Know Power, Know Responsibility: How to unleash the potential of every child in America

Part 1 : THE CASE FOR REINVENTING PUBLIC EDUCATION— Chapters 0: Unsustainable and 1: Achievement and Opportunity Gaps

Author’s Note: I will publish additional sections of this book each week. You can find previously posted sections at the following links: Note to Parents of School Age Children and Note to Teachers, School Administrators, and Other School Staff here; Introduction here; Prologues Part 1 and 2 here; and Prologues Part 3 and 4 here.

PART 1 — THE CASE FOR REINVENTING PUBLIC EDUCATION

As noted in the introduction, the basic structure of our public education system celebrates its 126th birthday in 2019. That is not, in and of itself, sufficient reason to make significant changes. Some things stand the test of time and require only minor modifications, not wholesale reinvention. Public education has not stood this test of time.

While I do believe the population of the United States is currently the best-educated it has ever been, I also believe this level of education is not sufficient for the world in which we live — and certainly not for the world for which we are heading. This first part of the book will lay out the reasons I believe our current public education system is not adequate for the demands of our current world, let alone those of the future, and why the current model does not have the capacity to get us where we need to be.

CHAPTER 0 — Unsustainable

Yes, a chapter 0 is odd, and it’s hardly long enough to justify being called a chapter. The title comes from a book by Tim McDonald that lays out the reasons our current educational model cannot last much longer. McDonald argues we have tapped every ounce of productivity from the current model. Any gains now will come at great financial cost or losses elsewhere. Immense efforts have been made to improve student performance and close achievement gaps, but the result has been only small improvements because the capacity of the current system has been reached.

Our options, then, are to either pump more and more resources into the system in an attempt to spur additional improvements or to replace the current model with one that has the capacity needed to make large improvements in learning and eliminate achievement gaps. Rather than reproduce all his excellent work here, I will encourage you to seek out Unsustainable: A Strategy for Making Public Schooling More Productive, Effective, and Affordable and take a look at McDonald’s research and arguments. The bottom line is that our current system is not sustainable. So let’s begin to design a replacement system that has the flexibility to adapt and endure well into the twenty-second century. (McDonald, 2011)

CHAPTER 1 — Achievement and Opportunity Gaps

Many people believe the “American Dream” is available to anyone willing to work hard enough to attain it, regardless of a person’s starting point. Within our educational system, there is a related belief that every child begins with comparable levels of potential and maintains that equal potential regardless of the benefits or challenges they face early in life.

Unfortunately, our current educational model is unable to allow every student to begin approaching his or her potential. Instead, it perpetuates inequity by allowing children’s early advantages or challenges to multiply and build upon each other. The result is achievement and opportunity gaps that grow as students move from grade to grade.

There are two forms of achievement and opportunity gaps: the first is gaps between groups based on race, ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic status, and other factors; the second is the gap between the knowledge and skills students receive from our current system and what will be needed for them to thrive in the world to come. Neither of these gaps can be closed in our current educational system.

Gaps between demographic groups

When we talk about the first of these gaps — the gaps in achievement and opportunities between various demographic groups — we tend to generalize. We then strive to close the gaps by applying strategies to the students within those groups based on race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, etc. But these gaps don’t result from one or a select few factors. The ability of a student to learn is influenced by countless factors that are unique to each student, and these are lost when we address gaps using groups. While some students within a given group may share some factors that affect learning, it is these combined with a variety of individual factors that determine each student’s ability to learn.

That doesn’t mean the gaps aren’t real or that we can or should ignore them. It’s just that generalizing can actually interfere with our ability to honestly identify the causes of the gaps. This generalization then interferes with implementing effective strategies to close them. We must dig deeper and look beyond the generalizations because it is not demographic factors alone that affect a student’s academic performance or the opportunities available to that student.

This is not a new revelation. Most people realize that group factors simply compound other factors. The argument, however, is that addressing group factors should improve the outcomes for the entire group. On the surface, this seems like a valid argument and a more efficient approach than directing limited resources at students’ individual challenges. However, it’s not that simple.

