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.

Standards & Testing

It has been pretty clear throughout The Flat World in Education that there are major flaws in our education system. I believe that the government is trying to remedy these problems through the only ways they know how ... come up with new rules or requirements also known as standards and then collect data to ensure that the standards are being met through testing.

I honestly believe that this idea started with the best intentions but has snowballed into a serious issue in education. Standards drive what is tested which is important to ensure that the students are learning what the standards say they need to know. But the testing drives how school receive funds from the government. Because school are in such need of money in order to operate they focus in on only what is being tested and teach students how to answer questions like those they will see on the test. Students therefor miss out on anything that is not being tested and cannot respond to a question unlike one on the test. This system is creating students that are learning a portion of the curriculum they should and cannot think critically.

I believe that it is important to have learning goals that are clear. It is helpful for both students and teachers to know what they are working towards. I believe that having state and national standards is a transparent way to make goals for our entire education system. It is good for all students to have the same general learning goals so that all of the students in our country ideal have the same knowledge. The biggest problem with our standards is that there are too many goals every year. Other more successful countries have found that having fewer goals and teaching and learning those goals more in depth is more beneficial to the students.

It's Not Fair

For the first seven years of my life I was an only child, ah what bliss. But I remember when my little sister showed up on the scene there was an endless dialogue about fairness. It wasn't fair that I had this and she didn't or it wasn't fair that she got to do something I did not and so on and so on and so on. I guess it is inevitable that when there is someone to compare you and your things to you do just that. (As a sidenote I find this to be a very unhealthy practice.) I always remember my mom saying that our things were just different not necessarily unequal. Although this can be the case that it is not how it is in the American education system. There are indeed many differences between schools and in some areas the lack of equity is disturbing.

In Linda Darling-Hammond's second chapter of her book The Flat World and Education she discusses the "Anatomy of Inequality." Darling-Hammond shows the long history of unequal education in America and what causes these inequalities. In all honesty I have a really hard time with this section of the book. I think my biggest problem is that I see both sides of the arguments that Darling-Hammond is making. She says that the five reasons that education is not equal are: high level poverty and low level support, unequal allocation of school resources, inadequate access to high-quality teacher, rationing of high-quality curriculum, and factory model school design.

I truly believe that as a nation we need to help our citizens. It just isn’t right that some people go into major debt because of medical bills or that some children in our country don’t have food to eat. I think it is really sad that some people live in excess and then there are so many people who can barely survive. I believe that our government should have systems in place to support people in need; things like unemployment, Medicare, Title I, and other social systems.

I agree that there is an unequal allocation of resources throughout our school system. I know that in Illinois where you live determines where you go to school and that school is funded in large part by your property taxes. This means that if you live in a wealthy community there is a large tax base so the school in that community is well funded. On the other hand if you are poor and live in a lower income area there will be a lower tax base and fewer funds available for the school. In her book Linda Darling Hammond calls this a tracking system and although I don’t think it is right I think our entire school system would have to be rearranged to remedy this problem. You could move everyone in the country around; make students go to schools that are not near them; or completely change the way schools are funded. The fact that some schools don’t have enough books for all of their students is appalling to me. But again I believe is a function of the way our schools are funded.

One of the reasons Darling-Hammond gives for inequity in our country is the lack of good teachers in high-risk schools. I believe that just like any job market the job that pays better, with better working conditions, and a better location gets more applicants and has the opportunity to get the best candidates. Where as a job that pays less in a dilapidated building in a seedier part of town doesn’t have as many applicants and as much of a choice and get essentially the leftovers. Nobody is in an uproar that a big law firm in New York probably has better lawyers than an ambulance chaser in the middle of nowhere.

Earlier in the book Linda Darling-Hammond said something that really stuck with me about how if we don’t start giving ALL our students a good education our nation will not continue to thrive in this global economy. The more I think about the inequity we already have the more I think that if we continue to only give some students the best education the high-risk students will just continue to need social services and be a drain on those who have.

I’m Proud to be an American …

I only wish that I could be proud of our education system.

We live in an ever-changing world and in the recent years it has been changing even more quickly. It is believed that in 2010 the amount of new technical information is doubling roughly every 72 hours. With the speed at which things are changing the human capital is increasingly more valuable in this knowledge economy. We are currently preparing students for jobs that don’t yet exist, using technologies that haven’t been invented, in order to solve problems we don’t even know are problems yet. (Shift Happens, Karl Fisch and Scott McLeod, 2009) Because of the nature of this progress the way we teach must be changed. We can no longer use Ford’s factory model of taking all the things you need to learn while in school and dividing it equally between the 12 years of public education. (Darling-Hammond, 2010, p. 4) The goal of education needs to focus more on teaching students to use what they know in inventive ways and become problem solvers.

