A ringing new debate is shaping up thanks to the proposal this week to extend both the school day and the school year. Since the proposal has come from the White House, there will be plenty of political histrionics both pro and con. Let's ignore that element of the debate and focus on the real issues.
To me, if the education students are receiving is of a high quality, then the amount of time they are currently spending in school is likely sufficient. If it is not, it is hard to believe that doing more of the same will bring positive results. Kids who embrace learning are working hard, and I fear that adding more hours and days will bring diminishing returns.
This is not to say that the current school schedule is ideal for everyone. To have extended day and year schools as an option would be a wonderful benefit to students and families who want more academic time and structure, as would shorter, better spaced breaks than the nearly quarter of the year students are off in the summer. The operative word here is option - we have seen what the 'one size fits all' approach has done in education. There is just too great a disparity between high-achieving and low-achieving schools and students to offer a single plan.
We have traveled this path before, where a simple solution (in this case, extending the day and year) is applied to a complex problem (achievement gaps), and unintended consequences will inevitably follow - and I didn't need extended time to figure that out.
Showing posts with label law of unintended consequences. Show all posts
Showing posts with label law of unintended consequences. Show all posts
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Law of Unintended Consequences
I’ve been thinking about this term lately so I did a little research. The most succinct explanation of the Law of Unintended Consequences I could find came on a website called Marginal Revolution: “The law of unintended consequences is what happens when a simple system tries to regulate a complex system.”
Examples abound. This one tells how the Americans With Disabilities Act resulted in disabled people actually being hired for jobs less frequently. It wouldn’t take long to think of other examples.
Its application to changes in special education law is the reason I have been thinking about it. Special Education used to work on a discrepancy model, where children would qualify to receive services if there was a significant gap between ability and achievement. The unintended consequence? Many parents received the same explanation – even though your children are struggling, they haven’t fallen far enough behind to receive targeted help. This is like a lifeguard telling the sputtering non-swimmer, Sorry, even though it would be easier and less painful now, I can’t rescue you until you go under for the third time. See you later!
A couple of years ago, a new model was encouraged – response to intervention (RTI). In this model, struggling readers go through several tiers of support at the early stages of struggle. The thinking is that the first tier will address most of the issues, but the ones that need to move on to the second and third tiers of more intensive support would do so.
The RTI model is still new, so the Law of Unintended Consequences has not played itself out yet. But, based on observation (not research), my concern is that tiered approach will be based strictly on programmatic decisions. In other words, schools will purchase a program that will serve children in the first tier. Then the they will have another program for children in the second tier, and yet another for third tier.
If none of the programs have the desired effect, then the child might receive an individualized program, but it may be a year or two after initial concerns were raised. RTI has the potential to become a model that favors ease of placement over individual needs. It is a far simpler process to purchase a ready-made remedial program than it is to plan and deliver one based on the needs of the individual child.
Certainly, the discrepancy model had shortcomings that needed to be addressed. Certainly, many kids will benefit from the interventions that RTI can provide. But that tricky Law of Unintended Consequences just might bite the kids who can least afford to be bitten.
Examples abound. This one tells how the Americans With Disabilities Act resulted in disabled people actually being hired for jobs less frequently. It wouldn’t take long to think of other examples.
Its application to changes in special education law is the reason I have been thinking about it. Special Education used to work on a discrepancy model, where children would qualify to receive services if there was a significant gap between ability and achievement. The unintended consequence? Many parents received the same explanation – even though your children are struggling, they haven’t fallen far enough behind to receive targeted help. This is like a lifeguard telling the sputtering non-swimmer, Sorry, even though it would be easier and less painful now, I can’t rescue you until you go under for the third time. See you later!
A couple of years ago, a new model was encouraged – response to intervention (RTI). In this model, struggling readers go through several tiers of support at the early stages of struggle. The thinking is that the first tier will address most of the issues, but the ones that need to move on to the second and third tiers of more intensive support would do so.
The RTI model is still new, so the Law of Unintended Consequences has not played itself out yet. But, based on observation (not research), my concern is that tiered approach will be based strictly on programmatic decisions. In other words, schools will purchase a program that will serve children in the first tier. Then the they will have another program for children in the second tier, and yet another for third tier.
If none of the programs have the desired effect, then the child might receive an individualized program, but it may be a year or two after initial concerns were raised. RTI has the potential to become a model that favors ease of placement over individual needs. It is a far simpler process to purchase a ready-made remedial program than it is to plan and deliver one based on the needs of the individual child.
Certainly, the discrepancy model had shortcomings that needed to be addressed. Certainly, many kids will benefit from the interventions that RTI can provide. But that tricky Law of Unintended Consequences just might bite the kids who can least afford to be bitten.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)