Archive for January, 2008

Haggling Over the Price

“My Dear,” said the gentleman to the lady, “would you go to bed with me for a million dollars?”

“Well, yes, I suppose I would,” she replied.

“Here’s $100. Let’s go then.”

“How dare you! What kind of person do you think I am?”

“My Dear, we have already established that. Now we are merely haggling over the price!”

I’m reminded of that droll old joke, variously attributed to George Bernard Shaw or Winston Churchill and Lady Astor, when I read stories about the emerging number of schemes to pay students for passing grades on standardized tests and other academic achievements. As educators, we have long since established the practice — stickers, prizes, pizza parties, extra recess, etc. — of rewarding kids for performance. Now we are haggling over the price. Our problem is exactly the opposite of Lady Astor’s. We see nothing wrong when we can motivate students cheaply or easily. But once the reward is cold, hard cash, our sense of propriety is offended.

Baltimore SunAn excellent piece by Sara Neufeld in today’s Baltimore Sun, looks at the issue. “Somehow there is a moralistic approach about what they should be doing,” observes Andres Alonso, head of the Baltimore school system, which has announced a plan to pay struggling students to improve their test scores. “In fact the conversation should be about the fact that we have found it acceptable for so many of these students to not graduate without real consequences for anyone other than the children we are supposed to be serving.”

[Slashdot] [Digg] [Reddit] [del.icio.us] [Facebook] [Technorati] [Google] [StumbleUpon]

Garbage In, Garbage Out

One of the favorite ed shibboleths is the one about how it’s futile to teach content because the store of human knowledge increases too quickly. The goal of education should be to think critically and “learn how to learn.” Content is just data with a short shelf-life in the era of Google.

A study by University College London for the British Library makes that case a little harder to make. The “Google Generation” are certainly more comfortable with technology, but knowing how to search and being good at it are not the same. Indeed, the report labels as ” a dangerous myth” the notion that kids born after 1993 are expert searchers. “A careful look at the literature over the past 25 years finds no improvement (or deterioration) in young people’s information skills,” says the report. “The information literacy of young people, has not improved with the widening access to technology. In fact, their apparent facility with computers disguises some worrying problems.” Among them…

  • Speed kills: “Young people’s web searching means that little time is spent in evaluating information, either for relevance, accuracy or authority.”
  • Info glut: “Faced with a long list of search hits, young people find it difficult to assess the relevance of the materials presented.”
  • Kids don’t know what they don’t know: “The problem here is that they simply do not recognize that they have a problem: there is a big gap between their actual performance in information literacy tests and their self-estimates of information skill.”

Whether or not our young people really have lower levels of traditional information skills than before, we are simply not in a position to know,” the report concludes. “However, the stakes are much higher now in an educational setting where ‘self-directed learning’ is the norm. We urgently need to find out.”

[Slashdot] [Digg] [Reddit] [del.icio.us] [Facebook] [Technorati] [Google] [StumbleUpon]

A Stern Talking To

City JournalE.D. Hirsch, Jr. previewed his response to Sol Stern’s “School Choice Isn’t Enough” piece here earlier this week. City Journal is savvy enough to keep the chattering classes chirping, asking Dr. Hirsch, Diane Ravitch, Jay P. Greene, Andrew J. Coulson, Robert Enlow, Neal McCluskey, Thomas W. Carroll, and Matthew Ladner to respond to the piece. Coulson’s response provides a laugh out loud moment:

“Everyone knows the story. It’s Act 5, Scene 3. Romeo returns to Verona to find Juliet’s apparently lifeless body. In despair, he kills himself. Then Juliet wakes up . . . oops.

“I recalled the play’s tragic finale as I read Sol Stern’s City Journal essay. He’s leaning over what he believes is the corpse of market education. . . . He’s taking out his vial of poison. . . . “Sol, don’t do it!” I yell helplessly at the screen. “Market education isn’t dead!” And then it’s over.”

Stern has another go at his critics afterward. Good reads all around so take a look. Make sure the printer has lots of paper.

[Slashdot] [Digg] [Reddit] [del.icio.us] [Facebook] [Technorati] [Google] [StumbleUpon]

You Want Fries With That Math Lesson?

New York TimesI have avoided wandering into the crossfire about New York City’s plan to study the effectiveness of individual teachers based on test scores. Since I taught in a struggling South Bronx elementary school, I’m afraid that my reaction would be driven by my personal experience to an unhelpful degree. I prefer to bring light not heat to a discussion when possible.

