The cornerstone of the pro-voucher argument has been that vouchers encourage 'competition between schools' and that competition improves quality - as it does in the marketplace (that is, under certain conditions, as any economist would tell you).
But when voucher proponents cite the 'evidence' that supports this claim, that's not what they're talking about at all. To my knowledge, there's not a shred of evidence that the quality of education in public schools is improved by the competition brought on by vouchers. It's an intellectual bait-and-switch.
What they're talking about are the students who use the vouchers, which is something else entirely. But even that evidence is spotty, which is somewhat surprising, considering: You're giving vouchers to students to allow them to move out of schools that have been identified as "failing", and putting them in schools that are - one would assume - at least 'average', statistically-speaking. (Certainly better than 'failing'!) Many of of these schools are private and some of them are expensive. These kids have parents who are involved and motivated concerning their education. Wouldn't you expect these students, on average, to do better?
But what happens to the 95% of students who would remain stuck in the so-called 'failing' schools, which now have even fewer resources than before? This move towards taxpayer support of private schools not only ignores the historical lack of equity in educational opportunity, it exacerbates it.
If the supporters of vouchers were serious about improving the quality of education in our struggling schools, they would be promoting strategies that have been used successfully. Unfortunately, the following* doesn't fit on a bumper sticker.
1. Create a shared vision in the school and build a sense of school community
2. Develop and nurture connections with the broader community
3. Focus on healthy students who come to school well-fed and ready to learn
4. Create a safe environment for students: physically, emotionally and intellectually
5. Focus on making students feel connected to school
6. Appropriate use of data for district, school, and classroom decisions
7. A school environment in which collaborative, shared leadership is encouraged
8. Empower teachers and and create opportunities for them to learn from each other
9. Require frequent and meaningful assessment for all students
10. Focus on academic rigor and implementation of appropriate curriculum
11. Outreach to, and training for, parents
12. High expectations for students and staff, including how everyone is treated
13. Link teaching to established curricular standards
The core argument of voucher proponents - about the value of 'competition' - hasn't been validated, hasn't been tested, and upon scrutiny, doesn't even make sense. But taxpayers are being asked to spend many millions of dollars on it.
To quote from Rick Hess' recent blog post: "If 'reformers' think it's a winning strategy to push awkwardly constructed, ill-designed programs that are going to create entirely foreseeable problems, then I'd encourage them to check out the history of NCLB."
*Adapted from the PSBA white paper: Raising achievement in underperforming schools
Subscribe To SchoolBoardBlogger
Posts
All Comments
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
Monday, October 17, 2011
Does “value-added” add value?
A couple of months back, the Center for Public Education (the research arm of NSBA) came out in support of “value-added” teacher evaluation models that track student standardized test scores, tied to individual teachers. The issue has become particularly relevant in Pennsylvania, where such a model is being piloted state-wide. However, their arguments strike me as unpersuasive and frankly, somewhat disconcerting.
Their central point is that the current system “is lacking” – as they see it, almost by definition – because only about 1% of teachers nationwide are identified each year as “unsatisfactory”. Therefore, their argument goes, as flawed as “value-added” might be, anything would be an improvement over current practice. In fact, they directly acknowledge the unreliability of value-added data – only about a third of teachers ranking in the top 20% one year are similarly ranked the following year – but, well, it’s better than what we’ve got.
“It’s better than what we’ve got” sets the bar pretty low, don’t you think? One thing that’s overlooked is that the current, flawed system is doing exactly what it was intended to do: it identifies the small percentage of teachers who are performing so poorly that they deserve to be fired. It was not designed for the purpose of improving instruction and student learning.
Almost certainly, there are far better ways to accomplish those goals than to rely on test scores that don’t even attempt to measure much of what’s really important. (Note: no mention is made of how we’re going to evaluate teachers of subjects that aren’t currently tested – let’s not give them any ideas – or teachers on teams, or kindergarten teachers…) I bet that if we asked teachers, they could suggest evaluation models that would actually help to make them better teachers!
A related argument that seems to be gaining credibility is that overall teaching quality would be greatly improved if the 5-10% of our worst “performing” teachers were cycled out of the profession every year. (i.e., fired)
Really? I’m not sure we’ve thought this all the way through. Are we also in favor of “firing” 5-10% of our doctors every year? How about policeman? An organization that needs to fire 5% of its employees every year is not doing a very good job of professional development, or of hiring the right people in the first place.
The case for “value-added” violates a fundamental rule of research: you cannot use a measurement tool that was developed for one purpose (student “achievement”) to measure something else (teacher effectiveness) unless you have validated it for that purpose. (A pet peeve: why do we say we’re measuring student “achievement”, when what we’re measuring is a relatively narrow range of student ‘knowledge’ and/or skills? But I digress.)
Another point they make – presumably in support of their argument - is that “improving teacher effectiveness can dramatically impact student learning”. Well, duh! The rather important missing link is that there’s no evidence that using value-added scores improves teacher effectiveness! Astonishingly, they also claim that “teachers have the single greatest impact on student performance, more than family background, socioeconomic status, or school.” What’s astonishing is that the statement is flat-out wrong.
Finally, they actually say “there are ways to improve value-added models” - also allegedly in support of their main argument. Here’s a thought: why then, don’t we try improving the models before we go about implementing something that could easily do more harm than good? It makes my head hurt.
The conventional wisdom among many so-called education reformers has been that teachers resist all kinds of evaluation, but in fact they're open to a number of ideas – especially if they’re designed to inform and improve instruction, and not used as swords of Damocles.
Their central point is that the current system “is lacking” – as they see it, almost by definition – because only about 1% of teachers nationwide are identified each year as “unsatisfactory”. Therefore, their argument goes, as flawed as “value-added” might be, anything would be an improvement over current practice. In fact, they directly acknowledge the unreliability of value-added data – only about a third of teachers ranking in the top 20% one year are similarly ranked the following year – but, well, it’s better than what we’ve got.
“It’s better than what we’ve got” sets the bar pretty low, don’t you think? One thing that’s overlooked is that the current, flawed system is doing exactly what it was intended to do: it identifies the small percentage of teachers who are performing so poorly that they deserve to be fired. It was not designed for the purpose of improving instruction and student learning.
Almost certainly, there are far better ways to accomplish those goals than to rely on test scores that don’t even attempt to measure much of what’s really important. (Note: no mention is made of how we’re going to evaluate teachers of subjects that aren’t currently tested – let’s not give them any ideas – or teachers on teams, or kindergarten teachers…) I bet that if we asked teachers, they could suggest evaluation models that would actually help to make them better teachers!
A related argument that seems to be gaining credibility is that overall teaching quality would be greatly improved if the 5-10% of our worst “performing” teachers were cycled out of the profession every year. (i.e., fired)
Really? I’m not sure we’ve thought this all the way through. Are we also in favor of “firing” 5-10% of our doctors every year? How about policeman? An organization that needs to fire 5% of its employees every year is not doing a very good job of professional development, or of hiring the right people in the first place.
The case for “value-added” violates a fundamental rule of research: you cannot use a measurement tool that was developed for one purpose (student “achievement”) to measure something else (teacher effectiveness) unless you have validated it for that purpose. (A pet peeve: why do we say we’re measuring student “achievement”, when what we’re measuring is a relatively narrow range of student ‘knowledge’ and/or skills? But I digress.)
