Ohio Association for Gifted Children Monday, December 8, 2008

Design TeamDesign TeamCarnegieCarnegie

REPORT TO THE STATEBOARD OF EDUCATION

Ohio Association for Gifted Children

Monday, December 8, 2008



“ . . . people learn at different rates, and in different ways with different subjects.

“ … we have put the cart before the horse: our schools and the people involved with them … are captives of clock and calendar.

“The boundaries of student growth are defined by schedules for bells, buses and vacations instead of standards for students and learning. “

NationalEducation

Commission on Time and

Learning, 1994



Confronting RealityWe want our high schools to

work for all students. But today, many students aren’t being served … or served well.

Gifted and other accelerated students

Dropouts and underachieving students

Graduates needing remediation



Why ourhigh schools

aren’tworking

for allstudents

Our education system . . .

Wasn’t designed for all students to achieve at high levels.

Was created for a time when only 20% or 30% finished high school and went on to college.

Is built on a walled-in, building-centered “industrial age” model.

But that industrial age is fast disappearing … and our student’s needs have changed.



What’s wrong with the

industrial model?

It’s a one-size-fits-all factory process model.

It’s structured around counting seats and dollars.

It ignores students’ differing learning styles, paces and interests.

It doesn’t offer students opportunities to practice creativity … explore academic and career interests … or practice critical thinking

All students must achieve at high levels … not just “attend” or have access



Considerthese

MYTHS Carnegie guarantees quality

There’s not other way to measure achievement

Alternatives are impossible … too much work

There’s little or no support for the alternatives to the Carnegie Unit

There no research saying alternatives produce positive outcomes

Better teachers and resources … that’s the better solution



Now, consider

theseFACTS

There is no guarantee withthe Carnegie Unit

There are piloted assessmentsand other college/career readiness measures

Many are doing it … the learning curve is acceptable … despite substantial system barriers

Metro School

Gifted programs



A Critical IssueOhio law ALLOWS alternatives

to the Carnegie Unit … but few have used them to direct instruction.

Six provisions in law for delivering instruction differently in Ohio

“Permitted” language is not enough… as confirmed by the Ed Options data

Other states’ experiences are the same … “permitting’ alternatives is not enough.



Let’slook

at the research

Lack of rigor, relevance and personalized pace leave many student disengaged … “doing seat time” or leaving school.

Lack of engagement

Lack of relevance

Lack of ability to apply learned information … students need practice



AdditionalresearchStress … new brain research

shows serious negative effects for rote learning.

Electives and arts forced out … even though arts improve academics.

Creativity stifled by fear and drilling … yet 21st century employers want creative people.

Lack of connection to work and postsecondary activity … to help schools and students properly prepare for “what comes next.”



Substantialsystem

barriersFinancial penalties to districtsfor acceleration and out-of-school experiences.

Accountability penalties to schools and districts for acceleration and out-of-school experiences.

Reporting procedures (EMIS) create some significant barriers to interdisciplinary and other individualized learning



The scale of effortis huge

It’s like trying to get to the moon with a horse-drawn cart.

Significant gains in closing achievement gaps have not occurred since the advent of A Nation at Risk ... 20 years ago.

There’s a lot of “reform” out there … but none is perfect.

Our solution is not “one-size-fits-all” … but rather learning that is customized to students, schools and communities.



Senate Bill 311

. . . develop a statewide plan for implementing methods for students to earn units of high school credit based on the demonstration of subject area competency, instead of or in combination with completing hours of classroom instruction



Plan to be adopted by the State Board of Education by March 31, 2009

Implementation efforts will commence on April 1, 2009 … with “start-up” scheduled for the 2009-10 academic year

Stakeholder input is being actively sought

Communications and outreach will be ongoing, including Web



Whatthe plan elements

mightinclude

“Hold harmless” provisions for early adopters, while system barriers are taken down (i.e., incentives and accountability)

Extensive capacity building at both the state and local levels

Ongoing education throughWeb sites and other support

Menu of assessments

Other?



Provisions for on-going support

Assessments will be piloted

Active, up-to-date Web site for …

Current and accurate information

Examples for use by schools and districts

Technical support for teachers and administrators

Valuable information for parents and families

Continuing engagement with education stakeholders



How will things be different?

Work-based and career-based learning

Service learning

Hands-on, project-based learning (e.g., supercollider)

Online learning

Learning beyond traditional institutional boundaries (e.g., dual-credit)

Alternatives to “walled-in,” “building-centered” learning

More student supports



Beyond Carnegie issues …

the bigger picture

EDGE

Acceleration policy

Public-Private Collaborative Commission

Personalized learning

University System of Ohio standards

A comprehensive system of student supports

“Stackable Certificates” and changes in the adult career-technical system

State Board of Education Task Force on Quality High Schools



Let’s talk!



Thank you!

Ohio Association for Gifted Children Monday, December 8, 2008

Documents

Transcript of Ohio Association for Gifted Children Monday, December 8, 2008