Factors that are more prevalent in certain demographic groups still affect each individual differently based on a host of other factors. Consequently, trying to address them collectively will have mixed results for the individuals within that group; for some students, the effects of some intervention might actually be negative. Unfortunately, we often fall into a trap when the collective results show an improvement — we then consider the effort successful, though some students might actually have regressed. We might then replicate or expand the effort at the expense of those for whom the efforts will make things worse.

MYTH: MORE TIME OR NEW PROGRAMS WILL LEAD TO IMPROVED TEST SCORES

My sons’ middle school decided to double the amount of time students spend in English Language Arts (ELA) classes based on evidence that more time in ELA resulted in improved literacy scores on state standardized tests. However, for my youngest son — a voracious reader who in middle school could read and have deep discussions about complex books such as The Hobbit and The Hidden Reality — the extra time and work was frustrating and caused a serious dislike of ELA. It also reduced time available for other classes that he enjoyed and that challenged him. While the extra ELA time may improve the school’s collective performance, it actually reduced my son’s enjoyment of reading and language arts while not notably increasing his individual knowledge and skills.

I worked with numerous students in charter and alternative high schools who had been required to take additional literacy or math classes due to poor performance in these subjects. The extra classes didn’t help and came at the expense of classes they enjoyed. The students fell further behind while also losing interest in school and either dropping out or not earning enough credits to graduate. Only when they got into a school that personalized their program to address their specific needs were these students able to begin learning and meeting the performance expectations.

Similar scenarios play out in most schools and districts. A new curriculum, program, or additional time is added to address an identified collective shortcoming. The changes will almost always bring improvements for some students, while being immediately worse for other students. Over time, when no longer a focus of the school, they may end up worse for many or most students.

In using our limited resources for programs aimed at students’ shared challenges, we leave none to address unique student needs and challenges (unless required by law, such as for an Individual Education Program). Concurrently, the emphasis on group challenges can allow students to ignore individual challenges over which they may have some control.

In the short term, due to focusing on some specific area, collective performance is likely to improve. Some students will suffer due to the changes and, in many cases, performance in other areas will also suffer — until they, in turn, become the area of emphasis, just like a game of whack-a-mole. In the meantime, individual students’ unique needs and challenges are not addressed, thus limiting their ability to pursue their potential.

This is why there is so little significant progress in closing gaps. The reasons for each student’s poor performance are unique to that student, but our current structure requires that nearly every intervention be implemented at a larger scale. The biggest drawback to interventions, whether collective or individual, is that they come after students struggle and are based on what people other than the student (that is, the adults) think the student needs.

Instead, we need to account for individual factors right from the start. This is impossible under the current model due to its calendar, schedule, budget, and structure, among other factors. A model that can accommodate each student’s individual needs could be designed, and it could be implemented at a

A RISING TIDE RAISES ALL SHIPS, EXCEPT . . .

This common phrase “a rising tide raises all ships” is often used to justify devoting resources to something that benefits everyone rather than targeting resources to those who are struggling. An example is when schools implement policies or initiatives for all students while some students face significantly more struggles. The argument is that these students will benefit along with all others.

The analogy itself, however, reveals the shortcoming of this approach for educational challenges. Consider ships that are not currently seaworthy — ships that are resting on the bottom of the bay. When the tide rises, they end up further underwater. This is not to say that all collective initiatives will be harmful to students who are already behind in some way. But it is meant as a cautionary thought. Some initiatives will, in fact, just put struggling students even further behind.

The point of this book is not to keep the seaworthy ships — the students doing well — from getting additional opportunities. In fact, the point is to give them opportunities in line with their potential. That cannot happen through initiatives that “raise the tide.” Rather, it’s by designing new systems and enhancements aligned to the unique needs of each ship — giving each student what they need to learn, grow, and develop to their potential based on their unique needs and circumstances.

Even if my boat is seaworthy, I may not want the tide to continue rising and the water below me to get deeper; rather, I may want a calmer and more appropriate place to sail. Let’s make sure our efforts to float students higher don’t end up drowning some.

lower cost than the existing model; this is explored extensively in part 3 of this book.