But in reading the coverage and the ensuing debate, I’m left hoping there will be as much focus on effective curriculum and pedagogy in New York City as individual teachers. If the product is flawed, it’s hard to see why attention would focus exclusively on the person delivering it. The waiter is rarely blamed for the undercooked meal; the car salesman for the lemon. Before you say those are not comparable analogies to teaching, consider: As a teacher, I was required to use Everyday Math and the Teachers College Writer’s Workshop pedagogy (it’s not a curriculum) in my classroom. I found neither to be particularly effective for various reasons. Left to my own devices, I’m sure I could have devised more effective ways to help my students grow as writers and as mathematicians. In my mind, my students test results had at least as much to do with what they were being taught as how I was doing as a teacher. I certainly felt my effectiveness constrained by choices I could neither make nor influence.

If it were in my power, I would gladly make the following bargain: tell me what to teach, but let me decide how to teach it. If I don’t deliver the expected results, fire me. But if you insist on telling me what to teach and how to teach it, then the results are beyond my control.

Core Knowledge board member Diane Ravitch recently wondered how American education fell under the control of “Know Nothings from the world of business, law, and politics.” Here’s what I wonder: why they didn’t bring with them one of the business world’s most effective and powerful management practices: hire good people, give them the goal and get out of the way.

There were only two times in my 25-year professional life when I was explicitly told both what to do and how to do it. The first was when I was a 16-year old Taco Bell employee. The second was when I became a New York City school teacher.

[Slashdot] [Digg] [Reddit] [del.icio.us] [Facebook] [Technorati] [Google] [StumbleUpon]

Hint: It’s Not the U.S.

Scientific AmericanHow does this sound? “A systemic high-quality education, including the most remote and impoverished communities of this vast country, so that all….can acquire the means to become creative and critical thinkers, capable of developing their own opinions and becoming true contributors to solve the challenges involved in constructing a fair and democratic society.” More? A Federal Institutes for Education, Science and Technology, “which will result in the establishment of a network of 354 institutes dedicated to teaching science and technology to high schoolers and training thousands of new teachers in the public education system.”

What country is Scientific American talking about? Click here.

[Slashdot] [Digg] [Reddit] [del.icio.us] [Facebook] [Technorati] [Google] [StumbleUpon]

Unchartered Waters

Education SectorAndy Rotherham, aka eduwonk, posts Ed Sector’s latest policy brief today (Fair Trade: Five Deals to Expand and Improve Charter Schooling). His first idea is the best one, IMHO: Trade charter school caps for more rapid expansion of proven charter schools. Sounds like a plan. And good common sense. Come to think of it, you could boil all of education reform down to two simple rules:

Rule No 1. If it works, do more of it.

Rule No. 2. If it doesn’t work, stop doing it.

Charters like KIPP and Achievement First meet the Rule No. 1 test.

[Slashdot] [Digg] [Reddit] [del.icio.us] [Facebook] [Technorati] [Google] [StumbleUpon]

On Sol Stern’s City Journal Piece: Substance Trumps Structure

City JournalI’m so glad that Sol Stern has written this piece.

The comeback to it that I am already hearing from die-hard choice advocates is: well, the non-choice schools haven’t done so well either! This is an argument?

Stern’s point goes far deeper than that — to doubt whether any of the primarily structural approaches to school improvement are promising, after all. His view: we need to talk about substance not structure.

The choice movement is a structural approach. It relies on market-theory to improve outcomes, not venturing to offer guidance on precisely what the schools need to be teaching. That would go against the genius of the market approach, which is to refrain from top-down interference into what needs to be taught and learned in the schools. Stern rightly shows that this is a fundamental failing in the choice movement.

But market-based “choice” is not the only structural reform of the recent past that has refrained from actually concerning itself with the substance of what is taught and learned in school. There was the government-funded whole-school-reform project. It too was a meta-structure that said “Let a thousand flowers bloom,” thus rendering itself superior to any particular substantive notion of what needed to be taught and learned in the school.

Continue reading ‘On Sol Stern’s City Journal Piece: Substance Trumps Structure’

Accountability Begins at Home

Thoughtful heresy over at eduflack, who blogs about a new Washington Post poll on DC schools. Seven in 10 surveyed believe the District’s public schools are inadequate. Dog bites man. But more than three out of four point a finger at parents. And eduflack, bless him, has the temerity to agree.

