Shaking Up the Schoolhouse: How to Support and Sustain Educational Innovation

Rating:
Summary: A book full of educational administration wisdom.
Review: In his latest book, "Shaking up the school house." Phil Schlechty hits lots of home runs. I am always amazed at the clarity and intelligence of his thoughts. This is probably not something that you would read in a review of a book about educational administration, but I found the book gripping and difficult to put down.

The theme that came through from "Inventing better schools" that the teacher's job is to engage the students in meaningful learning is developed in the "WOW" (working on work) framework.

To be hung in lights is his argument that judging schools on student outcomes or standardised tests is fallacious and he argues that students produce scores not schools. Accountability processes therefore need to examine the educational processes not just the outcomes.

Part 3 which examines transformational leadership is very good and Schlechty's 14 competencies for school leaders is very useful to practitioners who wish to review their performance against descriptors of an excellent model of school leadership.

I have just finished my first reading of the book and I was blown away by reading so much common sense in one book. Now, I am off to get my pencil and see what I missed in the first reading!

Neil MacNeill Principal Perth, Western Australia.

Rating:
Summary: A book full of educational administration wisdom.
Review: In his latest book, "Shaking up the school house." Phil Schlechty hits lots of home runs. I am always amazed at the clarity and intelligence of his thoughts. This is probably not something that you would read in a review of a book about educational administration, but I found the book gripping and difficult to put down.

The theme that came through from "Inventing better schools" that the teacher's job is to engage the students in meaningful learning is developed in the "WOW" (working on work) framework.

To be hung in lights is his argument that judging schools on student outcomes or standardised tests is fallacious and he argues that students produce scores not schools. Accountability processes therefore need to examine the educational processes not just the outcomes.

Part 3 which examines transformational leadership is very good and Schlechty's 14 competencies for school leaders is very useful to practitioners who wish to review their performance against descriptors of an excellent model of school leadership.

I have just finished my first reading of the book and I was blown away by reading so much common sense in one book. Now, I am off to get my pencil and see what I missed in the first reading!

Neil MacNeill Principal Perth, Western Australia.

Rating:
Summary: Pretentious with little practical value for teachers
Review: In his preface to Shaking Up the Schoolhouse, Phillip Schlechty describes his belief of what should be educator's mission. He states that the business of Ford is not to provide stockholders 'with a decent return on their investment.' But rather, 'to produce an automobile that people will buy at a price that will keep the company in business and provide company stockholders with a decent return on their investment.' He uses this as an analogy for schools. He argues that schools' business is 'to provide students with experiences that ensure that these educational ends are attained for all, or nearly all, children.' Consequently, 'education is not the business of schools.'

This simple, logical premise is deeply flawed. He implies that all successful companies must operate this way. They do not. The Coca-Cola Company's mission, for example, is 'to provide value to its shareholders.' Would Schlechty argue that Coke, the world's most recognizable brand, is wrong? Ford's approach may be a decent model for success. But it is hardly the model all should emulate.

Part One, 'Understanding the System,' is most successful. He discusses the things with which schools must compete if they are to get and hold the attention of students. They include the Internet, television, music, video games, and film. He is especially astute when he points to the mobility students have today as a major factor for taking their attention away from schools.

Cars and portable music were early culprits in making interesting diversions more accessible. These 'made it possible for young people to listen to Elvis Presley and other 'forbidden music' beyond the hearing of parents.' Similarly, paperbacks and cheap magazines became readily available. Consequently, if students craved reading, there was no guarantee they would read material sanctioned by the local school district. This portability has increased exponentially with the information age. More information might be available to kids. But getting students to concentrate on knowledge we think is important is greater challenge. Further, the increase of divorce and non-traditional families has further complicated things.

In Part Two, 'Creating Quality Learning Experiences', he suggests how educators use their skills to regain students' attention. More accurately, he offers one suggestion ' 'Educational leaders must focus on those things that result in learning.' Those things he calls 'tasks,' 'activities,' and 'work.'

But he never offers one concrete example of successful implementation of his thesis. There is no inspiration from a history teacher that got kids passionate about World War II. Nowhere is there an example of an activity employed by an English teacher to get a pupil to see the world differently after reading a poem. Nor does he give examples of specific programs that failed.

Midway through, it looks like he'll offer a reasoned account of an experience and its influence in the classroom. He recalls visiting a bar where people were playing a trivia game. Patrons had electronic keypads hooked up to a network with other players. They could compare their scores with other bar patrons' across the country. He is awed by their enthusiasm. Put another way, he discovers Trivial Pursuit.

He doesn't arguer for wiring all classrooms with similar devices. But he does recognize the value in the interaction of people with others inherent in this activity. He smartly suggests that the communal aspect of the game is key to its success and potentially is a key to understanding what might get students interested in learning. Unfortunately, he stops there. Should such games be used in the classroom? Why or why not?

His fascination with the game is another indication why the book fails. He seems to have had his head in the sand for what is going on in the world. Does he know what things are pulling students' focus? Has he heard of 'Jeopardy,' or 'Who Wants to be a Millionaire?' He needs to be forthright in addressing what specific things are taking their attention from us now. Educators to realize that they have an obligation to see what cultural shifts are pulling the attention of students.

It's been 50 years since Elvis signaled the dawn of a revolution. What would Schlechty recommend to a science teacher trying to get a kid more interested in chemistry than Marilyn Manson? What should a social studies teacher do to shatter the false image of World War II perpetrated by Disney's 'Pearl Harbor'? He will not say.

