Welcome

I'm Kyle Hutzler - a sixteen year old highly interested in business, economics, and finance. Over the past two years, I've spent upwards of 200 hours working on a policy paper on education reform. My original intentions with this paper - completed independently - were simply to make the most of my perverse sense of fun. Along the way, I happened to learn of the Davidson Fellowship - a scholarship for gifted high-school students.

It was from here that I began to redirect the work for submission - garnering the support of professionals close to home and around the country. In July 2008, I learned that I was selected as a 2008 Fellow and was honored to attend the awards ceremony at the Library of Congress in September. Here you will find the portfolio as submitted in March 2008.
- Fall 2008
Showing posts with label flexibility. Show all posts
Showing posts with label flexibility. Show all posts

Sunday, November 25, 2007

Jack be nimble, Jack be quick

School flexibility

“I felt stifled in the traditional public school system,” Tracy McDaniel, a national board member of the acclaimed KIPP program, writes. “Regulations prevented me from extending the school day, week and year, and, often, from hiring the most talented teachers.”[1] Reform, as Kansas envisions it, necessitates such flexibility.

3.1 The school determines the pay for all staff and the allocation of revenues into other resources. Schools will have significant flexibility in determining such allocation, however, all schools will be required to allocate a set portion of their funds
into a reserve.
3.2 The school will also determine if it would institute fees for sports, arts, and other programs.

Operations
3.3 Many schools will integrate complete prekindergarten to twelfth grade programs under the form of three partnered schools in proximity with one leader.
3.4 The principal will be responsible for determining the hours for the school and other functions of the school including remediation programs and activities.
3.5 Recruiting efforts will also be of the individual school’s discretion.

Policy
3.6 Schools will have significant flexibility in establishing policies independent of the district and other schools. A common factor would be admissions processes for schools that are oversubscribed. Such processes would likely include testing of ability, interviews, and compatibility of parent, student, and teacher philosophies. aws must be established prohibiting unnecessary filtering.
3.7 Secondary factors would include how intensively homework is assigned, as well as disciplinary procedures. Disciplinary procedures may take the form of traditional, referral based systems, or a system unique to the individual schools. Schools will also be able to determine standards for hiring teachers, consistent or higher than those determined by the government.

Define learning
3.8 Some schools, empowered with the proper technology and structure, will offer
students non-traditional opportunities to learn largely from home, returning to
a vastly smaller school building on a regular basis to take part in labs and
update new assignments. This may be one means to combat boredom and dropouts
with a more engaging learn-on-your-own-terms style.

As a September 2005 profile of Rapid City Academy of South Dakota in the Technological Horizons in Education Journal makes clear, “not all participants [in virtual high schools] fit the archetype of the typical high school-aged learner.” Many students who were already taking on full schedules enrolled to take on additional work. Indeed, one “non-traditional” student is returning after fifty-years to earn a high school diploma.[2] The advent of online summer school programs nationwide demonstrates the personal and institutional benefits of flexibility and efficiency; its scale, encompassing more than one-third of nationwide school districts that accept online courses demonstrates the program’s potential.[3],[i]

Additional expectations
In addition to national standards of competencies, several more requirements will be placed upon all or relevant schools to promote consistency and equality in aims.
3.9 One such measure will be the inclusion by all schools of a seminar period of
length determined by principal. In traditional schools, this may offer the
opportunity to pursue large-scale projects, seek remediation, and participate in
microcredit activities. In more freeform schools, a seminar period will ensure
that time is allotted to introduce topics to be assessed.

Training
3.10 Schools will also be responsible for training their group of teachers and procuring a steady stream of younger workers to fill in the ranks of retiring teachers.
3.11 Some systems may promote understudy periods and gradual increase of work. Others may promote teaming teachers by their varying abilities to create a successful diffusion of knowledge, experience, and matters of practicality.
“Through hard work, we are proving that demography is not destiny for
underserved students. … We are proving that when principals are given the
freedom to innovate and the necessary resources, we can meet the high
expectations set by NCLB.”


[1] Leaving No Child Behind. A symposium. Tracy McDaniel, et al. The Washington Post. 10 September 2007.
[2] Building A Virtual High School … Click by Click. Sue Podoll, Darcy Randle. Technological Horizons in Education Journal. September 2005.
[3] Summer School Goes Online. The Associated Press. Teacher Magazine. 23 July 2007.
[i] “According to the Illinois Online Network … the flexibility of asynchronous learning is one of the most frequently mentioned advantages of online learning. … Flexibility and convenience ranked as the most important advantages to online teaching; students also rated flexibility and convenience highly. Students in particular responded that they appreciated the freedom of choosing when to work on classes rather than having to work on them at a specific time. … Asynchronous discussions in an online course allowed the learner time to think and reflect on presented content material. Rather than trying to formulate an answer on the spot, the learner gives more consideration to the response, which seems to result in more engaged learning. … Student and instructor responses to the written questionnaires most frequently cited computer system requirements as a major disadvantage to online learning.” Limited access (affecting low-income students), computer failures, time management, and the lack of interaction were also discussed as disadvantages. Building A Virtual High School … Click By Click. Sue Podoll, Darcy Randle. Technological Horizons in Education Journal. September 2005.