Another point they make – presumably in support of their argument - is that “improving teacher effectiveness can dramatically impact student learning”. Well, duh! The rather important missing link is that there’s no evidence that using value-added scores improves teacher effectiveness! Astonishingly, they also claim that “teachers have the single greatest impact on student performance, more than family background, socioeconomic status, or school.” What’s astonishing is that the statement is flat-out wrong.
Finally, they actually say “there are ways to improve value-added models” - also allegedly in support of their main argument. Here’s a thought: why then, don’t we try improving the models before we go about implementing something that could easily do more harm than good? It makes my head hurt.
The conventional wisdom among many so-called education reformers has been that teachers resist all kinds of evaluation, but in fact they're open to a number of ideas – especially if they’re designed to inform and improve instruction, and not used as swords of Damocles.
Friday, September 16, 2011
The Public speaks
The current issue of Phi Delta Kappan contains their annual national poll on education issues. Several items struck me as worth noting.
Do you think high-achieving high school students should be recruited to become teachers? (76%, yes)
Well, of course. Who wouldn’t want some of our smartest students to go into the teaching profession? But I think it’s worth noting that ‘high-achieving’ isn’t clearly defined. I suppose by that we mean good grades and/or high test scores, which measure a rather narrow spectrum of intelligence and potential. But we can’t overlook two important attributes that may not show up in test scores: the desire to be a teacher, and the ability to connect with other people. I know a lot of smart people who wouldn’t be particularly good teachers.
Is the ability to teach more a function of natural ability, or college training? (70%, natural ability)
The public may be right about this, but they shouldn’t be. I expect that in the experience of most people, the handful of really good teachers were ‘naturals’. But that doesn’t mean that good teaching can’t be taught and developed – which is what happens in good schools. In fact, we had better figure out how to do this because there aren’t enough ‘naturals’ to go around.
Should education policies require teachers to follow a prescribed curriculum … or give teachers flexibility to teach in ways they think best?
Nearly 75% of the public believes that it’s important to give teachers flexibility. Someone should tell the politicians and policy-makers who appear to be heading in the opposite direction.
By a 52 to 44% margin, the public sides with teachers’ unions over governors who have actively opposed them - even though 47% see unions as hurting the quality of public education. I suspect the public sees this as an issue of fairness and views these governors as bullies.
How important do you think these factors should be in determining a teacher’s salary? Strongly agree: academic degree, 38%; experience, 38%; student test scores, 29%; principal evaluation, 38%.
Again, I think the public has it about right. But I would feel better about rewarding experience if I had more confidence that every teacher had sufficient opportunities for collaboration and meaningful professional development. I would feel better about principal evaluations if all principals were required to demonstrate their ability to recognize and evaluate good teaching, and I would feel a lot better about test scores if those tests actually measured something useful.
91% of the public believes it is very (61%) or somewhat important that we provide internet access to all students in school. 95% believe it is very (70%) or somewhat important that all students have access to computer technology. 74% believe that schools should invest more in computer technology.
Wow.
Another area in which I agree with the public’s perception: schools are not doing a very good job of teaching financial management skills.
51% of respondents give their local school an A or B. If they have a child in school, that number goes to 79% - yet only 17% give those grades to schools overall.
What’s interesting is that the public understands the reason for this discrepancy: people tend to know a lot more about their immediate community and local schools. It probably also says something about the preponderance of negative press and political rhetoric that education, in general, receives.
I’m going to report this finding without comment: 69% give teachers in their local school an A or B (up from 50% in 1984), but only 36% give local parents an A or B.
Finally, a finding that I’ve talked about a lot lately: only 34% (and going down) of respondents favor allowing parents to choose a private school at public expense. How is this issue still alive in Harrisburg?
Do you think high-achieving high school students should be recruited to become teachers? (76%, yes)
Well, of course. Who wouldn’t want some of our smartest students to go into the teaching profession? But I think it’s worth noting that ‘high-achieving’ isn’t clearly defined. I suppose by that we mean good grades and/or high test scores, which measure a rather narrow spectrum of intelligence and potential. But we can’t overlook two important attributes that may not show up in test scores: the desire to be a teacher, and the ability to connect with other people. I know a lot of smart people who wouldn’t be particularly good teachers.
Is the ability to teach more a function of natural ability, or college training? (70%, natural ability)
The public may be right about this, but they shouldn’t be. I expect that in the experience of most people, the handful of really good teachers were ‘naturals’. But that doesn’t mean that good teaching can’t be taught and developed – which is what happens in good schools. In fact, we had better figure out how to do this because there aren’t enough ‘naturals’ to go around.
Should education policies require teachers to follow a prescribed curriculum … or give teachers flexibility to teach in ways they think best?
Nearly 75% of the public believes that it’s important to give teachers flexibility. Someone should tell the politicians and policy-makers who appear to be heading in the opposite direction.
By a 52 to 44% margin, the public sides with teachers’ unions over governors who have actively opposed them - even though 47% see unions as hurting the quality of public education. I suspect the public sees this as an issue of fairness and views these governors as bullies.
How important do you think these factors should be in determining a teacher’s salary? Strongly agree: academic degree, 38%; experience, 38%; student test scores, 29%; principal evaluation, 38%.
Again, I think the public has it about right. But I would feel better about rewarding experience if I had more confidence that every teacher had sufficient opportunities for collaboration and meaningful professional development. I would feel better about principal evaluations if all principals were required to demonstrate their ability to recognize and evaluate good teaching, and I would feel a lot better about test scores if those tests actually measured something useful.
91% of the public believes it is very (61%) or somewhat important that we provide internet access to all students in school. 95% believe it is very (70%) or somewhat important that all students have access to computer technology. 74% believe that schools should invest more in computer technology.
Wow.
Another area in which I agree with the public’s perception: schools are not doing a very good job of teaching financial management skills.
51% of respondents give their local school an A or B. If they have a child in school, that number goes to 79% - yet only 17% give those grades to schools overall.
What’s interesting is that the public understands the reason for this discrepancy: people tend to know a lot more about their immediate community and local schools. It probably also says something about the preponderance of negative press and political rhetoric that education, in general, receives.
I’m going to report this finding without comment: 69% give teachers in their local school an A or B (up from 50% in 1984), but only 36% give local parents an A or B.
Finally, a finding that I’ve talked about a lot lately: only 34% (and going down) of respondents favor allowing parents to choose a private school at public expense. How is this issue still alive in Harrisburg?
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
Vouchers revisited
About a month ago I wrote about the theory of charter schools, and how they haven’t lived up to the promise of becoming "laboratories for reform". I come back to this because several recent commentators have noted a shift in the political/philosophical argument used in support of vouchers - no doubt in response to all the research that has shown charter schools to be no more effective, and often less effective, than traditional public schools.
The emerging argument is one of “choice”, that is, parents have the right to make educational choices for their children, regardless of whether or not those choices result in a better education.
That’s an intriguing argument, but I’m not inclined to debate it. While the deference we give to parental decision-making is not as universal as it once was, for better or worse, our society continues to give a great deal of latitude to parents in how they raise their children.
In that light, I’m even willing to consider (shocker alert) a modest, limited voucher program. The point at which I draw the line, however – and where the line should be drawn - is the point at which charter and private schools begin to siphon resources from traditional public schools, which have, and which will continue to have, the responsibility for educating the vast majority of our children.
