The drive to national standards is making some more headway with members being selected to start sussing out what students should know and when they should know it. Of course, you didn't think it would be easy, did you? Because as soon as progress starts getting made, in comes Texas, again, with what is hopefully cause for pause.
Last we saw the Texas standards it was because they were trying to make sure that creationism was being taught alongside evolution in science classrooms. Having worked their magic on the science curriculum, they're now eyeing social studies. Members of the Texas Board of Education are seeking to revise the social studies standards to "emphasize the roles of the Bible, the Christian faith and the civic virtue of religion in the study of American history." This extra emphasis would apparently come at the expense of such figures as Cesar Chavez and Thurgood Marshall who have apparently not contributed much to American history.
Without getting into a discussion of whether or not emphasizing the Bible and Christian faith actually contributes to a significantly better understanding of American history, you can see how this is the kind of thing that can happen should we really go down the road of national standards. Interest groups are always going to try to press their advantage and national educational standards are going to be a major platform upon which we're going to see a series of bitter fights in the "culture wars." Agree or disagree with this one, who knows what the next major thrust is going to be. Unless we start figuring out now how much ideology we're going to include in the standards (and how realistic it is to try to exclude ideology) we're going to see a string of bitter fights that are always going to undermine the standards on one side or the other.
Of course, Texas hasn't signed on to agreement to push for national standards. So maybe they can keep their cultural battles to themselves.
Monday, July 20, 2009
Friday, July 17, 2009
Unspeak Bonanza
Well, it's Friday and the Daily News has come through with an educational unspeak bonanza. Unspeak, you may recall, is the art of making an argument without actually making an argument. It's about picking language that seeks to preclude any disagreement (think "support the middle class," whatever that means). Education is chock full of unspeak and the Daily News tapped into the motherlode this week.
In the article, "test experts" say that the tests being given to city kids are getting easier, which means more kids are passing and moving on to the next grade. In other words, standards are being dumbed down to undermine accountability and that's leading to social promotion. Holy unspeak!
Frankly, I don't habe the background or the data in front of me to agree or disagree with the claims. DOE says that the tests have gotten harder so they're requiring fewer correct answers to show proficiency. Critics say that it's a game to make the schools look better and reflect more favorably on the Mayor (juking the stats, as they'd say in The Wire).
That said, it sure does look bad. According to the story, on this year's test kids needed to answer 28% of questions correctly to be judged proficient. When you remember that these are multiple choice tests with four possible answers (and thus someone who guesses randomly on every question should figure on answering 25% of the questions correctly) that seems pretty low. A slilghtly lucky kid could simply guess his way to proficiency.
I guess the real question here is whether standardized testing is really the best way to assess standards. Unspeak though they may be, I agree that there needs to be some baseline of what kids should learn in school. I just doubt the bubble filling and all the drama and juking that comes with it is really the best way.
In the article, "test experts" say that the tests being given to city kids are getting easier, which means more kids are passing and moving on to the next grade. In other words, standards are being dumbed down to undermine accountability and that's leading to social promotion. Holy unspeak!
Frankly, I don't habe the background or the data in front of me to agree or disagree with the claims. DOE says that the tests have gotten harder so they're requiring fewer correct answers to show proficiency. Critics say that it's a game to make the schools look better and reflect more favorably on the Mayor (juking the stats, as they'd say in The Wire).
That said, it sure does look bad. According to the story, on this year's test kids needed to answer 28% of questions correctly to be judged proficient. When you remember that these are multiple choice tests with four possible answers (and thus someone who guesses randomly on every question should figure on answering 25% of the questions correctly) that seems pretty low. A slilghtly lucky kid could simply guess his way to proficiency.
