Providing a non-partisan model for generating and sharing          

    essential information on public issues and proposed solutions              

10th Anniversary :  2005- 06 to 2015-16

   
                                                                                                  About Civic Caucus   l   Interviews & Responses  l   Position Reports   l   Contact Us   l   Home  

 
 Response Page - Rose  Interview -      


These comments are responses to the questions listed below,
which were generated in regard to the
Joel Rose Interview of
09-23-2011.
 

Overview

Joel Rose, the founder and former chief executive officer of the School of One in the New York City Department of Education, describes the design of the school’s unique math program. The program uses multiple methods (modalities) of teaching, appealing to student motivation in different ways. He argues that it results in dramatic increases in the performance of students, as they are learning more effectively through content tailored to their abilities. He outlines the process of creating the school and provides recommendations for policy.

For the complete interview summary see:  http://bit.ly/qa4Zza

Response Summary:  Readers have been asked to rate, on a scale of (0) most disagreement, to (5) neutral, to (10) most agreement, the following points discussed by Mr. Rose. Average response ratings shown below are simply the mean of all readers’ zero-to-ten responses to the ideas proposed and should not be considered an accurate reflection of a scientifically structured poll.

1. Personalization ideal constrained by budget. (7.6 average response) For every child to succeed learning must become personalized—but it must be done in a way that works within present budget constraints.

2. Achieve personalization through technology. (7.2 average response) Schools should seek to personalize learning through different uses of technology, without necessarily hiring additional teachers.

3. Replicate conditions for innovation. (7.2 average response) When examining successful innovations in K-12 policy makers should think less about replicating the model than replicating the conditions that allowed the innovation to develop.

4. Innovation within districts is possible. (7.6 average response) Innovation that seeks to remake the design of a school or program can occur within districts.

5. States should offer incentives for innovation. (7.3 average response) Governors and legislatures should incentivize innovation by creating special funds for proposals. 

 

Response Distribution:

Strongly disagree

Moderately disagree

Neutral

Moderately agree

Strongly agree

Total Responses

1. Personalization ideal constrained by budget.

6%

11%

6%

33%

44%

18

2. Achieve personalization through technology.

6%

11%

17%

28%

39%

18

3. Replicate conditions for innovation.

6%

6%

17%

39%

33%

18

4. Innovation within districts is possible

6%

6%

6%

50%

33%

18

5. States should offer incentives for innovation.

6%

0%

28%

33%

33%

18

Individual Responses:

Pat Barnum  (10)  (10)  (10)  (10)  (7.5)

2. Achieve personalization through technology. In fact, if done well eventually a teacher will be able to manage a larger and larger caseload.

4. Innovation within districts is possible. Programs the state attempts to roll out get bogged down by regulation and groupthink. Get the State out of the way, and let the districts lead.

W. D. (Bill) Hamm  (0)  (0)  (0)  (0)  (0)

1. Personalization ideal constrained by budget. More of the same overcomplication of education that is behind the present education failure.

2. Achieve personalization through technology. Standardization of the education basics is still the key to learning those basics.

3. Replicate conditions for innovation. Replicating unproven stupidity leads to the failed education system we now have.

4. Innovation within districts is possible. Nothing good has come from within the education system in the last 30+ years.

5. States should offer incentives for innovation. Not one red cent for this kind of profiteering charlatan.

John Crosby  (10)  (7.5)  (7.5)  (10)  (10)

2. Achieve personalization through technology. May need some new teachers with a fresh perspective.

3. Replicate conditions for innovation. It is important to find ways to replicate the models success with Math and other subjects.

Ray Ayotte  (7.5)  (5)  (7.5)  (7.5)  (10)

Katie Kohn  (2.5)  (7.5)  (10)  (7.5)  (5)

1. Personalization ideal constrained by budget. Depends on type of school.  There are great variations in school budget constraints depending on district, charter school vs. traditional vs. private, etc.

4. Innovation within districts is possible. When the motivation and support are present from all stakeholders.

Bruce A. Lundeen  (2.5)  (2.5)  (2.5)  (7.5)  (5)

2. Achieve personalization through technology. The Harvest Preparatory School and the Best Academy in North Minneapolis would not share this opinion - they favor "drill and kill" methods.  The "automaticity" and discipline has had good results.

5. States should offer incentives for innovation. Please interview Eric Mahmoud, founder and director of the schools noted above.  For more information see Katherine Kersten’s column - either Sep 25 or Oct 25 in the Star-Tribune

Chris Brazelton  (7.5)  (10)  (5)  (5)  (7.5)

1. Personalization ideal constrained by budget. Some children learn well in a group environment that allows exchanges of information with other children. One child may ask a question that leads another child to learn who may not have felt comfortable asking.

2. Achieve personalization through technology. Technology gives us many opportunities to take lessons and adapt them to different learning styles using the best methods available and bring that lesson to thousands (or millions) of children. When alternating with online learning and assessments, individual lessons and group lessons, each child has the opportunity to learn in multiple settings.

3. Replicate conditions for innovation. Both are important.  Piloting a new model and then being able to roll it out, replicating it in other settings is important, as everyone does not have the time to develop and experiment with new methods.

4. Innovation within districts is possible. It can, but time and performance pressures make it difficult for districts to try new things that are not already proven to be successful.

5. States should offer incentives for innovation. Special funds would be needed in most cases to get small pilot project's teachers and administrators trained and running.

John Sievert  (10)  (7.5)  (10)  (10)  (5)

4. Innovation within districts is possible. Innovation needs to permit and reward risk taking instead of punishing it right now.

Don Anderson  (5)  (5)  (5)  (2.5)  (5)

1. Personalization ideal constrained by budget. For one subject this may be possible but with multiple subjects, I don't see how it can be done within present budget constraints.

