Dintersmith’s editorial claims,
“The biggest obstacle to advancing education is that we cling to [an obsolete]
model. Students shuffle from subject to subject in class periods punctuated by
ringing bells. They memorize, cram, and drill on low-level material. They jump
through (increasingly expensive) hoops, and develop skills for jobs that no
longer exist.” He contends, “In the innovation era, we should be educating to
our strength. We need to…reimagine our schools. Help our kids develop essential
characteristics for the 21st century…Trust our teachers to bring
compelling learning experiences to our students. Set high standards and hold
all participants accountable...”
The movie centers on San Diego charter school High Tech High (http://www.hightechhigh.org/),
which uses a project-based learning model of education to inspire innovation
and entrepreneurialism. Classrooms are designed to be student-centered with
collaborative decision-making; employment of learning in the interest of
producing a tangible outcome; teachers as mentors, coaches, facilitators, and
resources; and appreciation for each student’s humanity. A class of freshman
students, selected teachers and administrators, and occasional parents are
interviewed over a period of one school year, and clips of interviews with
educational gurus like Salman Khan, Tony Wagner, and Linda Darling-Hammond are
interspersed. Elements of teaching and learning culminate in the “final exam,”
a public display of the year’s efforts.
My take on the film:
·
Fascinating to
watch project-based learning in action; the passion of educators; and the
dynamic among, and energy and commitment of, students.
·
Why were all
the interviewed staff members men and all the parents women? Was the
application of the female lead’s talents in fine arts and the male lead’s
talents in engineering purposeful or coincidental?
·
By virtue of
being an 86 minute film, a lot was left on the cutting room floor. What did
groups do when members didn’t get along? How does a student demonstrate
capability to a college admissions office? What was the rate of attrition back
to traditional schools? How many students were ELL/LEP or had special education
needs? Although 98% of students were accepted to college, what is their
persistence rate?
·
For being an
86 minute film, a lot was included that fairly and honestly questioned the
process. Parents wondered if enough content was provided. Teachers are on
year-to-year contract. (My question: does that lead to retention of high
quality staff and are they around long enough to provide continuity of teacher
collaboration and the support of a professional culture?).
Some notes:
·
As NYT Book
Reviewer Lisa Miller notes in her 8/18 review of the book, “Less convincing is the
assumption that undergirds this whole tract: that every person can – or should
– be molded into an entrepreneur.”
·
The film’s follow-up
panel discussion featured Dintersmith (a Partner Emeritus with Charles River
Ventures), MA Secretary of Education Chair Jim Peyser, and Russlyn Ali
(Executive Director of XQ: The Super School Project, funded with $50M by Steve
Jobs’ widow Laurene Powell Jobs).
·
The business
community wants workers who are employable and fill their skills gaps. Young
adults need to be prepared to work in jobs that do not yet exist. Parents want
their children to succeed. Government needs to abide by the Constitution and
provide the structure and money to enable a society that aligns with our
country’s values.
Elephant in the Room…charter schools and traditional public schools,
right? So here are my thoughts:
·
Parents
deserve choices about their children’s’ schooling. Complete comparison data
must be provided that allow making those choices. Parents who don’t have the
time or understanding or language skills to access choice must not be penalized
in favor of those who do. And there shouldn’t be judgment of parents once their
decisions are made.
·
Schools must
be provided equitable flexibility to craft change, because adding mandates on
some schools while removing mandates from other schools doesn’t allow
constricted schools to employ the changes necessary for student success. Any
school that is innovating and proving that it results in better outcomes for
students should be rewarded with less oversight and more funding. (It’s like
parenting – scaffolding responsibility as children successfully meet
appropriate benchmarks results in opportunities to achieve greater
responsibility.)
·
Students are
the only ones who deserve entitlement. They are entitled to a “free and
appropriate education.” They are entitled to attend a school that is
physically, emotionally, and educationally safe. They are entitled to be
educated beginning where they are and brought to where they should be without
judgment or labels. They deserve to be challenged, nurtured, coached, and
mentored. And they deserve the support to grow into well-adjusted people who
can work together, play together, mourn together, and laugh together. It’s our
job to work together to support their entitlement.