Of course, that proposal wouldn’t please anybody, and it’s not what has been suggested in Pennsylvania or elsewhere. None of the ‘take-the-money-with-you’ plans make any allowance for the substantial fixed costs in education (primarily in facilities), and none of these proposals hold the charter and private schools that stand to receive this windfall to the same academic or administrative standards.
For many voucher supporters, this has become a crusade, an attack on the idea of public support for universal education – which has been our country’s single greatest engine for economic success and a democratic society. As Dana Goldstein writes in Slate, “The standards-and-accountability movement has been superseded by a view of education in which public schools are not engines for economic growth but potential corrupters of the nation's youth.”
We appear to be fixin’ to re-argue the 19th-century debate on the public’s responsibility towards education for all - and there’s a lot of money (and money to be made) on the pro-voucher side of the debate. But the good news is that “public money for private schools” remains unpopular by substantial margins.
The emerging argument is one of “choice”, that is, parents have the right to make educational choices for their children, regardless of whether or not those choices result in a better education.
That’s an intriguing argument, but I’m not inclined to debate it. While the deference we give to parental decision-making is not as universal as it once was, for better or worse, our society continues to give a great deal of latitude to parents in how they raise their children.
In that light, I’m even willing to consider (shocker alert) a modest, limited voucher program. The point at which I draw the line, however – and where the line should be drawn - is the point at which charter and private schools begin to siphon resources from traditional public schools, which have, and which will continue to have, the responsibility for educating the vast majority of our children.
Of course, that proposal wouldn’t please anybody, and it’s not what has been suggested in Pennsylvania or elsewhere. None of the ‘take-the-money-with-you’ plans make any allowance for the substantial fixed costs in education (primarily in facilities), and none of these proposals hold the charter and private schools that stand to receive this windfall to the same academic or administrative standards.
For many voucher supporters, this has become a crusade, an attack on the idea of public support for universal education – which has been our country’s single greatest engine for economic success and a democratic society. As Dana Goldstein writes in Slate, “The standards-and-accountability movement has been superseded by a view of education in which public schools are not engines for economic growth but potential corrupters of the nation's youth.”
We appear to be fixin’ to re-argue the 19th-century debate on the public’s responsibility towards education for all - and there’s a lot of money (and money to be made) on the pro-voucher side of the debate. But the good news is that “public money for private schools” remains unpopular by substantial margins.
Friday, September 2, 2011
To continue the math conversation
Dear Readers: last week I shared with a few friends on Facebook and elsewhere an interesting commentary in the Times, How to Fix Our Math Education
In response, Marilyn, a good friend and retired high school Math teacher of 38 years, writes today’s thoughtful guest blog.
To continue the math conversation:
I always sat with a very unpopular viewpoint among my math educator colleagues. The current curriculum was instituted pre-Sputnik to create a generation of engineers. This curriculum needs to be available to some, but 99% of our students do NOT pursue engineering, and yet we subject 100% of our population to a curriculum which does not suit many of them. Yes, it can be a valuable set of mental exercises, but this can be accomplished through other disciplines in more relevant settings. Furthermore, I think it's criminal that this curriculum is a gatekeeper which, over decades, has prevented some really great minds from higher education.
Sol Garfunkle, who wrote the article you posted, has a video series (which I used at Delta) on Discrete Mathematics - a series of disconnected topics related to management and information sciences (such as graph theory, cryptography, bin packing, etc.). There are many unsolved problems in the field, because, I feel, young learners are not introduced to these topics. I had the great fortune to study with the top mathematicians in the field through three summer NSF grants in the 90's.
The NSF has been trying to push for Discrete Math even as early as an elementary school curriculum. It taps both sides of the brain, is very hands-on, and the issues are extremely relevant. I piloted the 1st Discrete Math course in the U.S. for 9th and 10th grades at Delta, using the galleys from the then, unpublished text. I in-serviced the HS math dept., which led to the introduction of a D.M. course as a senior alternative to calculus. It seemed to energize some of the HS staff. As a student in the 60's, I never saw D.M. until I was a junior in college as a math major, and it was presented in a traditional, theoretical way. I was blown away by what I learned from the NFS crowd.
At Delta, though I taught the traditional curriculum., I created several other "alternative" courses, such as D.M., Personal Finance (checking accounts, investments, leases, car insurance, mortgages, how to do taxes, etc.,) Symbolic Logic, Statistics, Problem Solving (introducing the heuristics of Polya, using games, puzzles, traditional conundrums.) Our kids could meet the HS math credit requirements through a variety of means. But then came PSSA's.
Over time enrollment dropped so low for some of these courses that we had to drop them from the curriculum - students did not sign up for them because the topics are not tested in the PSSA's. So much for autonomy to use good practices.
So as Sol says in his article - keep the engineering curriculum for those interested and suited, but give the rest of the kids accessible, interesting, relevant math content.
My 2 cents, Marilyn
In response, Marilyn, a good friend and retired high school Math teacher of 38 years, writes today’s thoughtful guest blog.
To continue the math conversation:
I always sat with a very unpopular viewpoint among my math educator colleagues. The current curriculum was instituted pre-Sputnik to create a generation of engineers. This curriculum needs to be available to some, but 99% of our students do NOT pursue engineering, and yet we subject 100% of our population to a curriculum which does not suit many of them. Yes, it can be a valuable set of mental exercises, but this can be accomplished through other disciplines in more relevant settings. Furthermore, I think it's criminal that this curriculum is a gatekeeper which, over decades, has prevented some really great minds from higher education.
Sol Garfunkle, who wrote the article you posted, has a video series (which I used at Delta) on Discrete Mathematics - a series of disconnected topics related to management and information sciences (such as graph theory, cryptography, bin packing, etc.). There are many unsolved problems in the field, because, I feel, young learners are not introduced to these topics. I had the great fortune to study with the top mathematicians in the field through three summer NSF grants in the 90's.
The NSF has been trying to push for Discrete Math even as early as an elementary school curriculum. It taps both sides of the brain, is very hands-on, and the issues are extremely relevant. I piloted the 1st Discrete Math course in the U.S. for 9th and 10th grades at Delta, using the galleys from the then, unpublished text. I in-serviced the HS math dept., which led to the introduction of a D.M. course as a senior alternative to calculus. It seemed to energize some of the HS staff. As a student in the 60's, I never saw D.M. until I was a junior in college as a math major, and it was presented in a traditional, theoretical way. I was blown away by what I learned from the NFS crowd.
At Delta, though I taught the traditional curriculum., I created several other "alternative" courses, such as D.M., Personal Finance (checking accounts, investments, leases, car insurance, mortgages, how to do taxes, etc.,) Symbolic Logic, Statistics, Problem Solving (introducing the heuristics of Polya, using games, puzzles, traditional conundrums.) Our kids could meet the HS math credit requirements through a variety of means. But then came PSSA's.
Over time enrollment dropped so low for some of these courses that we had to drop them from the curriculum - students did not sign up for them because the topics are not tested in the PSSA's. So much for autonomy to use good practices.
So as Sol says in his article - keep the engineering curriculum for those interested and suited, but give the rest of the kids accessible, interesting, relevant math content.