I guess the real question here is whether standardized testing is really the best way to assess standards. Unspeak though they may be, I agree that there needs to be some baseline of what kids should learn in school. I just doubt the bubble filling and all the drama and juking that comes with it is really the best way.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Tutor the Obese
The latest from the correlation is not necessarily causation department comes from the New York City DOE, who have released a report saying that physical fitness is associated with higher academic achievement. In short, kids who are obese do less well on tests and in school than kids who are more physically fit. As Deputy Chancellor Taveras said, "The clear associations between fitness and academic achievement highlighted in the report underline the importance of educating the whole child."
Let me start by saying that I am all in favor of educating the whole child. But then let me say that extra P.E. classes are not likely to boost reading levels. The kids may end up being more fit, but does that in itself actually make them smarter or better educated?
It seems much more likely to me that the parents who are ensuring that their kids are eating right and getting proper exercise are the same ones who are checking up on homework and attending parent/teacher conferences. Involved parents are involved in lots of different aspects of their children's lives and that does make a difference.
I think what's missing here is the now what? component. Should we increase physical education time? Do we try to educate kids and parents on nutrition? Do we focus academic remediation on the fat kids in the hopes that it will make them thinner?
Because the link here is only correlative (and can really only be correlative) there's not much offered in the way of next steps. In other words, it's interesting, but not particularly helpful.
Let me start by saying that I am all in favor of educating the whole child. But then let me say that extra P.E. classes are not likely to boost reading levels. The kids may end up being more fit, but does that in itself actually make them smarter or better educated?
It seems much more likely to me that the parents who are ensuring that their kids are eating right and getting proper exercise are the same ones who are checking up on homework and attending parent/teacher conferences. Involved parents are involved in lots of different aspects of their children's lives and that does make a difference.
I think what's missing here is the now what? component. Should we increase physical education time? Do we try to educate kids and parents on nutrition? Do we focus academic remediation on the fat kids in the hopes that it will make them thinner?
Because the link here is only correlative (and can really only be correlative) there's not much offered in the way of next steps. In other words, it's interesting, but not particularly helpful.
Monday, July 13, 2009
Don't Forget the Rest
Sometimes seeing what a report says and seeing what it actually says are two different things. Then, knowing what to do about it is something else altogether.
A few weeks ago, the New School's Center for New York City Affairs released a report that basically says that while New York's small high schools movement has made things better for kids at the small schools, it's made things worse for the kids at the big schools. This feeds right into the idea that small schools, charters, etc. take the top kids for themselves and leave the troubled kids, ELLS, and the rest in the other schools. That seems to be what the report is saying.
But what is it really saying?
If you really look at the results here, the conclusion you almost have to draw is that schools don't matter. The good kids do well and the less good kids do less well. When you take the good kids and put them all together at a small school, they do better. When you take the less-good kids and put them all together at a large school, they do worse. In neither instance does the school and the education being provided there seem to be the deciding factor. Rather, it's the sorting that makes the difference. And that's a really depressing thought.
I'm not one to say that schools and schools alone can reverse the achievement gap and all of society's wrongs. I think you need major investment and changes in communities to really achieve that. But I also think that schools can and should play a big part in that change. I would even go so far as to say that schools play an integral role in that process. So what to do about this report?
As always, the "what next?" is the hardest part. All I can offer for guidance is that you'll know we're serious about fixing education in this country when we stop focusing on efforts that benefit only a few in need while leaving the rest behind and start focusing on efforts that help everyone who needs it.
A few weeks ago, the New School's Center for New York City Affairs released a report that basically says that while New York's small high schools movement has made things better for kids at the small schools, it's made things worse for the kids at the big schools. This feeds right into the idea that small schools, charters, etc. take the top kids for themselves and leave the troubled kids, ELLS, and the rest in the other schools. That seems to be what the report is saying.
But what is it really saying?
If you really look at the results here, the conclusion you almost have to draw is that schools don't matter. The good kids do well and the less good kids do less well. When you take the good kids and put them all together at a small school, they do better. When you take the less-good kids and put them all together at a large school, they do worse. In neither instance does the school and the education being provided there seem to be the deciding factor. Rather, it's the sorting that makes the difference. And that's a really depressing thought.