Schlechty is further hampered by convoluted language that does little to make his case accessible or succinct. Here is an example of Schlechty's eloquence:

To understand whether students are expending enough effort on a task, it is important to understand both the learning goals and the performance goals associated with the task and to assess as well the extent to which the learning goals are being supported by or suppressed by the performance goals, which are the center of so many of today's efforts at assessment of student learning.

Huh?

His epilogue hypothesizes about public education in the year 2020. He envisions a world where public education is increasingly becoming the exception. Home schooling and private schooling are on the rise. American society is retreating into a world of subcultures. We no longer learn from our commonalities, but pride ourselves on what divides us. It is a frightening scenario that he imagines coming to pass if public education continues on its current path and if school vouchers become a reality.

He ends offering a brief theory on what vouchers might mean to American education. With government's money, there are potential pitfalls for private schools that might find that the money comes with strings attached. Given the recent Senate vote demanding the Boy Scouts' access to school property, it is a very real possibility. His discussion is lucid, concise, direct, and specific. Ironically, he ends with very identifiable ideas that the 220 preceding pages lack.

Rating:
Summary: Pretentious with little practical value for teachers
Review: In his preface to Shaking Up the Schoolhouse, Phillip Schlechty describes his belief of what should be educator�s mission. He states that the business of Ford is not to provide stockholders �with a decent return on their investment.� But rather, �to produce an automobile that people will buy at a price that will keep the company in business and provide company stockholders with a decent return on their investment.� He uses this as an analogy for schools. He argues that schools� business is �to provide students with experiences that ensure that these educational ends are attained for all, or nearly all, children.� Consequently, �education is not the business of schools.�

This simple, logical premise is deeply flawed. He implies that all successful companies must operate this way. They do not. The Coca-Cola Company�s mission, for example, is �to provide value to its shareholders.� Would Schlechty argue that Coke, the world�s most recognizable brand, is wrong? Ford�s approach may be a decent model for success. But it is hardly the model all should emulate.

Part One, �Understanding the System,� is most successful. He discusses the things with which schools must compete if they are to get and hold the attention of students. They include the Internet, television, music, video games, and film. He is especially astute when he points to the mobility students have today as a major factor for taking their attention away from schools.

Cars and portable music were early culprits in making interesting diversions more accessible. These �made it possible for young people to listen to Elvis Presley and other �forbidden music� beyond the hearing of parents.� Similarly, paperbacks and cheap magazines became readily available. Consequently, if students craved reading, there was no guarantee they would read material sanctioned by the local school district. This portability has increased exponentially with the information age. More information might be available to kids. But getting students to concentrate on knowledge we think is important is greater challenge. Further, the increase of divorce and non-traditional families has further complicated things.

In Part Two, �Creating Quality Learning Experiences�, he suggests how educators use their skills to regain students� attention. More accurately, he offers one suggestion � �Educational leaders must focus on those things that result in learning.� Those things he calls �tasks,� �activities,� and �work.�

But he never offers one concrete example of successful implementation of his thesis. There is no inspiration from a history teacher that got kids passionate about World War II. Nowhere is there an example of an activity employed by an English teacher to get a pupil to see the world differently after reading a poem. Nor does he give examples of specific programs that failed.

Midway through, it looks like he�ll offer a reasoned account of an experience and its influence in the classroom. He recalls visiting a bar where people were playing a trivia game. Patrons had electronic keypads hooked up to a network with other players. They could compare their scores with other bar patrons� across the country. He is awed by their enthusiasm. Put another way, he discovers Trivial Pursuit.

He doesn�t arguer for wiring all classrooms with similar devices. But he does recognize the value in the interaction of people with others inherent in this activity. He smartly suggests that the communal aspect of the game is key to its success and potentially is a key to understanding what might get students interested in learning. Unfortunately, he stops there. Should such games be used in the classroom? Why or why not?

His fascination with the game is another indication why the book fails. He seems to have had his head in the sand for what is going on in the world. Does he know what things are pulling students� focus? Has he heard of �Jeopardy,� or �Who Wants to be a Millionaire?� He needs to be forthright in addressing what specific things are taking their attention from us now. Educators to realize that they have an obligation to see what cultural shifts are pulling the attention of students.

It�s been 50 years since Elvis signaled the dawn of a revolution. What would Schlechty recommend to a science teacher trying to get a kid more interested in chemistry than Marilyn Manson? What should a social studies teacher do to shatter the false image of World War II perpetrated by Disney�s �Pearl Harbor�? He will not say.

Schlechty is further hampered by convoluted language that does little to make his case accessible or succinct. Here is an example of Schlechty�s eloquence:

To understand whether students are expending enough effort on a task, it is important to understand both the learning goals and the performance goals associated with the task and to assess as well the extent to which the learning goals are being supported by or suppressed by the performance goals, which are the center of so many of today�s efforts at assessment of student learning.

Huh?

His epilogue hypothesizes about public education in the year 2020. He envisions a world where public education is increasingly becoming the exception. Home schooling and private schooling are on the rise. American society is retreating into a world of subcultures. We no longer learn from our commonalities, but pride ourselves on what divides us. It is a frightening scenario that he imagines coming to pass if public education continues on its current path and if school vouchers become a reality.

He ends offering a brief theory on what vouchers might mean to American education. With government�s money, there are potential pitfalls for private schools that might find that the money comes with strings attached. Given the recent Senate vote demanding the Boy Scouts� access to school property, it is a very real possibility. His discussion is lucid, concise, direct, and specific. Ironically, he ends with very identifiable ideas that the 220 preceding pages lack.