My 2 cents, Marilyn
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
Confrontation v. Collaboration
There is considerable political rhetoric these days that blames ‘overpaid’ teachers and recalcitrant unions for the so-called “crisis” in education. It’s sad when I hear school board members - who ought to know better - piling on, as I did at a recent state meeting.
(I say ‘so-called’ because educational quality has not declined over the past generation; the reality is that public education hasn’t kept pace with a vastly increased expectation, both in terms of the knowledge and skills we expect students to learn, but also the proportion of students - i.e., everyone - we expect to be successful.)
First, if teachers really are overpaid, how do we explain the fact that half of new teachers leave the profession after five years - three years at inner-city schools - long before they become vested in those ‘overly-generous’ pensions? Second, anyone who believes that a typical teacher works a 35-hour week, with three months vacation, hasn’t talked to any real teachers lately.
What the rhetoric overlooks is that we have no chance of accomplishing the necessary transformation of our education system unless everyone – policy-makers, administrators, teachers, students and parents – begins to see themselves as on “the same side”; as partners with differing roles. This won’t happen if we continue to pit “sides” against one another. Even the feds appear to understand this: a top DOE official recently told a gathering of state lawmakers: “States need to take a more active role in promoting cooperation between teachers' unions and school districts”.
This is why Joel Klein had little chance of success in New York. As noted in Irving Hamer’s commentary in Education Week (Collaboration Is Essential in Public Education), Klein’s “combative approach … ignores the reality that reform cannot be something we do to teachers.” (The same criticism could be made of Michelle Rhee.)
It continues to amaze me that it never seems to occur to these so-called reformers to ask teachers what they think could be done to improve education. Trust me, if you ask, you’ll find many teachers who’ve given a lot of thought to this and have something to say.
Instead, it’s often just the opposite: “teachers cite a lack of support and poor working conditions” as the biggest reason for leaving the profession, according to the Alliance for Excellent Education. As Walt Gardner put it (in yet another response to Steve Brill): it’s not about finding “a way to motivate the rank and file. … these teachers are already motivated. What they are not, however, are masochists.”
At worst, a confrontational, toxic school climate will drive away the good teachers (or keep them from coming in the first place). At the very least, it will inhibit the collaboration, risk-taking and creativity that is essential to meaningful organizational change.
(I say ‘so-called’ because educational quality has not declined over the past generation; the reality is that public education hasn’t kept pace with a vastly increased expectation, both in terms of the knowledge and skills we expect students to learn, but also the proportion of students - i.e., everyone - we expect to be successful.)
First, if teachers really are overpaid, how do we explain the fact that half of new teachers leave the profession after five years - three years at inner-city schools - long before they become vested in those ‘overly-generous’ pensions? Second, anyone who believes that a typical teacher works a 35-hour week, with three months vacation, hasn’t talked to any real teachers lately.
What the rhetoric overlooks is that we have no chance of accomplishing the necessary transformation of our education system unless everyone – policy-makers, administrators, teachers, students and parents – begins to see themselves as on “the same side”; as partners with differing roles. This won’t happen if we continue to pit “sides” against one another. Even the feds appear to understand this: a top DOE official recently told a gathering of state lawmakers: “States need to take a more active role in promoting cooperation between teachers' unions and school districts”.
This is why Joel Klein had little chance of success in New York. As noted in Irving Hamer’s commentary in Education Week (Collaboration Is Essential in Public Education), Klein’s “combative approach … ignores the reality that reform cannot be something we do to teachers.” (The same criticism could be made of Michelle Rhee.)
It continues to amaze me that it never seems to occur to these so-called reformers to ask teachers what they think could be done to improve education. Trust me, if you ask, you’ll find many teachers who’ve given a lot of thought to this and have something to say.
Instead, it’s often just the opposite: “teachers cite a lack of support and poor working conditions” as the biggest reason for leaving the profession, according to the Alliance for Excellent Education. As Walt Gardner put it (in yet another response to Steve Brill): it’s not about finding “a way to motivate the rank and file. … these teachers are already motivated. What they are not, however, are masochists.”
At worst, a confrontational, toxic school climate will drive away the good teachers (or keep them from coming in the first place). At the very least, it will inhibit the collaboration, risk-taking and creativity that is essential to meaningful organizational change.
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
Simple solutions to Complex Issues
A couple of recent book reviews have shown a lot more insight than the book they reviewed.
I mentioned one Monday - Dana Goldstein's review of Steven Brill's “Class Warfare.” Today, I'd like to note Sara Mosle's piece from Sunday's New York Times.
Mosle is particularly critical of Brill's belief that "unions are the primary cause of failing public schools" in spite of the almost total lack of evidence to support that claim.
Let me repeat that. There is almost no evidence to support the belief that unions are the primary obstacle to education reform. Yet a lot of people believe just that, largely because unions are an easy, simplistic scapegoat that conveniently absolves everyone else of responsibility.
Human beings have an understandable affinity for simple answers to complex problems. The particular challenge of education reform is that it is tempting, and fairly easy, to make a simplistic argument about this particularly complicated issue; developing a coherent counter-argument is far more challenging and time consuming.
Brill bases much of his argument about unions on the success of the non-union KIPP charter schools in Harlem, which nearly everyone admires. But even a KIPP founder concedes that the program "relies on superhuman talent that cannot be duplicated in large numbers" - and cites examples of educators who unexpectedly quit, citing burnout and unsustainable workloads. KIPP does great work, but it's not a universal model for reform.
Mosle also makes a point that was emphasized by Goldstein: while teacher quality is the most important variable within schools, "mountains of data, going back decades, demonstrates that most of the variation in student performance is explained by non-school factors: not just poverty, but also parental literacy (and whether parents read to their children), student health, frequent relocations, crime-related stress and the like."
The achievements of the Harlem Children's Zone - another oft-cited success story – are due to the fact that they specifically and deliberately attempt to address those issues.
Does this mean that exceptional teachers cannot make a real difference in the lives of these students, or that teachers shouldn't be held accountable? No, what it means is that it's going to be extraordinarily difficult to design an accountability system - particularly one that depends primarily on test scores - that accurately takes into account all those non-school factors. And that's precisely what the simplistic reformers are proposing.
Any experienced teacher will tell you that even in a relatively homogeneous district such as ours, one year's class can be completely different from the next year's. How does one account for that?
I particularly like argument Mosle make towards the end: "Brill likens the battle over the nation’s schools to “warfare,” but the better analogy may be to the war on cancer. For years, scientists hoped a magic pill would cure this ravaging disease. But increasingly, doctors have recognized that they will have to fight a multi-fronted war, as cancers (like failing schools) aren’t all alike."
I mentioned one Monday - Dana Goldstein's review of Steven Brill's “Class Warfare.” Today, I'd like to note Sara Mosle's piece from Sunday's New York Times.
Mosle is particularly critical of Brill's belief that "unions are the primary cause of failing public schools" in spite of the almost total lack of evidence to support that claim.
Let me repeat that. There is almost no evidence to support the belief that unions are the primary obstacle to education reform. Yet a lot of people believe just that, largely because unions are an easy, simplistic scapegoat that conveniently absolves everyone else of responsibility.
Human beings have an understandable affinity for simple answers to complex problems. The particular challenge of education reform is that it is tempting, and fairly easy, to make a simplistic argument about this particularly complicated issue; developing a coherent counter-argument is far more challenging and time consuming.