I'm not one to say that schools and schools alone can reverse the achievement gap and all of society's wrongs. I think you need major investment and changes in communities to really achieve that. But I also think that schools can and should play a big part in that change. I would even go so far as to say that schools play an integral role in that process. So what to do about this report?
As always, the "what next?" is the hardest part. All I can offer for guidance is that you'll know we're serious about fixing education in this country when we stop focusing on efforts that benefit only a few in need while leaving the rest behind and start focusing on efforts that help everyone who needs it.
Friday, July 10, 2009
Where to Focus
Even though the New York Times employs David Brooks as a columnist, sometimes they hit the nail right on the head with their education writing. It doesn't happen a lot, but it has been known to happen.
Their editorial from last Monday is a great example. Here's the key passage, at least for me:
"The secretary should focus intently on the dropout factories, the relatively small number of schools that produce so many of the nation’s dropouts. Efforts at especially difficult schools will need to include social service and community outreach programs, modeled on those already in place in the Harlem Children’s Zone in Upper Manhattan."
In other words, let's really make sure that we focus our attention on the schools that need our attention.
In the world of education reform, we spend so much time thinking of ways to reform the entire system when, perhaps, the entire system doesn't need that much reform. After all, as the Times points out, half of the country's drop outs come from 12% of the schools. Rather than focusing on reforming every single school, we could focus on about one in every 10 schools and cut our dropout rate in half. That strikes me, at least, as a pretty good reward for effort ratio.
It's never going to be easy, even if we were to focus exclusively on those schools that most need it. However, addressing the problem directly seems more promising than taking the shotgun approach and hoping we hit something.
Their editorial from last Monday is a great example. Here's the key passage, at least for me:
"The secretary should focus intently on the dropout factories, the relatively small number of schools that produce so many of the nation’s dropouts. Efforts at especially difficult schools will need to include social service and community outreach programs, modeled on those already in place in the Harlem Children’s Zone in Upper Manhattan."
In other words, let's really make sure that we focus our attention on the schools that need our attention.
In the world of education reform, we spend so much time thinking of ways to reform the entire system when, perhaps, the entire system doesn't need that much reform. After all, as the Times points out, half of the country's drop outs come from 12% of the schools. Rather than focusing on reforming every single school, we could focus on about one in every 10 schools and cut our dropout rate in half. That strikes me, at least, as a pretty good reward for effort ratio.
It's never going to be easy, even if we were to focus exclusively on those schools that most need it. However, addressing the problem directly seems more promising than taking the shotgun approach and hoping we hit something.
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Quality, Not Governance
Despite the hype surrounding charter schools and voucher programs (aka the saviors of education) the data just doesn't seem to be there.
Take charter schools. A report out of Stanford University found that over 80% of charter schools did no better or worse than public schools. In fact, while 17% of charter schools did significantly better than traditional public schools, 37% performed significantly worse. In other words, for every charter school success story, there are two charter school failure stories, not that the media ever sees fit to mention them. (Don't worry KIPPsters, I'm sure you're in the good 17%.) The real story, though, is that most charter schools perform at an equivalent level to the traditional public schools from which they draw their students. No better, no worse.
Same story with vouchers. Research out of Florida found that students who entered the Florida voucher program didn't do any better in school than students who were eligible for the vouchers but opted not to participate. It's apparently cheaper to do it via the voucher program, but not more effective.
So what's the bottom line here? What this data boils down to is that good schools are good schools and bad schools are bad schools and it doesn't really seem to matter what system of governance you have in place for the schools. Charter and private schools via vouchers don't lead students to magically outperform public schools. Rather than rant and rave about how we need to create more charter schools or give more private school vouchers because they're the silver educational bullet, let's instead look at what makes good schools good. Whether we find examples of good schooling in private, public, or charter schools let's find the good parts and reproduce it as best we can. It's not charter schools that make the difference or private schools. It's good schools. And those can come from anywhere.