Heresy, because to suggest that parents bear even some of the responsibility for poor school performance is to risk a charge of “blaming the victim” in many quarters. We all know that great schools and great teachers make a difference. However to insist a school can overcome all of the effects of parental disengagement or neglect is, in my experience, setting it up to unfairly be judged a failure. The Post poll shows that the consumers of education, parents, are ahead of the education establishment on this score.

“True parental involvement has mothers, fathers, grandparents, and such involved in the learning process. They know what’s happening in the classroom,” writes eduflack. “They ensure their kids are doing their homework. They identify learning experiences in the home or in the community. They take responsibility for their kids, and hold them accountable for maximizing their school hours….Many of the problems our schools face — rising drop-out rates, limited reading and math skills, truancy, etc. — can all be attributed, in part, to parent apathy.”

In my classroom, one of my best students was the daughter of an indifferent mother who had nine children with seven different fathers. One of my most difficult students was the son of a highly engaged, devoutly religious mother who worked herself to exhaustion to support her family, yet still found time to come to school whenever asked. But these were the outliers. I’m not suggesting there’s a cause and effect relationship between student achievement or classroom behavior and parental involvement. The race is not always to the swift, but it is the way to bet.

This “gut” assessment on my part is roughly validated by an under-discussed and appreciated report from ETS, The Family: America’s Smallest School, which examined child care quality, parental involvement in schools, student absences and home environments. The research identified four factors—single parent families, parents reading to young children every day, hours spent watching television, and the frequency of school absences—which “taken together, account for about two-thirds of the large differences among states in National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) eighth-grade reading scores.”

In his post, Eduflack alluded to having performed recent focus groups with eighth and ninth graders on dropping out. “Student after student said they wouldn’t drop out because their parents won’t let them,” he noted. Presumably this was done on behalf of one of his PR clients. I hope he’ll have more to say on this research as soon as he’s able. I’m intrigued.

[Slashdot] [Digg] [Reddit] [del.icio.us] [Facebook] [Technorati] [Google] [StumbleUpon]

Running Records II

Caught Being Good

Eli Broad
Billionaire philanthropist donates $23.3 million to help start 17 new charter schools in the Los Angeles district.

Charles Clotfelter
Duke University economist study suggests that teacher absences lead to lower student test scores—even when substitutes fill in.

Kitchen Table Math
Iconoclastic, fun and edgy. Welcome to the Core Knowledge blogroll!

Names on the Chalkboard

Everyday Math
Texas State Board of Education rejects Everyday Math for lack of rigor but sets off a firestorm. Can they reject any book?

Culture-based Teaching
Lovely idea. Too bad there’s no evidence it improves achievement in reading and writing.

Clowns
Researchers in England find “clowns are universally disliked by children.” Kids as old as 16 find them scary.

On the Board With Checkmarks

Boys
Boys are five times more likely than girls to be reprimanded in elementary school, even though girls are just as likely to misbehave, according to new research from the U.K.

[Slashdot] [Digg] [Reddit] [del.icio.us] [Facebook] [Technorati] [Google] [StumbleUpon]

Hallway Culture

Gazette.netBefore we can do our jobs as educators, students must see what’s going on in our schools and classrooms as a means to some viable end. That many do not is the powerful subtext of Lynn H. Fox’s essay (“Getting students out of the halls and into the classrooms”) in Maryland’s gazette.net. A tip of the hat to Joanne Jacobs for pointing out this gem.

A high school teacher, Fox finds the story of contemporary education in a single moment — a choice his student makes between “classroom cuture” and “hallway culture” as class begins one morning. “So much depends on the choice David, and every other American student, will make. In or out? Classroom or hallway?”

Hallways, Fox observes, are “the meeting and greeting ground where young people play out popular fantasies of violence, sexuality, and, especially, consumerism. The hallway rules are easy, the rewards immediate, and the rituals provide culturally approved media roles young people have been fed since birth.” By comparison classrooms “for most of our school’s young people, are places of crushing boredom.” David — predictably, inevitably — chooses the hallway.

What Fox knows that we need to come to terms with is that delayed gratification, the essential valuable proposition of education, is a heroic choice in a world that seldom reinforces it. It’s a brilliant, powerful essay that deserves a wide audience.

[Slashdot] [Digg] [Reddit] [del.icio.us] [Facebook] [Technorati] [Google] [StumbleUpon]