Brill bases much of his argument about unions on the success of the non-union KIPP charter schools in Harlem, which nearly everyone admires. But even a KIPP founder concedes that the program "relies on superhuman talent that cannot be duplicated in large numbers" - and cites examples of educators who unexpectedly quit, citing burnout and unsustainable workloads. KIPP does great work, but it's not a universal model for reform.
Mosle also makes a point that was emphasized by Goldstein: while teacher quality is the most important variable within schools, "mountains of data, going back decades, demonstrates that most of the variation in student performance is explained by non-school factors: not just poverty, but also parental literacy (and whether parents read to their children), student health, frequent relocations, crime-related stress and the like."
The achievements of the Harlem Children's Zone - another oft-cited success story – are due to the fact that they specifically and deliberately attempt to address those issues.
Does this mean that exceptional teachers cannot make a real difference in the lives of these students, or that teachers shouldn't be held accountable? No, what it means is that it's going to be extraordinarily difficult to design an accountability system - particularly one that depends primarily on test scores - that accurately takes into account all those non-school factors. And that's precisely what the simplistic reformers are proposing.
Any experienced teacher will tell you that even in a relatively homogeneous district such as ours, one year's class can be completely different from the next year's. How does one account for that?
I particularly like argument Mosle make towards the end: "Brill likens the battle over the nation’s schools to “warfare,” but the better analogy may be to the war on cancer. For years, scientists hoped a magic pill would cure this ravaging disease. But increasingly, doctors have recognized that they will have to fight a multi-fronted war, as cancers (like failing schools) aren’t all alike."
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
We should be outraged
Credit to the Centre Daily Times for running this recent AP story above the fold: “Cutbacks in state aid for public schools hit
Pennsylvania's poorer school districts the hardest, slashing nearly three
times as many dollars in aid per student compared with wealthier districts.
On the same weekend of that story,
I heard the following comparison of the “top” and “bottom 50” of Pennsylvania’s
500 school districts:
Avg. teacher salary
|
Avg. education
|
% of students in poverty
|
|
“Top 50”
|
$74,000
|
Master’s +
|
17%
|
“Bottom 50”
|
$44,000
|
Bachelor’s
|
47%
|
Of course, correlation
does not imply causation. Higher teacher salaries do not “cause” better
education; it’s far more complicated than that. On the other hand, it’s pretty
hard to say that teacher salaries don’t matter, or that level of education
doesn’t matter - or that poverty doesn’t matter.
Which, of
course, is exactly what the Corbett administration is saying, has said, and has
backed up through action. As hard as the state budget cuts were on every Pennsylvanian
school district, poor districts were hit the hardest.
It should also
be noted that as part of this year’s omnibus school code bill, all reference
has been removed of the ‘costing-out study’ that was developed during the prior
administration. The study, of course, acknowledged the Commonwealth’s
responsibility towards equity in education funding.
As a member of a
district that came out of this relatively well, perhaps I shouldn’t say
anything, but there’s no other way to put it: it’s unconscionable, and probably
unconstitutional.
A post-script:
This article from Dana Goldstein is worth noting.
In a review of a recent book by Steven Brill - he of "Rubber Room" fame - Goldstein takes issue with the commonplace claim that teacher effectiveness can overcome the disadvantages of poverty. (The impact of some of these disadvantages - food insecurity, lead poisoning, etc. - should be hard to ignore.)
Well, no one disputes the value of good teachers, nor - it ought to follow - the importance of "focusing education policy efforts on sustainable teacher quality reforms such as ... requiring new teachers to undergo apprenticeship periods working alongside master educators, and creating career ladders that reward excellent teachers who agree to stay in the classroom long-term and mentor their peers."
However..
"the work of the many researchers Brill cites shows that while teaching is the most important in-school factor affecting student achievement, family and neighborhood characteristics matter more. The research consensus has been clear and unchanging for more than a decade: at most, teaching accounts for about 15 percent of student achievement outcomes, while socioeconomic factors account for about 60 percent."
I share Goldstein's frustration that this point has to be made over and over again.
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
A natural synergy
There is a natural synergy between two of (what ought to be) the most important ideas in education reform: 21st-century skills and school climate.
To review: the concept of 21st-century skills is based on the understanding that in order to prepare today’s students for successful careers and lives, nearly every student will need far more than the primarily content-based education that most of us received if we went to school in the 20th century. They will also need learning and application skills, such as:
* Critical Thinking and Problem Solving
* Communication and Collaboration
* Creativity and Innovation
Good communication skills will be essential: how to communicate with different audiences, in multiple ways; knowing when to speak and how to listen. They’ll need to understand and balance diverse views in order to reach workable solutions, particularly in multi-cultural environments. (What I refer to as ‘deliberative skills’.)
Tomorrow’s citizens will need to be able to work with others collaboratively, but also know how to lead. They’ll need to be flexible and adaptable. They will need a deep understanding that learning is a life-long and self-directed process. To a far greater extent than our generation, they’ll need to make their own way.
Much of this may not sound all that revolutionary; what’s changed is that in tomorrow’s world, every student will need to be so equipped. There used to be an understanding that only the ‘elite’ students needed these skills, which they’d pick up when they went off to college.
Most schools, however, are not currently designed to accomplish these outcomes for average students. How do we get there?
One of the keys will be that we pay much closer attention to the school's learning environment, also referred to as "school climate”.
School climate is defined as “the character and quality of school life”. This includes:
• school norms, goals, and values
• the nature of interpersonal relationships (student-student, student-adult and adult-adult)
• teaching and learning practices
• leadership styles and organizational structure.
The first argument for the importance of school climate is obvious. Students are more likely to learn when they feel physically, emotionally and intellectually safe, when their classes are engaging, and when their voice is valued (key elements of a positive school climate).
There is also what we now know from brain research: learning performance is deeply affected by the student-teacher relationship and the emotional environment in which learning takes place. (By the way, business leaders increasingly understand the significance of employer-employee relationships on business success.)
Similarly, teachers are more effective when they have opportunities for professional growth and collaboration with other teachers, and when the insights gained from years of experience are valued. Parents are better positioned to help their children with their education if they feel welcomed and valued in the school.
This may all seem obvious, but it doesn’t occur consistently without focused, intentional effort.
The second argument is more direct: many of the characteristics of a positive school climate model for students these essential skills.
To take an obvious example, a school environment in which collaboration is the norm helps to develop collaborative skills in students. Similarly, a teacher who encourages students to ask their own questions, in so doing, helps to develop their critical-thinking skills.
Well, you get the point, but I’ll suggest one more that gets to the heart of several key 21st-century skills: ”the school community develops practices that promote social and civic responsibility”.
To review: the concept of 21st-century skills is based on the understanding that in order to prepare today’s students for successful careers and lives, nearly every student will need far more than the primarily content-based education that most of us received if we went to school in the 20th century. They will also need learning and application skills, such as:
* Critical Thinking and Problem Solving
* Communication and Collaboration
* Creativity and Innovation
Good communication skills will be essential: how to communicate with different audiences, in multiple ways; knowing when to speak and how to listen. They’ll need to understand and balance diverse views in order to reach workable solutions, particularly in multi-cultural environments. (What I refer to as ‘deliberative skills’.)