2. Achieve personalization through technology. Older teachers without the technological training would be handicapped, unless extra training was made available, but within budget constraints?

4. Innovation within districts is possible. Districts have a much different mix. How would design over multiple districts without duplication.

5. States should offer incentives for innovation. With present budget problems, where would the funds come from?

Gretchen Wronka  (10)  (2.5)  (10)  (7.5)  (7.5)

1. Personalization ideal constrained by budget. Focus on the YAP results is obsessing schools.  Social issues like poverty, English speaking ability need to be taken into account. [Bloomington] school board heard from district staff re disparities last week. There does not seem to be plan for how to reduce the gap between Caucasian students and students of color.  High standards for all.

2. Achieve personalization through technology. Personal experience with a child diagnosed with ADD:  The Read 180 program that cost district 271 [much money] was primarily technology based.  Student and many of her peers in the class had trouble concentrating when there was no human, e.g. teacher, interaction.  Technology is not the magic bullet.

4. Innovation within districts is possible. It can occur, but bureaucracy and a lethargic attitude on part of staff, administration and parents about change impedes a lot of redesign.

5. States should offer incentives for innovation. Are grant-funded programs sustainable?  Look [at] what's happening in MN Schools that flourished while implementing the Reading Excellence grants. Money is gone; slowly the best practices that evolved are reverting to the "old" way of teaching.

R. C. Angevine  (7.5)  (5)  (7.5)  (7.5)  (5)

2. Achieve personalization through technology. I agree that we need to maximize methods for individual learning and that technology will play a large role in that.  The proper mix of tech and teaching staff still needs a lot of work in my mind.

Dave Broden  (7.5)  (10)  (10)  (10)  (7.5)

1. Personalization ideal constrained by budget. Agree strongly with the personalized learning and giving options of the learning process to the students. To do this within current budget will likely limit the process moving forward. Thus, start with the current budget, but if education is priority and the personalized approach is the best way to implement change, move the budget to support what works.

2. Achieve personalization through technology. Technology applied in a solid application approach will have value-- we need to continue to be careful about using technology as the solution alone--it is only a way to implement the changes and to shift how things are done. Technology itself without technology management is nothing.

3. Replicate conditions for innovation. This is a key point--if the conditions or environment are not such that it enables change just pushing a change model into the system may be simply counterproductive.

4. Innovation within districts is possible. Definitely. Matching the process to the local district offers opportunity to shape the approach to the students. Oversight from state or federal can set some guidelines [as] long as the guidelines are not complex and impossible to manage and [will] not be cost adders.

5. States should offer incentives for innovation. Concept of incentives for proposals is excellent but to make this work requires a very clear and non-biased evaluation process. The Department of Defense has done this type of approach for years, [but] only a few of the so called “objective” incentive programs are really objective and often approve only "pet rocks" rather than valued innovation. This should be supported but with focus on how it will be done.

Wayne Jennings  (10)  (10)  (8)  (10)  (10)

The sad thing is that this innovation will probably: 1. disappear without a trace, [or] 2. be bastardized in replication and then declared “that didn’t work.” It’s that hard to bring change in the system without going outside it. He’s right that government should establish innovation pilots beyond status quo control.

Robert J. Brown  (10)  (10)  (10)  (8)  (10)

Paul and Ruth Hauge  (8)  (9)  (7)  (9)  (9)

Schools and teachers will need to be retooled to implement these kinds of changes. Well worth the effort.

Chuck Lutz   (10)  (8)  (6)  (9)  (10)

Bright Dornblaser  (8)  (10)  (5)  (10)  (10)

1. Personalization ideal constrained by budget. Some can learn the traditional way, most will benefit from models such as described.

4. Innovation within districts is possible.  Yes, if districts permit.

Terry Stone  (10)  (10)  (8)  (6)  (8)

I’m not at all sure that taxpayers aren’t willing to pay for demonstrable success in education policy. At this point, there is reluctance to pay for a system that has doubled the number of school district employees per pupil since 1971 with degraded performance to show for it.

So long as K-12 remains a bulked-up union utopia, willingness to spend will succumb to union interests.

Education is the only sector of our economy where computer technology has not resulted in massive savings as a result of system disruption (assault on the status quo). Computers have added expense as an add-on educational capacity instead of increasing the capacity to teach.

If schools can provide personalized learning through different uses of technology, without necessarily hiring an inflated platoon of “technology professionals”, everyone wins.

For politically understandable reasons, Mr. Rose does not discuss how teachers are evaluated in his innovative program. Nevertheless, this will need to be done under what appear to be challenging conditions; this format looks like a venue for ineffective teachers to thrive and retire.

While discussing teachers, technology and students, we must not forget the other half of education; school districts are local governmental entities. Education will only be served [if] school districts become effective and trustworthy elements of local government in addition to becoming effective learning centers.

    

The Civic Caucus   is a non-partisan, tax-exempt educational organization.   The Core participants include persons of varying political persuasions, reflecting years of leadership in politics and business. Click here  to see a short personal background of each.

   Verne C. Johnson, chair;  David Broden, Charles Clay, Marianne Curry, Bill Frenzel, Paul Gilje,  Jim Hetland,  Marina Lyon, Joe Mansky, John Mooty,  Jim Olson,  and Wayne Popham 


©
The Civic Caucus, 01-01-2008
8301 Creekside Circle #920,   Bloomington, MN 55437.  civiccaucus@comcast.net
Verne C. Johnson, chair, 952-835-4549,       Paul A. Gilje, coordinator, 952-890-5220.

contact webmaster
 

 

 

Hit Counter