This is exactly what the leading countries are doing. Countries all over the world have realized that the old model of education was not working. In Finland they got rid of a tracking system that was really only helping make the smartest smarter realizing that all students need a good education for the economy to flourish. “A recent OECD report found that for very year the average schooling level of the population is raised, there is a corresponding increase of 3.7% in long-term economic growth.” (Darling-Hammond, 2010, p. 16) This means that all students need access to a good education for a country to be able to compete economically. Not only have countries changed who is allowed a quality education they have also realized that the way we teach has to be changed. “High-achieving nations teach about half as many topics each year as American schools do.” (Darling-Hammond, 2010, p. 13) With fewer topics being taught within a school year students and teachers are able to get more in-depth and form a better understanding of the topics they do study, The number of new topics is different in the high-achieving countries as is the way that the concepts are being taught and used. For example, Nan Chiau Primary School has adopted an active learning model that leverages experiential learning [which] allows students to experience the lessons, investigate, and create new knowledge.” As Linda Darling-Hammond says on page 4 of her book, “Education can no longer be productively focused primarily on the transmission of pieces of information that, once memorized, comprise a stable storehouse of knowledge. Instead, schools must teach disciplinary knowledge in ways that focus on central concepts and help students learn how to think critically and learn from themselves, so that they can use knowledge in new situations and manage the demands of a changing information, technologies, jobs, and social conditions.”

America is essentially digging it’s own economic grave by not investing in education. The lack of education is linked to crime and welfare dependency. “Some states are said to predict the number of prison beds they will need in a decade based on 3^rd grade reading scores.” (Darling-Hammond, 2010, p. 24) I simply do not understand why knowing that education makes that big of a difference does not give politicians the urgency to invest in education. Why would states not invest the $10,000 now in education, something beneficial to society, rather than have to spend $30,000 on that same student to keep them in jail. Because the job market is more educationally demanding now than ever before the costs of failing in school is bigger than ever. If students do not perform well in school and not get the education they need they will become part of the growing underclass and as Linda Darling-Hammond puts it on page 23 of her book these people will “be cut off from productive engagement in society,” thereby being a debt rather than an asset. It is said that, “if we continue these trends, by 2012 America will have 7 million jobs in science and technology fields, ‘green’ industry, and other fields that cannot be filled by United States workers who have been adequately educated for them.” (Darling-Hammond, 2010, p. 3) If we do not change our education system we will make our human capital obsolete, weakening our economy, and our country. “The current generation of young Americans may be the first to be less well educated and less upwardly mobile than the one before.” (Darling-Hammond, 2010, p. 14)

American schools in general are not able to compete on a global scale, but the vast disparities within the United States education system are frightening. The amount of money a school or district spends per student determines the quality of the teachers they have, the quality of the resources available to them, and the quality of their overall education. The sad truth is that the students who need the most support such as the poor and minorities are the students that get the least amount spent on them. “The wealthiest school districts in the United States spend nearly 10 times more than the poorest.” (Darling-Hammond, 2010, p. 12) On top of having less money to start with those funds are stretched to cover things like health-care, food, and after-school programs. The fact is that as Linda Darling-Hammond says, “equal dollars cannot produce equal opportunity,” just because equal money is spent does not mean that students are getting an equal education. High-poverty schools need more resources to help their students succeed. A large part of the problem in these areas is the high turnover rate of teachers and the “u-turns in education policy” that are constantly disrupting the consistency students need in order to achieve well. (Darling-Hammond, 2010, p. 14)

To summarize Darling-Hammond's first chapter of The Flat World and Education our education system is broken and is in need of some major repairs. As she puts it on page 3, “we cannot just bail ourselves out of the crisis we must teach our way out.” As a country we need to change the way we teach our students helping them to be critical thinkers, self-learners and problem solvers. In doing so we are investing in our human capital. We must change the way we fund our schools, the way it is now in most places the rich students get a rich education and the poor students get a poor education, but in order to help our country and economy flourish all students need a good education. The bottom line is that if we want America to be able to compete in a global marketplace we have to urgently fix our education system.