Tomorrow’s citizens will need to be able to work with others collaboratively, but also know how to lead. They’ll need to be flexible and adaptable. They will need a deep understanding that learning is a life-long and self-directed process. To a far greater extent than our generation, they’ll need to make their own way.
Much of this may not sound all that revolutionary; what’s changed is that in tomorrow’s world, every student will need to be so equipped. There used to be an understanding that only the ‘elite’ students needed these skills, which they’d pick up when they went off to college.
Most schools, however, are not currently designed to accomplish these outcomes for average students. How do we get there?
One of the keys will be that we pay much closer attention to the school's learning environment, also referred to as "school climate”.
School climate is defined as “the character and quality of school life”. This includes:
• school norms, goals, and values
• the nature of interpersonal relationships (student-student, student-adult and adult-adult)
• teaching and learning practices
• leadership styles and organizational structure.
The first argument for the importance of school climate is obvious. Students are more likely to learn when they feel physically, emotionally and intellectually safe, when their classes are engaging, and when their voice is valued (key elements of a positive school climate).
There is also what we now know from brain research: learning performance is deeply affected by the student-teacher relationship and the emotional environment in which learning takes place. (By the way, business leaders increasingly understand the significance of employer-employee relationships on business success.)
Similarly, teachers are more effective when they have opportunities for professional growth and collaboration with other teachers, and when the insights gained from years of experience are valued. Parents are better positioned to help their children with their education if they feel welcomed and valued in the school.
This may all seem obvious, but it doesn’t occur consistently without focused, intentional effort.
The second argument is more direct: many of the characteristics of a positive school climate model for students these essential skills.
To take an obvious example, a school environment in which collaboration is the norm helps to develop collaborative skills in students. Similarly, a teacher who encourages students to ask their own questions, in so doing, helps to develop their critical-thinking skills.
Well, you get the point, but I’ll suggest one more that gets to the heart of several key 21st-century skills: ”the school community develops practices that promote social and civic responsibility”.
Monday, July 25, 2011
The theory of charter schools
Whenever I talk about charter schools, I invariably refer to the theory that is typically used as its intellectual foundation: "relieving charter schools from some bureaucratic requirements allows them to explore educational innovation that could be replicated elsewhere."
Or, as I've heard recently, charter schools were supposed to be "laboratories for reform".
As of today, I cease and desist. While intuitively appealing in theory, charter schools have existed in Pennsylvania for 14 years, and to my knowledge - and as was pointed out in the CDT series - rarely has an innovation from a charter school been used to inform the practice of a traditional public school.
For starters, our charter school law has no mechanism for implementing these "lessons learned." Rather, by design it creates an adversarial relationship between charters and the 'authorizing' school, as was also pointed out by the CDT.
Second, while charter schools are required, as a condition of the charter, to describe their 'innovative approach', it is only superficially enforced by PDE - woe to the district who challenges - and there is no follow-up.
Then there's that bit about 'freedom from mandates'. For examples, public schools are required to have 100% of their teachers certified ("highly qualified" in NCLB lingo).
But in charter schools, only 75% of their teachers must meet this requirement. Well, is "certification" important, or isn't it? Same issue for special ed students: charter schools are not required to file the detailed reports that regular public schools must file. Well, why not? If it's not important, why do public schools have to do it? (Ask any administrator: this is not an insignificant burden.)
Although I'm sure many charter school supporters are well-intentioned, it has become hard not to conclude that the driving forces behind the charter school movement are 1) money, and 2) an ideological or emotional disposition against public schools.
In Pennsylvania, one of the leading advocates for charter school legislation (which was recently defeated, at least temporarily) has been state senator Anthony Williams. Listening to him, it is hard not to believe he is sincere about wanting to help kids - but it's also hard to ignore that his biggest campaign contributors were people who stood to gain financially. Schools as a profit center!
As Twain(?) once observed, "it is hard to convince a man of something when he is paid to believe otherwise."
That's not to say that some charter schools aren't innovating, with some success (statistically, about 15-20%). In State College, we have four charter schools, at least a couple of which are doing some fairly interesting stuff.
But there's no mechanism for closing the "laboratories" that appear to have "failed" - a fact that does not appear to concern most charter school supporters.
If we are to take the concept of charter schools seriously, two things need to happen: 1) the state should produce detailed reports describing the success, or lack thereof, of each charter school "innovation" and 2) charter schools should be funded in a way that makes them "revenue neutral" to local districts.
The most recent state budget eliminated the entire state reimbursement for charter schools. What does that tell us?
Or, as I've heard recently, charter schools were supposed to be "laboratories for reform".
As of today, I cease and desist. While intuitively appealing in theory, charter schools have existed in Pennsylvania for 14 years, and to my knowledge - and as was pointed out in the CDT series - rarely has an innovation from a charter school been used to inform the practice of a traditional public school.
For starters, our charter school law has no mechanism for implementing these "lessons learned." Rather, by design it creates an adversarial relationship between charters and the 'authorizing' school, as was also pointed out by the CDT.
Second, while charter schools are required, as a condition of the charter, to describe their 'innovative approach', it is only superficially enforced by PDE - woe to the district who challenges - and there is no follow-up.
Then there's that bit about 'freedom from mandates'. For examples, public schools are required to have 100% of their teachers certified ("highly qualified" in NCLB lingo).
But in charter schools, only 75% of their teachers must meet this requirement. Well, is "certification" important, or isn't it? Same issue for special ed students: charter schools are not required to file the detailed reports that regular public schools must file. Well, why not? If it's not important, why do public schools have to do it? (Ask any administrator: this is not an insignificant burden.)
Although I'm sure many charter school supporters are well-intentioned, it has become hard not to conclude that the driving forces behind the charter school movement are 1) money, and 2) an ideological or emotional disposition against public schools.
In Pennsylvania, one of the leading advocates for charter school legislation (which was recently defeated, at least temporarily) has been state senator Anthony Williams. Listening to him, it is hard not to believe he is sincere about wanting to help kids - but it's also hard to ignore that his biggest campaign contributors were people who stood to gain financially. Schools as a profit center!
As Twain(?) once observed, "it is hard to convince a man of something when he is paid to believe otherwise."
That's not to say that some charter schools aren't innovating, with some success (statistically, about 15-20%). In State College, we have four charter schools, at least a couple of which are doing some fairly interesting stuff.
But there's no mechanism for closing the "laboratories" that appear to have "failed" - a fact that does not appear to concern most charter school supporters.
If we are to take the concept of charter schools seriously, two things need to happen: 1) the state should produce detailed reports describing the success, or lack thereof, of each charter school "innovation" and 2) charter schools should be funded in a way that makes them "revenue neutral" to local districts.
The most recent state budget eliminated the entire state reimbursement for charter schools. What does that tell us?
Friday, July 15, 2011
LEED highlights
Ed Poprick's update on the elementary building projects, and in particular, the work that's being done to achieve LEED certification, are often a highlight of a board meeting.
It's become clear how much can be accomplished in the realm of environmental responsibility, with minimal additional cost, when all the key players - architects, contractors and school personnel - are part of the planning from the earliest stages of the project.
It also highlights the value of our Citizen Advisory Committees, and the expertise contained within.
Some of what we saw this month: a butterfly garden (educational opportunity), a terraced rain garden (to help absorb storm run-off), a "Mt. Nittany Viewing Station" with seats and a donated information placard, and preferred parking spaces for fuel-efficient cars and car-poolers.
