left along the side of the trail.

Not every student belongs in calculus. Though students who plan to be engineers, physicists, mathematicians, or economists need calculus, many others have abilities or interests that make them better suited to other mathematical destinations. The cattle drive hurts kids who lose interest in a destination they don’t care about.

Don't get me wrong: I love calculus. It is beautiful, useful, fun stuff, but it isn't for everyone. Everyone should master Algebra, but not everybody needs to master calculus. And honestly, many of the topics in Algebra II only exist to prepare students for calculus. This doesn't mean creating a dumbed-down track, but maybe there are other options for rigorous pathways.

Why not map out different mathematical pathways for different kids? After Algebra I, maybe some kids would be better served by courses in discrete math, probability, statistics, logic, or some other mathematical topics. Ideally, students would be able to switch back and forth between pathways if enough foundational skills were shared between parallel courses.

I know I'm tilting at windmills, but I'd like to see the cattle drive identify some other destinations; there is lots of interesting, useful math out there. Too many people think they hate math because they hated the cattle drive they were on in high school.

Early Algebra: Crushing Kids

Some states want to get all their students to take Algebra by the end of grade 8. The idea is that this will provide equal access to challenging curricula.

The Washington Post's Jay Matthews discussed the issue in Recalculating The 8th-Grade Algebra Rush and the original report is available here: The Misplaced Math Student: Lost in Eighth-Grade Algebra.

I'm a fan of Algebra and a fan of helping as many students as possible master it, but I am not a fan of aggressive time lines for when it has to get done. Pushing all 8th or even 9th graders into Algebra is a problem. Kids who are not ready for Algebra would be better served by shoring up their math foundations. They need number sense, especially when it comes to decimals and fractions. Students who are pushed into Algebra before they are ready are doomed to fail and are probably doomed to hate math forever. I don't want them to take silly math classes that lack any rigor, but I don't want to throw them into classes for which they are not prepared.

At the other end of the spectrum, there is also a push to get good math students to take Algebra in seventh grade or even earlier. Not every kid is ready for Algebra in eighth grade. Very, very few kids should be taking Algebra before eighth grade. If a kid is that good at math, why not provide a more rich mathematical curriculum for the kid instead of just having them rip through the same old courses more quickly?

As you might imagine, my reaction to the title of Jill Barshay's article in the Hechinger Report: Gifted classes may not help talented students move ahead faster was a resounding "good!"

Some of my issues with the "hurry up and go fast" approach to gifted math education:

1. I have heard SO many stories of kids who took Algebra in seventh grade and ended up losing interest before their senior year. This is anecdotal, so I need to find solid data.
2. There is solid evidence to support the existence of the Protege Effect: Students who teach their peers deepen their own understanding of skills and concepts. Many parents of precocious students complain that their kids are being held back and doing the teacher's work, but those peer teaching experiences are deepening both students' knowledge.
3. Teachers at every level complain about students who have zoomed through prerequisites without really understanding everything they need to understand to prepare for later study. For almost all students, that zoom through leaves gaps.
4. Emphasizing extrinsic outcomes can quash student motivation and long-term interest. Being accelerated can be one of those extrinsic outcomes that push students for a while at the cost of  their own intrinsic motivations to learn.

As Barshay indicates:

"... Research points to the lack of consensus on what the goals of gifted education should be. Many don’t think it should be about advancing students as quickly as possible. High quality instruction that helps kids who’ve already mastered the basics go deeper into the material may ultimately be beneficial. And annual state assessments may not do a good job of measuring this kind of depth, creativity or critical thinking."

Algebra is a good thing. I value its abstraction and generalization and problem solving, but let's make sure that the kids who take it have the right foundation and that it really drives deep learning and affection for math.

My Education Research Obsession: Bloom's 2-Sigma Problem

Benjamin Bloom is best known for his taxonomy, but I think his most interesting work pivoted around the 2-Sigma Problem.

The 2 Sigma Problem: The Search for Methods of Group Instruction as Effective as One-to-One Tutoring

I have read this paper at least once a year for the past 12 years.

Bloom found that students who received 1-1 tutoring performed 2 standard deviations (2 sigmas) better than the control group, but he realized that 1-1 tutoring is financially infeasible, so he looked for a combination of scalable strategies that could help teachers with normal class sizes get to the same level of student learning as 1-on-1 tutoring.

Here are a couple things that bug me about how and why people cite or revisit Bloom's paper:

A: Mastery Learning isn't totally free form!

Many people use Bloom's paper to justify ideas for mastery learning that are quite different from what Bloom used. For some, "mastery learning" and "competency-based learning" are synonymous. The idea is that students should move at their own pace based on their ability to demonstrate mastery of the content. Bloom's idea of mastery learning was different. Here is a diagram from Thomas R. Guskey's Closing Achievement Gaps: Revisiting Benjamin S. Bloom’s “Learning for Mastery.”

Bloom's model assumed that all students were studying the same unit (maybe 2-weeks long?) at the same time. The different pathways through the unit were informed by Formative Assessment A. Students who didn't initially master the content would get more instruction on the basic content, while those who did master the unit's content after one attempt at instruction which would get enrichment. Notice that all students would move on to the next unit at the same time.

B: It's not just about Mastery Learning!

