"There is an image, or impression, that schools of education are not leaders of change." - Oregon Higher Education Board member David Yaden
At the 3/2/12 meeting of the Oregon Board of Higher Education, three (plus two more by speaker phone) deans of Oregon schools or colleges of education discussed their six page document “OUS Schools and Colleges of Education Case Statement” (here).
Educational reform comes in a variety of flavors. Governor Kitzhaber is promoting “reform” that would, he hopes, increase accountability for results (on the way to “40-40-20”) and for state funds allocated. Because of questions from Board member David Yaden two more flavors came up: shifting to a proficiency based educational system and the use of more online learning. There was no mention of shifting to a foreign language immersion based K-12 education system. We need all four flavors of reform combined plus a shift of some resources to the early childhood period.
Well into the half hour discussion, Yaden asked the following question:
It has been suggested that we need a fundamental paradigm shift from the so called factory model of education to much more personalized forms of learning rooted in real assessments of proficiency, not time based but you progress as you are able. And there are some people who have experienced this in Oregon and are very passionate about it. There are other people engaged in the class (sp?) project and are passionate about that.
The question is, first of all, whether you, jointly (?) or separately, have a view about this need for a, quote, “paradigm shift.” And then, secondly, your role in helping us understand, given this welter of stuff that is out there, the Norway experience and everything else: what’s your role in helping us understand what additional investments might make sense.
The deans gave no clear answer (in my opinion), so Yaden followed up:
I’ll just be blunt about it. There is an image, or impression, that schools of education are not leaders of change.
Nothing the deans said after that presented the schools of education as leaders of education reform or change. They do lots of research and seek to share their research with components of the educational system. But on the big, transformational issues, their voices are largely absent, as is their research. Mike Bullis, Dean of the University of Oregon’s School of Education, speaking on the speaker phone, did say:
I hired a fellow by the name of Yong Zhao (here).Yong is a unique individual. And we are starting a rather robust program of online education, both to move our academic programs into an online format so we can address the needs of more Oregonian and US citizen, but also to look to see how such instruction can be provided at the K-12 level. I am of the opinion that, this is my personal opinion, that because of funding issues, we will see more and more education offered through an online format. And the question becomes how you do that in a way that maintains the quality and impact of instruction, so that is something for the future that we’ve started to work on.
Citing just one faculty member as an advocate for change does not make Oregon’s schools of education leaders in educational change. Nor does having one dean individually advocate for more online education make the schools of education online education leaders.
___________________________________________________________________________
"I am of the opinion that, this is my personal opinion, that because of funding issues, we will see more and more education offered through an online format" - Dean Mike Bullis, University of Oregon School of Education
__________________________________________________________________________
Apparently, Dean Bullis thinks, from his brief comment above, that online programs can save educational dollars and create a more efficient educational system. I wonder if he would join me in suggesting (here):
Oregon could save $5 to $10 million per school year by shifting ten percent of its high school students to taking one independent online course each semester
There is an additional issue related to the Board of Higher Education. Earlier in the week I had emailed each member of the Board asking them to ask a question of the deans about teacher preparation for expanded foreign language immersion programs. I sent the emails to the Board members addresses as listed online (here). My question (below) was not asked (not unusual). During the Board’s lunch break, I asked three Board members about my email question. All three said they had not received it. So, what gives with the Board’s online email addresses?
Here’s the email I sent to Board members:
Dear Member of the Oregon Board of Higher Education,
On your Board of Higher Education agenda for 3/2/12 is item #4: Discussion Item: OUS Schools and Colleges of Education Case Statement (Flick/Hitz/Rosselli): The OUS Deans of Education present the critical connection of their work to the quality of PK-12 education in Oregon. They will lead a discussion of a draft case statement outlining their vision for educator preparation in OUS Schools and Colleges of Education.
There is also a six page document “OUS Schools and Colleges of Education Case Statement” as pages 33 to 38 of your Board materials.
Please ask the Deans present, if appropriate, the following question:
“If, like Utah currently, Oregon were, for reasons of economic development and national security, to make a multilingual workforce one of the goals of its educational system and to seek to expand significantly foreign language immersion programs in strategic languages (such as Mandarin, Japanese, Portuguese, Indonesian and Russian), would the OUS Schools and Colleges of Education be able to produce the needed foreign language immersion teachers fluent in the needed languages and with the needed teaching credentials?”
I saw no mention of foreign language immersion teacher preparation in the six page “OUS Schools and Colleges of Education Case Statement.”
A student who graduates monolingual from an Oregon high school is no longer prepared for the global economy. Period. They have received an inferior or “second rate” education.
High school graduates need to be fluent in a foreign language. Several years of high school study of a foreign language do not produce fluency. Foreign languages are best learned as young as possible and through as much immersion as possible. There are existing successful educational models for immersion programs that start in preschool and run through high school graduation. They produce fluent, bilingual graduates. Oregon, like Utah, needs to shift to these as its mainstream educational model.
Oregon also needs to select and teach foreign languages that are strategic for its economic and national security future. Spanish alone is not enough.
Within the lifetime of a student today, China alone will probably have an economy two or three times the size of the US economy. The world is changing, and Oregon’s educational system needs to keep up.
Comments