Other educational opportunities have been created by deliberately exposing and color-coding some of the usually 'behind the wall' aspects of building construction, such as water pipes. Each day, students will pass the hallway 'dashboard' that monitors all building functions.
Horizontal, reflective 'light shelves' are a clever way to bounce natural daylight further into the classroom, resulting in better lighting while conserving electricity.
From an earlier "spotlight": the duct work has been kept sealed throughout construction in order to keep out the dust and debris that would otherwise circulate through the building for years to come.
I was intrigued by the height indicators that have been built into the brickwork of the exterior. (How tall is the building? 30 feet, 100 feet? Young kids have no idea.) I still recall an argument with my little sister after an early visit to the Empire State Building. How large was the base - as big as our house? Smaller? Most of us are too old to remember that spatial perspective takes time to develop.
It's become clear how much can be accomplished in the realm of environmental responsibility, with minimal additional cost, when all the key players - architects, contractors and school personnel - are part of the planning from the earliest stages of the project.
It also highlights the value of our Citizen Advisory Committees, and the expertise contained within.
Some of what we saw this month: a butterfly garden (educational opportunity), a terraced rain garden (to help absorb storm run-off), a "Mt. Nittany Viewing Station" with seats and a donated information placard, and preferred parking spaces for fuel-efficient cars and car-poolers.
Other educational opportunities have been created by deliberately exposing and color-coding some of the usually 'behind the wall' aspects of building construction, such as water pipes. Each day, students will pass the hallway 'dashboard' that monitors all building functions.
Horizontal, reflective 'light shelves' are a clever way to bounce natural daylight further into the classroom, resulting in better lighting while conserving electricity.
From an earlier "spotlight": the duct work has been kept sealed throughout construction in order to keep out the dust and debris that would otherwise circulate through the building for years to come.
I was intrigued by the height indicators that have been built into the brickwork of the exterior. (How tall is the building? 30 feet, 100 feet? Young kids have no idea.) I still recall an argument with my little sister after an early visit to the Empire State Building. How large was the base - as big as our house? Smaller? Most of us are too old to remember that spatial perspective takes time to develop.
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
It's time to get in the game
For some time I've been saying that teachers have not had enough input into education reform policy, and that some of this is their own fault: too much reactive, not enough proactive. It's time to get in the game!
And so they have. The PA state association's web site now features "Solutions that Work", a list of thoughtful and practical recommendations for how education could be improved. It strikes me as a good start.
The document can be downloaded here:
Teachers might be surprised to know that there are policy-makers who are genuinely interested in what they have to say.
And so they have. The PA state association's web site now features "Solutions that Work", a list of thoughtful and practical recommendations for how education could be improved. It strikes me as a good start.
The document can be downloaded here:
Teachers might be surprised to know that there are policy-makers who are genuinely interested in what they have to say.
Friday, July 8, 2011
What the feds could do
1) As I mentioned in my last post, ‘big government’ can provide a measure of economic equity that doesn’t exist at the local level. It doesn’t much matter whether this responsibility is assumed at the federal or state level; either way, some leveling of the playing field has become a practical necessity as well as a moral imperative.
(Part of the ‘equity’ issue is that we haven’t always seen this as a problem. So what if the poor didn’t get a quality education? Not everyone needed one. There were plenty of factory jobs available that didn’t require a high school education; and even those kids had a chance to live better lives than their parents.)
2) State and federal governments have the capacity to provide educational resources. For example, many districts lack the ability to develop their own curriculum. Pennsylvania is actually doing a rather good job at this, with its Standards Aligned System. Need a good lesson plan for addressing a particular curricular standard? There are several from which to choose; no need to reinvent the wheel.
3) One could argue that the federal government could be in the business of setting minimum standards, such as “Common Core” that 42 states have adopted (under some duress). I’m not opposed to this in theory, but here’s my concern.
We are at a point in our economic history that screams for a re-thinking of what we want students to know and be able to do when they graduate high school. It strikes me as a little premature to be setting national standards for geometry, for example, when we haven’t had a conversation on its relative importance – greater than probability and statistics? - since high school graduates were in the minority. Policy makers throw around terms such as “college and career ready” when there’s no consensus on what that means!
Does every student need to be mathematically literate? Yes. (We’ve never tried this before, either.) Does every student need four years of high school math? Not necessarily – and what’s the opportunity cost?
What the federal government should be doing is facilitating a national conversation - and not just among policy wonks at the national level. There should be thousands of conversations in communities across the country in which parents, teachers, community leaders and even students talk about what they want from their schools. What do business leaders have to say about this? Has DOE talked to the Partnership for 21st Century Skills?
4) Research is the fourth area in which the feds could do a lot of good, and for which they have capacity. This gets to the heart of my issue with two of DOE’s ‘reform’ strategies – charter schools and incentive pay for teachers. Charter schools remain a key part of Obama's plan, based on the reasonable theory that they provide opportunities for educational experimentation. As the President recently said, “what we have got to do is to look at the success of these schools (and) find out how we duplicate them.”
But where’s the research? We know that only about 17% of charter schools do any better than regular public schools, and incentive pay results are all over the map. (Unsurprisingly, a lot depends on how you do it – NYC recently abandoned their experiment.) Before we mandate a “solution” that may do more harm than good, shouldn’t we have a better idea of what works, and under what circumstances?
One problem is that we’ve been running the exact opposite of a controlled experiment - every charter school does its own thing, with predictable consequences. Longer days, more homework, more structure or less, teacher incentives, teacher collaboration, smaller schools, more opportunities for students - or a focus on the ‘basics’, incentives for teachers (and/or students), an emphasis on science (or arts or language), etc., etc.. Which of these factors really matter, and which are secondary or completely unimportant?
How do we plan to find out? Unless we know what we’re looking for, continuing to throw tax dollars at unfocused charter school experiments won’t tell us anything we don’t know already.
Finally, I think there could be a federal role in developing models that would help struggling schools create the ‘climate’ necessary for good education. A key example: if you want to attract the best teachers, you need schools that have stable and effective educational leadership and cultures in which learning is valued – where teachers can see the results of their efforts. It’s a chicken-and-egg problem that’s well beyond the capacity of the schools that need it most. Another example: I would like to see more research on effective models for teacher training and mentoring.
While the work has to be done locally, the feds could develop usable models, and perhaps provide some seed money. This would be a lot less expensive than the current proposals.
(Part of the ‘equity’ issue is that we haven’t always seen this as a problem. So what if the poor didn’t get a quality education? Not everyone needed one. There were plenty of factory jobs available that didn’t require a high school education; and even those kids had a chance to live better lives than their parents.)
2) State and federal governments have the capacity to provide educational resources. For example, many districts lack the ability to develop their own curriculum. Pennsylvania is actually doing a rather good job at this, with its Standards Aligned System. Need a good lesson plan for addressing a particular curricular standard? There are several from which to choose; no need to reinvent the wheel.
3) One could argue that the federal government could be in the business of setting minimum standards, such as “Common Core” that 42 states have adopted (under some duress). I’m not opposed to this in theory, but here’s my concern.
We are at a point in our economic history that screams for a re-thinking of what we want students to know and be able to do when they graduate high school. It strikes me as a little premature to be setting national standards for geometry, for example, when we haven’t had a conversation on its relative importance – greater than probability and statistics? - since high school graduates were in the minority. Policy makers throw around terms such as “college and career ready” when there’s no consensus on what that means!
