Flat World Book Review

I feel like I am walking away from this book with a better understanding of our education system and many of the problems we have faced in the past, ones we are dealing with now, and ones that will come if we don't make changes.

I think that there were a lot of issues that I didn't fully understand such as how big of an impact the way our schools are funded has on schools especially in low income areas. Maybe I was just naive but I could understand people wanting to keep their tax dollars local and fund their local schools. But I also felt terrible for students in low-income areas because it should not be their burden, they have no control over where they are born. Now I fully understand and see the bigger picture of not giving these students the education they deserve and need. The fact that some states can use third grade reading scores to determine the future of prisions is just crazy to me. Why would you not fix the problem and help those students succeed instead of insuring a prison bed for them. Not only that, but as we continue to under-educate students we are growing the lower class population that then becomes a drain on our society as a whole.

One thing that really frustrates me is that we all know that there is a need for change but it seems like little is being done to make the necessary changes. Not only is little being done to change once something is done the changes take years to make an impact. Reading how long some of the court cases take to make any difference if they are able to make a difference at all is really frustrating. In my opinion America is really shooting itself in the foot by not investing in education right now and not making the changes that are so badly needed.

Policy Changes

Throughout the book The Flat World in Education Linda Darling-Hammond has made a strong case for the need of major changes in our education systems. In chapter 9 of the book she outlines what she feels are the five major elements required for a successful education system: meaningful learning goals; intelligent, reciprocal accountability systems; equitable and adequate resources; strong professional standards and suports for all; and schools organized for student and teacher learning.

Darling-Hammond believes that meaningful goals should be focused on success in the 21st century and that they should be developed at a national level. These goals should be based off federally funded research and expert resources. I agree with her arguments for equity that all be held to the same standards and that is where our country is headed with the common core standards. She feels that once the national government sets the standards the individual state governments should regulate and manage the curriculum. In a way I understand her point that this allows the national government to find the best way to implement but I also feel that if you're investing all this time and money into creating these standards it seems that the US should manage it as a whole.

Intelligent reciprocal accountability systems are what Linda Darling-Hammond suggests for ensuring that all students have the opportunity to learn. This would include standards of practice for schools and teachers that would make schools accountable for having a safe and productive learning environment. I truly feel that this is something our country could benefit from. In reading some of the horror stories in this book of the conditions that some schools are in and what students are being subjected to I think it would be worth while to put standards into place.

Equitable and adequate resources should be given to schools. As it has been discussed several times and the book and in my blog about how equal money doesn't always mean that the playing field is level, Linda Darling Hammond suggests that the money and resources should go where they are needed. I think that spending should be more equal and that high risk schools be given more money or at least equal resources so that those students have a chance to succeed too.

Strong professional standards are needed in the US to ensure that students have qualified teachers. Teachers need support during training programs and those programs need to be regulated. Teachers and schools need support in continuing education and action research. I also believe that teachers need to be held accountable. Schools need to be reorganized to better facilitate students and teachers.

From Inequality to Quality

Charter schools have been in the spotlight a lot recently because of the Waiting for Superman documentary among other reasons. One of the biggest stories at that time was the success of charter schools and that is exactly what Linda Darling-Hammond talks about in the next chapter in her book.

I think that charter schools are great especially for inner-city populations. The reason that charter schools are so great is that they are well thought out and planned. Charter schools are able to start fresh and don't have many of the constraints the public schools have. Often times public school receive outside funding or are completely funded from other sources. Because of the way these school are organized often times they have a wide selection of teachers to choose from. For what charter schools are they are fabulous, but I do not think that an all charter school program is the answer to America's education woes.

Charter schools are something that inner city parents and students must seek out and these are the families that are truly invested in education. I believe that parents and families make a big difference in education outcomes and by having all parents at least have a baseline of interest and investment helps boost achievement. Also, because there is limited space in charter schools often times they are places that you must apply to and be admitted or go through a lottery system. This means that some charter schools get to choose their students based on performance among other things. The public school must serve every student wether or not their parents or them care students have to be in school.

