Policy Considerations for Improving Secondary Education
Mary Cullinane
When considering elements of policy development that best serve secondary education reform, it is recommended that the following critical success factors be considered:
- Support of alternate instructional experiences and assessments
- Increased academic rigor
- Un-encumbered access to expertise
- Support for the provision of 21st Century tools and resources
- Transformation of “teacher” to “instructional team”
Each of these policy levers has signification implications at the national, state and local level. However, the greatest opportunity for reform and impact sits at the feet of the state. This level of governance creates and measures multiple metrics which handicap local education leaders in their efforts to improve the high school today. Further, we need not look far to realize our current system of instruction is not working. In March of 2006, “The Silent Epidemic: Perspectives of High School Dropouts” was released by Peter D. Hart Research Associates. The findings should not be ignored:
-
1/3 of all public high school students fail to graduate from public school with their class
-
70% of respondents said they were not motivated or inspired to work hard. 2/3 would have worked harder if it was demanded of them.
-
59 – 65% of respondents missed classed often the year prior to dropping out. Disengagement, resulting in absences proved to be a significant predictor of future dropouts
-
81% of students surveyed believed their should be more opportunities for real-world and experiential learning
Our challenges are not limited to ensuring students stay in school. Recent reports regarding this country’s current state of readiness, or lack there of, for supporting a future workforce that must be meet digitally literate, strong in math and science, and well-prepared for a global competitive landscape are disturbing to say the least:
- Only 13 percent of American adults are proficient in the knowledge and skills needed to search, comprehend and use information—a 13 percent drop since 1992.[1]
- Only 13 percent of American adults are proficient in the knowledge and skills needed to identify and perform computational tasks—a number that hasn’t gone up in 15 years despite all the focus on improving math and science skills.[2]
- And only 5 percent of American college undergrads today are pursing degrees in science or engineering, compared with 42 percent of university students in China.[3]
In order to meet the needs of our high school students, states must redefine the landscape.
Recommendation 1: Support of alternate instructional experiences and assessments
High School students today are the most adaptive generation our society has ever witnessed. The amount of time required for an adolescent to bring a new technology into their reference norm has accelerated beyond imagination. Think of how long it takes a 3rd grader to learn how to use a cell phone. Further, the level of personalization they experience in their lives is beyond our recognition. They can personalize their computers, the rings and screens of their phones, the color of their sneakers, or the daily color of their eyes and hair. They are used to information being presented where and when they want it, in a format that makes the most sense. They want to succeed, but they want to demonstrate their success in their own way.
We must recognize these characteristics and we must create learning environments that encourage, not discourage. No longer should a high school diploma be measured by seat time, or classroom hours. We must provide the flexibility to allow for demonstration of proficiency, in multiple formats, as yardsticks for success and achievement. It must be our role as leaders to allow districts the flexibility to create their own instructional frameworks and assessments that support a rigorous curriculum. Yet we must allow the rigor to take place in different environments at different times. We should not be focusing on the clock. We should be focusing on how we are spending the time.
Recommendation 2: Increase academic rigor
This is a grave misconception that increasing relevancy means decreasing rigor. We must not fall victim to such thinking. Students want to be challenged. Students want us to believe they can do more. Recent legislation in the State of Michigan to require Algebra II was met with great challenge. We should want nothing less. However, the methods and instructional resources that we bring to bear must be more relevant, must allow students to understand application not just theory and must be rooted in an experience that is relevant to the needs and interest of the individual student.
Further, academic rigor does not mean more testing. We can continue down this spiral of increased testing requirements, but it is a flawed strategy. We can test all we want the patient with a bad diet, who doesn’t exercise, and has little motivation to improve, but until you improve the fundamental challenges of providing quality resources, increasing motivation and igniting active young minds so as to exercise every day, our outcomes will continue to fall short.
Recommendation 3: Un-encumbered access to expertise
High School instruction requires unsurpassed content expertise. This level of knowledge can and should be supplemented by industry experts in related fields of math, science, writing, music, and history. We must allow these experts into our classrooms and we must support our students seeking out their instruction. Policy modifications and incentives to allow access to these instructional experts must be created. Further, we must continue to refine that level of content expertise that is required in colleges of education. BOTH scenarios can provide instructional contributions and we must not limit their provision.
Recommendation 4: Support for the provision of 21st Century tools and resources
We must not continue to promote the acquisition of static information and 20th Century tools for our students and teachers. We must create funding policies that support the acquisition of digital materials and appropriate access to devices for both the teacher and the student. These tools must be seen as critical elements of a learning environment, not superfluous items that are nice to have. Financial flexibility and accountability at the school level must be reinforced through state level policy. Text book allowances must be redefined as resource allowances and not limited to pre-defined source books of information that grow outdated before old.
Recommendation 5 Transformation of “teacher” to “instructional team”
This recommendation is probably the most critical to success and requires significant reform at the pre-service, state and local level and will require multiple stakeholders to change their ways of doing business. However, failure to start this work, thinking it too hard to move these mountains, will allow our system to be less than it can be. Today, in schools around the country, our teachers exist in instructional silos. These silos inherently increase the risk associated with instruction. If my teacher is off today, or if my teacher doesn’t have the strongest background in derivatives, or if my teacher doesn’t have the best understanding of microbiology, my experience will suffer… greatly. We must stop reinforcing the idea that subjects and instruction are done alone, without collaboration, without teaming, without all the things our students will then be required to do in the workforce that awaits them. We must create curriculum policy at the state level to destroy our instructional silos and force a collaborative environment. We must recognize and reward such collaboration and we must measure its existence.