Does every student need to be mathematically literate? Yes. (We’ve never tried this before, either.) Does every student need four years of high school math? Not necessarily – and what’s the opportunity cost?
What the federal government should be doing is facilitating a national conversation - and not just among policy wonks at the national level. There should be thousands of conversations in communities across the country in which parents, teachers, community leaders and even students talk about what they want from their schools. What do business leaders have to say about this? Has DOE talked to the Partnership for 21st Century Skills?
4) Research is the fourth area in which the feds could do a lot of good, and for which they have capacity. This gets to the heart of my issue with two of DOE’s ‘reform’ strategies – charter schools and incentive pay for teachers. Charter schools remain a key part of Obama's plan, based on the reasonable theory that they provide opportunities for educational experimentation. As the President recently said, “what we have got to do is to look at the success of these schools (and) find out how we duplicate them.”
But where’s the research? We know that only about 17% of charter schools do any better than regular public schools, and incentive pay results are all over the map. (Unsurprisingly, a lot depends on how you do it – NYC recently abandoned their experiment.) Before we mandate a “solution” that may do more harm than good, shouldn’t we have a better idea of what works, and under what circumstances?
One problem is that we’ve been running the exact opposite of a controlled experiment - every charter school does its own thing, with predictable consequences. Longer days, more homework, more structure or less, teacher incentives, teacher collaboration, smaller schools, more opportunities for students - or a focus on the ‘basics’, incentives for teachers (and/or students), an emphasis on science (or arts or language), etc., etc.. Which of these factors really matter, and which are secondary or completely unimportant?
How do we plan to find out? Unless we know what we’re looking for, continuing to throw tax dollars at unfocused charter school experiments won’t tell us anything we don’t know already.
Finally, I think there could be a federal role in developing models that would help struggling schools create the ‘climate’ necessary for good education. A key example: if you want to attract the best teachers, you need schools that have stable and effective educational leadership and cultures in which learning is valued – where teachers can see the results of their efforts. It’s a chicken-and-egg problem that’s well beyond the capacity of the schools that need it most. Another example: I would like to see more research on effective models for teacher training and mentoring.
While the work has to be done locally, the feds could develop usable models, and perhaps provide some seed money. This would be a lot less expensive than the current proposals.
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Can the feds fix education?
For two years I’ve struggled to understand the Obama administration’s thinking on education reform. The President and Ed Secretary Duncan appear to be smart guys with good intentions, but I continue to feel – like Madeline - that something’s not right.
Obama has said that his greatest concern is for the highly dysfunctional schools that tend to be found in large urban areas. As he put it: “the lowest income schools with the kids who are two, three grade levels behind”.
Good. I’m completely with him on this. If the immediate goal is to transform those schools, then let’s say so, and focus school reform efforts there.
But I have several concerns. First, there has been little conversation on what can be reasonably accomplished at the federal level. Well-intentioned or not, is what they’re attempting possible? Traditionally, education has been a responsibility of state and local governments. Only recently has Washington had significant influence, and judging by the nearly universal criticism of NCLB, not particularly successfully.
Prior to NCLB, the federal responsibility was primarily financial: for special education (IDEA), and for “low SES” (Title I), the theory being that a child’s zip code shouldn’t be a predictor of educational opportunity. Should there be a greater federal role, either through direct funding, or by insisting that states do a better job of ensuring educational equity? Perhaps.
But those who say that you can’t solve this problem by throwing money at it are correct. Here’s the reason: for many schools, the lack of resources are not just financial. Effective schools are almost always the result of a collaboration between teachers, administrators, school board members(!), involved parents, local civic and business leaders, and community volunteers. Many of our ‘underperforming’ schools lack the human capital needed to create an environment in which quality education can flourish.
Plus, the issues that cause community dysfunction are precisely those that must be addressed in order to create quality schools. (This is why KIPP is successful – but not cheap!) Good schools are locally produced.
But it’s hard for single parents, or parents working multiple jobs to be involved parents. And while there was a time when teachers were required to live in the communities in which they taught, few teachers are willing to live and raise families in the these ‘communities’ now..
Further, most city schools are governed, and resources allocated by, a bureaucracy that is far removed from the local school. The members of a city school board don’t know you, your kids, or your teachers. They don’t live in your community, and their kids don’t go to your school.
Back when Governor Rendell had the nutty idea of consolidating Pennsylvania’s five hundred districts, I commented that perhaps he should consider breaking up the large city districts, on the premise that districts with hundreds of schools and hundreds of thousands of students are far too large to manage effectively. I now think I was more right about that than I realized.
A lot of what is required to produce quality schools is beyond the ability of the federal government to deliver. If this is true – and I believe it is – then there is no quick fix. The sooner we accept that, the sooner we can get on with creating an educational system that works for everyone. (Note: for all the rhetoric, we’ve never tried to create a national education system before!)
Obama has said that his greatest concern is for the highly dysfunctional schools that tend to be found in large urban areas. As he put it: “the lowest income schools with the kids who are two, three grade levels behind”.
Good. I’m completely with him on this. If the immediate goal is to transform those schools, then let’s say so, and focus school reform efforts there.
But I have several concerns. First, there has been little conversation on what can be reasonably accomplished at the federal level. Well-intentioned or not, is what they’re attempting possible? Traditionally, education has been a responsibility of state and local governments. Only recently has Washington had significant influence, and judging by the nearly universal criticism of NCLB, not particularly successfully.
Prior to NCLB, the federal responsibility was primarily financial: for special education (IDEA), and for “low SES” (Title I), the theory being that a child’s zip code shouldn’t be a predictor of educational opportunity. Should there be a greater federal role, either through direct funding, or by insisting that states do a better job of ensuring educational equity? Perhaps.
But those who say that you can’t solve this problem by throwing money at it are correct. Here’s the reason: for many schools, the lack of resources are not just financial. Effective schools are almost always the result of a collaboration between teachers, administrators, school board members(!), involved parents, local civic and business leaders, and community volunteers. Many of our ‘underperforming’ schools lack the human capital needed to create an environment in which quality education can flourish.
Plus, the issues that cause community dysfunction are precisely those that must be addressed in order to create quality schools. (This is why KIPP is successful – but not cheap!) Good schools are locally produced.
But it’s hard for single parents, or parents working multiple jobs to be involved parents. And while there was a time when teachers were required to live in the communities in which they taught, few teachers are willing to live and raise families in the these ‘communities’ now..
Further, most city schools are governed, and resources allocated by, a bureaucracy that is far removed from the local school. The members of a city school board don’t know you, your kids, or your teachers. They don’t live in your community, and their kids don’t go to your school.
Back when Governor Rendell had the nutty idea of consolidating Pennsylvania’s five hundred districts, I commented that perhaps he should consider breaking up the large city districts, on the premise that districts with hundreds of schools and hundreds of thousands of students are far too large to manage effectively. I now think I was more right about that than I realized.
A lot of what is required to produce quality schools is beyond the ability of the federal government to deliver. If this is true – and I believe it is – then there is no quick fix. The sooner we accept that, the sooner we can get on with creating an educational system that works for everyone. (Note: for all the rhetoric, we’ve never tried to create a national education system before!)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)