Take charter schools. A report out of Stanford University found that over 80% of charter schools did no better or worse than public schools. In fact, while 17% of charter schools did significantly better than traditional public schools, 37% performed significantly worse. In other words, for every charter school success story, there are two charter school failure stories, not that the media ever sees fit to mention them. (Don't worry KIPPsters, I'm sure you're in the good 17%.) The real story, though, is that most charter schools perform at an equivalent level to the traditional public schools from which they draw their students. No better, no worse.
Same story with vouchers. Research out of Florida found that students who entered the Florida voucher program didn't do any better in school than students who were eligible for the vouchers but opted not to participate. It's apparently cheaper to do it via the voucher program, but not more effective.
So what's the bottom line here? What this data boils down to is that good schools are good schools and bad schools are bad schools and it doesn't really seem to matter what system of governance you have in place for the schools. Charter and private schools via vouchers don't lead students to magically outperform public schools. Rather than rant and rave about how we need to create more charter schools or give more private school vouchers because they're the silver educational bullet, let's instead look at what makes good schools good. Whether we find examples of good schooling in private, public, or charter schools let's find the good parts and reproduce it as best we can. It's not charter schools that make the difference or private schools. It's good schools. And those can come from anywhere.
Monday, July 6, 2009
The Education of Fear
Well, I'm back and not a moment too soon. Things in New York education have been getting pretty interesting. The country's most dsyfunctional legislature is running up the score and still haven't been able to get their act together for long enough to actually meet as a body. As those of you getting robocalls like I have already know, the Albany debacle meant that mayoral control of the schools sunsetted, reverting the school system back to the old school board-run system.
Now this is where it gets interesting because nothing really changed. The Board of Education convened and was pretty well stacked with mayoral allies (three deputy mayors are board members). In their meeting, they basically said Joel Klein is still Chancellor and everything he said is still the rule. So not that much changed. Regardless of your views on the job that Klein and Bloomberg have done on the schools, you kind of have to admit that it's better to have clear authority on this right now rather than throw the whole system into disarray and uncertainty for however long it takes the state senate to remember how to play well in the sandbox together.
However, the lack of chaos also hurts the Mayor's arguments about how vital it is to renew Mayoral control. You may recall that Bloomberg proclaimed there would be rioting in the streets and (bizarrely) an institution of the Soviet Union in New York if mayoral control lapsed. I haven't seen any riots yet, but weather.com is listing a 20% chance of Soviet Union in the afternoon today.
The bottom line, though, is that when you try to scare people into doing something and they don't do it and nothing really scary happens, you're in a worse position. Now, I believe that while things are going smoothly now, such is not always going to be the case under this new (old?) system and there may be real crises ahead of us. But we need to face those as they are, not as some trumped up educational boogie men that we should all be afraid of. In the end, that approach doesn't end up benefitting anyone.
Now this is where it gets interesting because nothing really changed. The Board of Education convened and was pretty well stacked with mayoral allies (three deputy mayors are board members). In their meeting, they basically said Joel Klein is still Chancellor and everything he said is still the rule. So not that much changed. Regardless of your views on the job that Klein and Bloomberg have done on the schools, you kind of have to admit that it's better to have clear authority on this right now rather than throw the whole system into disarray and uncertainty for however long it takes the state senate to remember how to play well in the sandbox together.
However, the lack of chaos also hurts the Mayor's arguments about how vital it is to renew Mayoral control. You may recall that Bloomberg proclaimed there would be rioting in the streets and (bizarrely) an institution of the Soviet Union in New York if mayoral control lapsed. I haven't seen any riots yet, but weather.com is listing a 20% chance of Soviet Union in the afternoon today.
The bottom line, though, is that when you try to scare people into doing something and they don't do it and nothing really scary happens, you're in a worse position. Now, I believe that while things are going smoothly now, such is not always going to be the case under this new (old?) system and there may be real crises ahead of us. But we need to face those as they are, not as some trumped up educational boogie men that we should all be afraid of. In the end, that approach doesn't end up benefitting anyone.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