Get rid of boredom

Engagement

“We have entered a new era in teaching,” Dr. Jan Borelli, celebrated principal and blogger writes. “We now have the capability to know what the students do or do not know, and we now have the capability to reach most of the children if we use data to guide our instruction.”[1] Following privatization, schools will find it necessary to implement new organizational structures to meet the needs of each student—students needing less instruction offered the opportunity to pursue new endeavors, where those who need it receive all the time necessary.

Harnessing real data

8.1 The classroom is indeed a silent domain —every effort must be made to allow teachers to obtain a real-time sense of their student’s understanding so that they can effectively steer the nature of their lessons without fear of surprise on the next examination. Implementing a wireless response system for use throughout a lesson is a key avenue—soon a real answer to “Did you all understand?” will become apparent.
8.2 An additional area of opportunity for educators will be actively using pre-tests to determine a student’s course structure.

Flattening out

8.3 One change in structure, based loosely upon a block scheduling format, will be the flexibility of course length and depth based on demonstrated student ability—giving students an opportunity to pursue multiple courses in one year.
8.4 This horizontal-block format would be as follows: a student who has five periods a day will have ten blocks per year—each block corresponding with a series of weeks, per course. The system will be highly dependent on the implementation of pretests—likely during next year’s planning in the previous school year.

For example, a student may begin the year with daily courses in geometry, biology, English, and world history. Having mastered ninety-percent in the geometry pretest, he will take geometry for only one block— three to four weeks. At this time he will take the national (and course, if necessary) exam for geometry. If he passes the examination, he will then fill the next nine blocks with as many courses as necessary.


8.5 Each course would reset every one or two blocks for at least one class depending on demand. Some scheduling conflicts would cause the student to pursue one-block enrichment courses until new courses became available.

Change it up

8.6 Some administrators may implement systems of regular classroom reorganization— at two to three times a year, teachers, in coordination with administrators and counselors, would reorganize their master schedules for each student. Pupils who are demonstrating exceptional competency in one class may be bumped up to provide a further challenge; likewise, students who are performing poorly may have the nature of their course changed. This will enable teachers to ensure that they can best tailor their lesson plans to meet the needs of a class without wide disparities in student ability, effort, and potential that become apparent throughout a school year.

This format can begin to address the issues that surround tracking, or enrolling students into distinct “ability-based” groups. Tracking, Jeannie S. Oakes writes, has resulted in “racially disproportionate” enrollments, whose inconsistent and unduly subjective criteria causes “considerable harm” by “inferior opportunities to learn” and resulting lower achievement.[2]

Whereas Ms. Oakes would prefer the abandonment of “discriminatory” tracking to embrace heterogeneous learning environments, Kansas argues that meritocratic schooling depends upon calibrating the intensity of expectations to demonstrated ability. Kansas agrees in full that containment in the name of tracking is scandalously inhibitive. Ms. Oakes’ passion for heterogeneous classes is far more skeptical. An effective education focuses on the individual, not the group. Dynamic tracks offer students an intensive study consistent with their needs – advanced mathematics and basic history should not be mutually exclusive. Even more critical are the necessity for ‘ramps’ that challenge students to extend beyond their ranks – if and when appropriate to the individual student.

Arbitrary mainstreaming can compromise an effective classroom environment, to a degree indistinguishable from a crippling tiered tracking system.[3] This paper and Ms. Oakes share a common ideal in manifesting the ultimate realization of a homogenous class of basic competencies (mastery of the societal bases: basic literacy and mathematics, which is not yet attained) pursuing heterogeneous ends. “Don’t bother to just be better than your contemporaries or predecessors,” William Faulkner wrote. “Try to be better than yourself.”

The one-year class
8.7 This form of block scheduling will be a boon for those who excel—it would not be impossible for a student under such a structure to graduate within one year. Some may pursue opportunities with community colleges or through partnerships with universities, students may participate in distance digital learning programs at school, free or highly subsidized.

This flexibility in incorporating acceleration policies correlates strongly with the report A Nation Deceived, which concludes that the American public education system is ignoring excellence. The report argues that “students are ready for much more challenge than the system provides.” [4] This “lock-step” approach radically hinders development, resulting in boredom. The report highlights that acceleration is the “most effective” curriculum intervention for gifted children, acceleration offers long-term academic and social effects, and is virtually free of cost. The opportunity proposed in this paper is paced, whereas the report recommends above-level testing. Such testing and acceleration would likely be incorporated in the primary years. This paper’s horizontal block format enables both the report’s “grade-based” and “subject-based” acceleration, which can either shorten the length of time enrolled or advance the content level for particular subjects.

The opposite, classes that “stretch into five, six, even seven” years is just as possible in the interest of limiting dropouts.[5]

[1] Dr. Jan’s Blogging Life: Experts From a School Reformer. Jan G. Borelli. The School Administrator. May 2006. http://www.drjansblog.typepad.com/dr_jans_blog/files/aasa_pub_blog.pdf.
[2] Limiting Students’ School Success and Life Chances: The Impact of Tracking. Jeannie S. Oakes. Contemporary Issues in Curriculum. Third Edition 2003. Page 21.
[3] ‘Mainstreaming’ Trend Tests Classroom Goals. John Hechinger. The Wall Street Journal. 25 June 2007.
[4] A Nation Deceived. Nicholas Colangelo, Ph.D., Susan G. Assouline, Ph.D., Miraca U.M. Gross, Ph.D. The Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development. October 2004.
[5] More Students Finish School, Given the Time. Jennifer Medina. The New York Times. 21 August 2007.