Gaps between student preparation and needs

The second achievement and opportunity gap is almost entirely related to a single factor — the limitations of our current educational model. Our current model cannot support the level of preparation students will need to survive and thrive in an incredibly dynamic and uncertain world. This stems primarily from our current model being premised on teaching, not learning. (This is covered in detail in chapter 2.) The current model is designed to deliver a specific curriculum to all students as cost-effectively as possible. It can’t accommodate every student achieving her or his individual potential.

When individual students are unable to meet their potential, the collective potential is also severely restricted. Multiply this across all the schools in our country. What is the cost of such lost potential — of the gap between student preparation and their real capabilities?

The technological developments of the last hundred years have demonstrated incredible possibilities. Some have played out in our general standard of living. The percentage of people with cars, televisions, computers, Internet access, and cell phones is certainly at its highest point ever in the United States and much of the rest of the world. In the US we take this for granted. Our ability to produce nutritious food is also exceptional. And breakthroughs in health care have increased life expectancy and reduced infant mortality rates. Yet there is still immense poverty both in the US and around the world. We continue to lose hundreds of thousands of lives every year to preventable causes.

Why does our world continue to face so many avoidable crises and challenges given all our advancements? I believe it’s because relatively few people achieve their individual potential and contribute to technological — as well as cultural — advances. Most of us are content to do what we can but don’t realize just how much potential we possess. Interestingly, those who are changing the world through innovation were often the very students who refused to comply and settle in school.

OUTLIERS

There are numerous stories of students who overcame horrible early life situations to become great scholars, breaking free from the perpetuation of their early disadvantages. These are still, however, the rare exceptions. In his book Outliers, Malcolm Gladwell explores the reasons behind exceptional situations and reveals that almost every exceptional performer, rather than simply being born exceptional, was the result of a series of events and much hard work and practice. (Gladwell, 2008)

This is great news for those of us striving to provide every student with equitable opportunities to approach and grow their potential — while also revealing the futility of trying to do so within our current educational structure. Essentially, Gladwell found that advantages perpetuate, so that a system that treats everyone pretty much the same will increase gaps between those with and without advantages. However, this also shows how a model that treats students and their situations individually can counter disadvantages from the beginning and provide advantages that can be perpetuated for each student according to their needs and circumstances.

As Eric Barker discusses in his book Barking Up the Wrong Tree, longitudinal research of high school valedictorians and salutatorians shows that these high-performing students do not become world-changers. They do well compared to other students, but they generally end up “fitting in” and not pushing themselves to the highest levels and most notable achievements. That is because, during their K–12 career, they were adept at and rewarded for fitting in — for complying. (Barker, 2017)

Faced with the mindset that compliance is necessary to get ahead, few students consider reaching for their true potential while in school. The result is a gap between what students demonstrate in school and their potential. Additionally, the potential is not static. The human ability to grow and develop means that even as we begin approaching our current potential, that potential increases. We can go even further, should we choose to put in the necessary effort.

The two gaps addressed in this chapter differ significantly, but they are hindered in the same way. Our current educational system does not allow personalizing educational opportunities to meet the true needs of any student. Those who start out with challenges, who enter with capabilities below their grade level, or who do not learn in ways easily compatible with the existing system will not catch up to others — and certainly will not achieve their true potential. And those who start with minimal challenges, who enter the system at or above grade level, and who learn in ways directly aligned with the system will not achieve their full potential because the system can’t sufficiently facilitate their needs in order to continuously grow.

We need to reinvent the system so that all students move toward their true potential. Our job is to design a system that contributes to all students growing and flourishing toward their individual potential.

Continue with the next section of Know Power, Know Responsibility (Part 1 — Chapter 2), here:

You may also enjoy reading:

Kevin Miller is a Boomer who joined the Army during the Cold War and continues to serve. He has spent 30-plus years working in K-12 education as a teacher, administrator, and consultant and is now on a mission to reinvent our school model. His book Know Power, Know Responsibility provides the imperatives for a complete redesign of schools and the way to get there. See his website knowresponsibility.com to learn more.