I will say that our education system is in serious need of a refresh and could benefit from a fresh start like charter schools. With the ability to make conscious well thought out plans for the future of education instead of a hodge-podge of bandaids to try and fix the deep rooted problems.

Doing What Matters Most

It has been a common theme throughout The Flat World and Education that teachers make the biggest difference in education outcomes. To this point in the book I have felt that teachers have been blamed a lot of not wanting to teach in certain settings but in chapter 6 I feel that Linda Darling-Hammond did a good job of pointing out that it isn't really the teachers' fault. She points out that as a nation we need to have policies that set guidelines and support for new teacher preparation, professional development, and mentoring. Changes cannot be made at the class, school, district or even state level - they must be made at a national level.

New teacher training has to be more rigorous so that new teachers are better prepared. Not only should new teachers learn their content they should be taught how to teach. In Finland there is a thesis that new teachers must write and it is often focused on problem solving and action research. Currently there are many options for students who would like to become teachers and in most states the quality of the programs offered varies greatly. The national government needs to do a better job of regulating these programs to ensure that new teachers are well prepared; similar to what happened to MD training in the early 1900s. Unlike the medical profession though teachers will not ever have big earnings which is why many people have a hard time justifying going into debt to pay for their education.

Once someone finishes their education training they are thrown into a classroom and often left to fend for themselves and figure things out on their own. Although mentoring programs are becoming more prevalent they are not supported in ways that they should be. Many times veteran teachers are asked to support teachers without the training in how to actually support them.

In many successful education systems teachers are supported and encouraged to continue to learn through professional development. Singapore and Sweden both fund and require teachers to do 100 hours of professional development every year. Teachers have fewer hours of instructional time in other countries compared to American teachers allowing for more professional development, plan time, group plan time and action research.

The moral of the story is that as a nation we must reform our teacher preparation guidelines to make our education system better!

What is working outside of the US?

In the 1970s the United States was a leader in education and ever since has been slowly declining. There are countries around the world that in this time period have done just the opposite and have really turned their education systems around. Countries such as Finland, South Korea and Singapore have made changes in their education systems and are now leading the way. "All created productive teaching and learning systems by expanding access while investing purposefully in ambitious educational goals using strategic approaches to build teaching capacity." (p164) I found that Finland's education system was the most interesting approach.

After Finland emerged from the Soviet Union in the 1970s it has taken serious measures to renovate its education system. They changed from their traditional model of education to a more modern model that includes all students and is publicly funded. "ninety-eight percent of the costs of education at all levels are covered by government, rather than private sources." (p165) "All students receive a free meal daily, as well as free health care, transportations, learning materials, and counseling in their schools, so that the foundation for learning are in place." (p168) There used to be a huge socioeconomic gap in test scores and now that gap is closed and nearly 90% of students graduate from high school and there is little variation between schools. As a country Finland made changes to the national core curriculum but that acts more as a guideline and the majority of the assessments and standards are based on local, school, and teachers. "Policymakers decided that if they invested in very skillful teachers, they could allow local schools more autonomy to make decisions about what and how to teach." (p168)

Invest in teachers is exactly what they did. Finland has a special teacher training program which allows them to essentially hand pick their teachers. Candidates are recruited and then chosen to attend the teacher training program for three years free of charge and are given a stipend. Because these spots are in such high demand there is rarely a teacher shortage. Not only that, but the curriculum for the teacher training is rigorous and focuses on how to teach and very current strategies. During the training teachers do a minimum of one year of clinical experience.

A Tale of Three States

In chapter 5 of The Flat World in Education Linda Darling-Hammond takes a closer look at three different states to try and uncover what fueled their success or lack there of. As discussed in the last post there have been many court cases where people are fighting for the right to an education. Some of those cases actually do make a difference but the changes that stem from them must be well planned and consistent.