Mastery learning showed 1 sigma effect, but was not the whole story. The greatest impact (1.6 sigma) came when he coupled mastery learning with "enhanced prerequisites." Essentially, they figured out what specific skill gaps students had relative to the content they were about to learn and remediated those gaps before having students dive into mastery learning with the on-level content. It's important to note how targeted the enhanced prerequisite instruction was. This wasn't about remediating all of pre-algebra before taking algebra. It was about bridging specific foundational skill gaps that were critical to the content to come.

When I go on about student readiness or using formative assessment to inform instruction while keeping an entire class on the same unit of instruction, I'm basing my ideas on Bloom. I'll save my rants about formative assessment death spirals and catching kids up for another day.

Teach to One: Technology that Kills Learning Relationships

Teach to One Math is an exciting idea. What if computers could help students get a truly personalized learning experience? Their supporters include an amazing list of educational organizations for which I have great admiration and respect, including Gates, Chan Zuckerberg, New Profit, and Oak.

Hechinger Report published an interesting article a few years ago What happens when computers, not teachers, pick what students learn? that paints a picture of how Teach to One Math can look in a classroom. It's certainly innovative, and probably works for some kids and teachers, but I was skeptical.

When Open Culture published Trainwreck: The Teach to One Math Experiment in Mountain View, CA Is a Cautionary Tale About the Perils of Digital Math Education, more people took notice of the downside of Teach to One. Around the time the Open Culture article came out, I spoke with a teacher from a Teach to One school, and her comment was that she felt...

"... cut out of the process and overwhelmed at the same time."

I'm sure that computer-driven adaptivity has its place, but when those algorithms get in the way of effective teacher-student relationships, we have a problem.

Why mention this idea that is a few years old? Artificial Intelligence (AI) is getting more powerful and so people keep coming up ways that computers can improve teaching and learning. For instance, some of TeachThought's 10 Roles For Artificial Intelligence In Education have AI-driven systems re-framing the role of the teacher. Teach to One Math should be a cautionary tale that helps us evaluate huge shifts that could harm relationships between teachers and students.

New Pathways to Success: The Swiss Apprenticeship Model

I am on the record as having an education crush on Quebec's Cegep system. Read the previous post (it's short) to get a sense of what Cegep is all about and why I love it so. Cegep is great, but completely unattainable for the U.S., which loves its college machine (perhaps a bit too much). Still, a guy can dream, can't he?

A glimmer of hope that U.S. school districts could create something really great comes from The 74: Robots, Inequality, Apprenticeships: If America Is to Usher In an ‘Age of Agility’ in Education, Experts Say We Must Talk Less About Schools — and More About Students. First, the problem:

... The traditional high-school-to-college continuum leaves too many talented people behind. About a third of Americans have a four-year college degree, yet an estimated 6.3 million jobs are going unfilled for lack of skilled candidates.

Yep. That describes the problem pretty well. The U.S. system has too many academic dead ends that leave tons of students feeling like failures and unprepared for the workforce. If only we could create a system that helps more students really prepare for careers while exploring possibilities. If only this system could have ramps that allow students to move from career preparation to college if they want to.

It turns out that the Swiss have a solution:

After nine years of compulsory schooling, ... every Swiss student has the opportunity to opt in to a national system of apprenticeships. 70 percent of Swiss teens participate, choosing one of 250 career pathways. They continue to go to high school part time, and many later earn a college degree.

OK, so you create fewer dead ends and help prepare students for careers, but how would it be paid for?

Swiss businesses contribute 60 percent of the $6 billion annual cost .... Business sees the expense as an investment, not an act of corporate responsibility.

So, Swiss businesses are seeing that supporting a program like this is an investment. I need to take some time to dig into this more, but I am pretty sure that I have a new education crush. Cegep is still dreamy, but so is Switzerland's apprenticeship program.

A New Adventure: Docent Learning

As of today, I am completely self-employed!

I've got an incorporated LLC, business cards, a website, and as of today, I am no longer an employee of any other company. My business has a couple contracts that should keep me going at least through July, so now I need to focus on my work and my business.

Yeah, it's a little scary, but this is something I've wanted to do for a long time. As the sole proprietor and employee of Docent Learning LLC, I am focusing on educational consulting and curriculum development. Right now, I am working on a high school computer science course and several high school math modules to support the new PISA 2021.

Now that I am Docent Learning, I will endeavor to post to this blog and get active on Twitter (I am @DocentLearning). Stay tuned and wish me luck.

Kinda Hip (But Preachy) Education Videos

Here are some videos that are intended to inspire.

Did You Know 4.0 (2009) inspired a series of Did You Know videos including Did You Know-The Future (2010), Did You Know 2016, Did You Know 2017, and Did You Know 2018.

A Vision of K-12 Students Today (2007) is supposed to "... inspire teachers to use technology in engaging ways...."

I'm not a Luddite, but I reject the idea that teachers need to follow every technological fad. I also have solid research on my side when I say that providing instruction in the format that a learner chooses is not necessarily better for the learner ("Another Nail in the Coffin for Learning Styles..."). Yes, teachers need to evolve and use technology appropriately. They also need to understand their students and the ways they use technology. That said, it is a foolish teacher who tries to pander to their students' every whim.

Education Today and Tomorrow has interesting tidbits. In some ways, it doesn't seem that different from the previous video, but I like it far better. It seems less preachy and more inspiring.

Good teaching is about relationships and growth and passion. It's not about competing with an XBox.