The 10,000 Hour Test

by Brian

I generally don't like articles that begin by saying something like the Obama administration's Race to the Top will fail.  My default position is optimism, and I don't want it to fail.  But I read an article like that today that made a lot of sense.  

Marion Brady, writing in the Washington Post says that it will fail for a reason no one is talking about: A curriculum adopted in 1893 that grows more dysfunctional with each passing year.  I teach math, and when my students ask me why they have to do two-column proofs in Geometry, I tell them we settled that question in 1893.  We do it because that's what we do.

You should read the whole article, but here's the money quote:  

"There are, however, some things Congress and the administration could do.  First, they could stop basing education policy on the opinions of business leaders, syndicated columnists, mayors, lawyers, and assorted other education "experts" who haven’t passed the 10,000-hour test-10,000 hours of face-to-face dialog with real students in real classrooms, all the while thinking analytically about what they’re doing, and why."

I recently participated in the NBCT Symposium where we were asked to prioritize how to allocate the money to implement the reform package encompassed in ESHB 2261.  While I appreciated the opportunity to contribute, I could not help but reflect that there was no one on the Quality Education Council, that could pass the 10,000 hour test.

And I remembered a New Yorker article byJames Surowiecki about Toyota's success.  He titled it The Open Secret to Success, which it is.  Toyota has defined innovation as an incremental process, fueled by the suggestions of workers (teachers?) on the factory floor.  He says Japanese companies get a hundred time more suggestions from their workers than U.S. companies do.  So instead of trying to throw long touchdown passes, Toyota moves down the field by making short and steady gains.

We can do that in education too, if the real experts, the teachers who have passed the 10,000 hour test, are increasingly involved in the process of planning reform, not just implementing top-down decisions.

Comments

[Tom]

Well put, Brian. If we're ever going to improve the educational system, we're going to have to do it. And by we, I mean the people who are the educational system.

[Bob Heiny]

Good point, Brian: Optimism! That's a historic drive of ambitions for schools. It puts problems, etc. in perspective by making it a litmus test for the credibility of those who suggest changes to policies. While we all know that, thanks for making it explicit. Non-10Kers implicitly look for and recognize the effort that goes into formulating an experienced based optimistic description of "here's how I/we have handled X "school problem" successfully. Perhaps others will gain from using a similar procedure." Yes?

[kristin]

Well said. It continues to amaze me that the suggestions and solutions given by teachers are discounted in favor of those made by people who know students as numbers on a spreadsheet.

Whenever teachers point out problems they are told to stop whining. If they point out solutions they are told there's no money. So, policy is made based on the "this is what needs to happen" advice coming from "experts," few of whom have ever taught, fewer of whom are actually teaching. The experts identify a problem everyone can agree on - teachers. They provide a cheap solution - teachers should do more with less. No wonder their suggestions are more palatable.

[Vince Riccobene]

Great analogy!
I was recently invited to attend a discussion about Race to the Top grants and other education initiatives. As I looked the attendees, it was business execs, techies, UW staff, and a few educators. Not a single classroom teacher was invited.

Too bad.