Connecticut and North Carolina are two states that are really taking steps to make positive changes in the education culture. Both of of these states have made major changes in the profession of teaching by raising standards and equalizing salaries. Connecticut spent an initial $300million to equalize teacher salaries so that urban districts could compete for good teachers and between 1986 and 1991 raised the base salary by 50%. This created a surplus of teachers and allowed districts to be highly selective. In North Carolina the state started a fellowship program that selected high school students to recieve an "enhanced and fully-funded" teacher education program in return for years of service. And Connecticut added more rigorous licensing standards and tests along with a mentor program and increased professional development opportunities.

Along with changing the expectations of excellence from teachers they have both instated new teaching and learning standards. With the new standards came new ways to assess and evaluate students learning in varied ways. The best part about these changes is that they have been well supported and implemented consistently for more than 15 years and have the data to show real improvements. In Connecticut the students have new standards that they are held to and these standards are assessed with low-stakes testing that is only used to improve the teaching and curriculum.

Not every state has had as much success as these two. California for example is moving in the wrong direction. They came away from Serrano v. Priest which got the ball rolling for equal funding until Proposition 13 passed limiting property taxes and starting the slow decline and inequity in funding. Not only were the schools loosing funding and they were using that funding in ineffective ways with: poorly implemented class size reduction, failure to enforce state policies, and overly prescriptive curriculum mandates.

Money Money Money Money

The majority of the issues in education can be brought back to funding issues. In the fourth chapter of The Flat World in Education Linda Darling-Hammond explores why there are so many problems getting the proper funding for education. She discusses general funding issues but focuses mainly on the inequity of funding and how people have tried to change those inequities.

There is a long history of inequality in our school system and a lot of the inequality stems from the way schools are funded in America. As I've discussed in earlier blogs in the United States the majority of school funding comes from local taxes so if you live in a poorer area you have a poorer school. The fact of the matter is that the poorer areas need to actually have more money to spend per student because of their high-risk needs. "Opponents of school finance reform have argued that states have no business meddling with unequal funding that results from local property taxation because of traditions of local control of schools." (p100) Just because school funding has always worked this way doesn't meant that it's the right way for things to work. I believe that a large majority of school districts would welcome a more equal spending system.

Because of this long history of unequal education due to funding there have been many court cases where parents have fought for the right to a quality education for their children. One of the most famous of these cases is Brown vs. The Board of Education that fought to end segregation in schools because separate is not equal. This started the ball rolling for several other cases. Our schools are no longer separated by race but are a lot of times separated by class. These lawsuits argue that, "if states require all students to meet the same educational standards, they must asume responsibility to provide adequate resources to allow students reasonable opportunity to achieve those standards, including curriculum that fully reflects the standards; teachers well qualified to teach the curriculum; and the materials, texts, supplies, and equipment needed to support this teaching." (p99) The problem with taking schools to court is that it is a very lengthy process and even when the cases are won little change usually results.

In many cases districts and states argue that giving money to poorer schools is a waste of money. But as Linda Darling-Hammond points out, "the high correlation between students' backgrounds and their schools' resources makes it difficult to identify the independent effects of schooling on achievement because, in the United States, race, class, and educational opportunity are so fully entangled." (p101) But Jonathan Guryan, a University of Chicago economist, found that "increased educational funding for historically low-spending districts led to improved student achievement, especially for traditionally low-scoring students. (p119)

One of the problems is that there are times that schools have money thrown at them to try and fix problems and often times the problems aren't fixed by just throwing money. "The efficiency argument has merit. Dollars can be wasted or used in counterproductive ways, and bad managerial decisions can create administrative burdens that deflect scarce resources and attention from productive teaching and learning." (p102) The fact of the matter is that for there to be major changes in education to be made at least 3 to 5 years of steady implementation of new practices are needed.