Return to Watch District 46 Schools Home Page
 
 

Missing Valedictorian Study Drives William Spady’s Strategic Design Process

By Kelley Dickson

 
In the article “Transcending Educentric Achievement Through Strategic Design”, William Spady states that in 1987 he had a paradigm shock – “this one generated by a small but persuasive body of evidence showing that traditional school learning and achievement were not translating into adequate career preparation for young people.” (page 5)

Since this paradigm shock seems to have set the direction for Dr. Spady’s focus on the future and his belief that schools need to prepare children for their life roles by designing learner outcomes around 8 spheres of living, it would seem important, yes even essential to determine what evidence influenced Dr. Spady to come to this conclusion.  The question is:
 

What is the small, but persuasive body of evidence showing that traditional school learning and achievement were not translating into adequate career preparation for young people?  What documentation, substantiation and research led Dr. Spady to come to this conclusion?


One answer to that question appears to be in William Spady’s new book Beyond Counterfeit Reform:  Forging an Authentic Future for All Learners.  In the preface, William Spady identifies the source of this paradigm shock.  He states that in 1987 he read an article in the San Francisco Chronicle that “stopped me in my tracks and made me realize just how narrow my vision of learners, learning, education and reform had been.”  He states that this article “shook my thinking to its core”, and “stuck in my mind and changed my thinking and work forever.”   What research, what substantiation and documentation could have this affect on his thinking and cause him to completely change the focus of his work?

Unfortunately, William Spady states that he could not track down the original study. Therefore, he does not appear to be able to produce the research, documentation or evidence that caused his thinking to change direction.  We do not know the methodology of this research, the time span of the research, who conducted the research, how many people were actually surveyed, etc.  In short, we don’t know anything about the background or reliability of the study.  Dr. Spady simply states that he read this article in the San Francisco Chronicle about a study of the career status of the nation’s recent university valedictorians, “the cream of the crop, the best of our very best students.”

However, three things from this article changed Dr. Spady’s thinking and work forever:
 

1. As a group of university graduates, the career status of these valedictorians was lousy.
2. As a group of university valedictorians, it was dismal.  Large numbers were unemployed, and even larger numbers were under-employed.
3. It was unclear about what to do next.  They were unprepared for the new, fast changing, high tech world and global economy that lay beyond the walls of their universities.


Let’s ask ourselves some questions regarding this article:
 

1. Can we apply the success rate/career success of university valedictorians to the general school population? Should we assume that because university valedictorians were not successful in their career status that this means all students are not prepared for their life after school?
2. Can the lack of success that this article states these university valedictorians encountered after graduation be attributable to factors other than their school preparation in grades K-12? What other unique factors related to university valedictorians might have contributed to this lack of success?
3. I have heard that Dr. Spady cited this study of valedictorians at the Community meeting on Feb. 2.  I have also heard board members cite this study as the rational for undertaking a Strategic Design Process with Dr. Spady.  My question is this: Should our rationale for hiring Dr. Spady to conduct a Strategic Design Process be based on his premise that - traditional school learning is not translating into adequate career preparation for young people, simply because he read an article in The San Francisco Chronicle about the career status of university valedictorians?


Spady argues that the reason these valedictorians were not successful is because traditional school learning and achievement were not translating into adequate career preparation for young people. I would argue that there are many factors that help children become successful in their life after school.  School learning is an important part of determining success in the future; however, research has shown that the character qualities and family background of children who became eminently successful are very important.  I attended a presentation on April 11 at Frederick School by Carol Morreale entitled, “Ingredients in Childhood That Lead to Adult Success.”  At this presentation she described qualities about the children and the families of eminently successful people. She cited a widely known and highly regarded study by Victor Goertzel and Mildred Goertzel called “Cradles of Eminence”.  The study determined that these qualities about children led to being eminently successful people:
 

• First born or only child
• Enjoys isolation to read, write, experiment
• Independent, self reliant, responsible
• Persistent, industrious, goal oriented
• Reads, asks questions, likes to discuss issues and ideas


In addition, the study cited factors about the families of eminently successful people that contributed to this success:
 

• Strong family values
• Own many books
• Reside in small towns or suburbia
• Parents have high expectations
• Parents have a stable marriage, and demonstrate a high proportion of mothers at home
• T.V. is controlled
• Parents are interested in school, communicate with teachers
• Parents discuss world events with children
• Parents model love of learning
• Parents have a wide variety of cultural interests


From this study it is apparent that character qualities of children and their family background significantly contribute to the success of children in their life after school.

The goal of Dr Spady’s SDP is to “equip districts to develop in all students the complex performance abilities needed to meet the challenges of life in a complex world of constant change.” (page 6)  He states: “our SDP was designed to give school districts and their constituents a powerful and compelling way to transcend the obvious limitations of educentric thinking about school learning and achievement and to equip students with the role performance abilities needed in all aspects of life and living.” (page 6)

A key element of the SDP is asking strategic design questions about “spheres of living” that Dr. Spady feels have a major bearing on a person’s overall well-being and success in life.  Based on these answers, a framework of student outcomes is developed for each sphere of living.  Dr. Spady states that this “framework allows us to design and implement a non-educentric curriculum that is life-performance, life-issue, and life-context focused.”  (page 7)

However, Dr. Spady’s SDP and his belief that radical change to traditional school curriculum is warranted is based on the results of a study that he cannot track down, and which is comprised of a small subset of the general school population - valedictorians. From this basis, he makes the assumption that public schools can achieve the goal of adequate career preparation for our children by designing and implementing a non-educentric curriculum around a set of transformational (affective) learner outcomes based on 8 spheres of living. (See pages 21-22 in Beyond Counterfeit Reform for a description of these 8 spheres of living).

In conclusion, I urge the School Board to take a second look at Dr. Spady’s rationale for change and his Strategic Design Process that advocates developing a non-educentric curriculum organized around 8 spheres of living. I argue, based on research that clearly shows that character qualities and family background contribute significantly to a child’s future success, that it is not the school’s responsibility to prepare kids to be successful in all 8 spheres of living.  The parent(s) should be the primary and most influential teacher of their children. Parents have the responsibility to teach their children their family values, model positive character traits that prepare their children to be successful in life, and provide a rich learning environment in the home.  Schools should lay a foundation for success in academic training.  William Bennett states in The Educated Child:
 

“We expect elementary schools to teach basic knowledge and nourish the appetite for learning.  In the K-8 years, children gain, or fail to gain, skills they need throughout their education careers.  They develop habits they will carry the rest of their days.  These are the lessons that good elementary schools must teach.  Success at each level - high school, college, and beyond depend on earlier preparation.  Mediocrity at any stage will diminish possibilities for the next.  A cracked foundation threatens the whole.”  (pg. 10, 11, 12)


Let’s lay down an excellent academic foundation in District 46 in order to prepare our children to be successful in high school, college, and life!
 

Return to Watch District 46 Schools Home Page