GothamSchools had an excellent story yesterday about a Bronx High School Principal who changed students' grades. Color me not surprised. This happened at my school too. I'm unclear as to exactly who was involved -- whether it was the Principal, an Assistant Principal, or all of the administrators -- but it definitely happened. My second year there a number of 8th graders who scarcely showed up for school and/or raised hell when they did subsequently failed in every subject. Well, at least their teachers gave them a failing grade. By the time the report cards reached the Dean's office, they had passing grades on them. Why? Two reasons:
1.) When troublesome 8th graders pass, it means the school doesn't have to deal with them next year.
2.) When a lot of students fail a grade, it looks bad for the principal -- especially given the current evaluation system in NYC.
Principals are judged on a bunch of numbers. It makes sense to reward principals that are able to reduce discipline problems and raise academic performance in a school. But rewarding these by looking at suspension rates and graduation rates can have unintended consequences. In the case of my school, that meant that we stopped suspending kids in the spring so as not to make ourselves look bad and passed kids who hadn't done anything all year. In other schools (heck, maybe my school too for all I know) it means that teachers and/or administrators bubble in answers for kids on tests.
The lesson from all this? Beware unintended consequences. Trying to reward certain behaviors may end up encouraging other, undesired, behaviors.
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
The Hypocrisy of "Money Doesn't Matter"
Last week, I wrote the following:
"If money doesn't matter in education, why are all of the most expensive colleges among the nation's elite?"
I got quite a bit of pushback in the comments, and it wasn't really a very thoughtful comment, so I think it's appropriate to take more than one sentence to explore the issue.
First, a little background: One of the main battles in education is around funding. All sorts of people have a personal stake in the funding of schools -- from employees who want a salary boost to homeowners who want a tax break. An awful lot of the reforms that have been pushed for schools (particularly smaller class sizes and higher teacher pay among others) cost an awful lot of money. As result of both the fact that spending more on schools deprives other people of the pleasure of that money and the fact that we want our schools to be both efficient and effective, people began to ask whether money mattered in education (see here, for example).
Now, I don't think that every person who's against more school funding as a solution actually means that more money will never matter -- regardless of how much or how it's spent. Indeed, there are any number of qualifications that can be added into the statement (see here, for example). Eric Hanushek, perhaps the researcher most often associated with the phrase, is on the record assaying agreeing with the statement that "only a fool would say money doesn't matter." Most people would agree that spending more money won't necessarily improve schools and that, indeed, spending more money often doesn't improve schools. We can find all sorts of examples of expensive reforms that didn't pan out, and every cliche lover realizes that "throwing money at the problem" won't solve it. But, at the same time, most are willing to recognize that it's not impossible for money to make a difference if it's well-spent. The problem is less with the argument once it's fully laid out and more with how people interpret and act on the phrase. To blindly insist that "money doesn't matter" is not only foolish but often hypocritical.
As I was insinuating in my one-sentence thought, an awful lot of people believe that the wealthiest, most expensive colleges are also the best. If we look at a list of the colleges and universities with the largest endowments, it's pretty clear that the wealthiest institutions are the ones we consider elite. And an awful lot of people aspire(d) to attend these colleges, have attended these colleges, or have paid for their children to attend these colleges.
Regardless of whether or not these schools are actually better, the perception that they are -- and the actions resulting from that perception -- say an awful lot about our society and our beliefs.
Views of private K-12 schools are somewhat similar. Last year the NY Times ran a story on prep schools that included a list of those with the largest endowments. I'm no expert, but I recognize a number of the schools on the list. The bottom line is that parents are willing to spend money -- lots of money (over $30,000 per year, not including room and board, in some cases) -- to send their kids to the most prestigious private schools.
Well, actions speak louder than words. Clearly, our society believes that schools with more resources are better. Therefore, anybody who argues that money doesn't matter in education and then brags about their degree from Harvard is a hypocrite. And anybody who argues that boosting spending at their town's schools cannot make a difference and then writes a check for their kid's tuition at Peddie is also a hypocrite. Anybody who truly believes that money doesn't matter shouldn't participate in their school bake sale or donate money to their alma mater.
Now, I don't think it's that simple. Like I said before, the intellectual leaders of the "money doesn't matter" school of thought would make more nuanced arguments. But the general public doesn't often pick up on nuance. And the result is that a lot of people repeat the talking points without realizing there's more to the argument. And then those people become hypocrites.
Finally, let me address a few points that others have made or that I anticipate they will make:
1.) One commenter claimed that schools are like cars because spending more money than one would on a Camry cannot result in the procurement of a better car. Which is demonstrably false. Spending more money than one would on a Camry means that one can procure a car that can go 0-60 in the blink of an eye (Porsche), get 50 miles per gallon (Prius), or climb a mountain (Hummer), for example. In this case, the definition of "better" was conflated with the definition of "necessary," and that type of confusion can destroy a debate. I don't need my car to climb a mountain or go 0-60 in 4 seconds (though I would like to use less gas). I can afford to buy myself an adequate car, and I don't feel like I need anything else. My car meets my needs. But spending more money could buy me a car that's faster, stronger, safer, more efficient, and/or better at hauling things. So while I don't think that spending more money is necessary, it's not without utility.
We can make a similar argument with schools. It might not be necessary for a school to hire only teachers with doctorate degrees, cap class sizes at 5, and operate 12 hours per day 300 days per year -- but it would probably make the school better. In short, the question "is it worth it?" is separate from the question "will it make things better?"
2.) Prestige undoubtedly has a lot to do with why people spend a lot of money on schools, cars, or other goods. If somebody thought they'd receive equal educations at Harvard and East Cupcake University and money were no object, which one would they choose? Most would choose the former, if for no other reason than because other people would be more impressed by it. But therein lies the rub: somebody has to think something is better for it to be more prestigious. If everybody thought that BMW made horrible cars, who would pay the premium to buy one?
Besides, whether or not more money actually makes a school (or car) better isn't really germane to the argument. The point is that most people think that more money = better school, and their actions are proof.
3.) Yes, I consider virtually all of the colleges near the top of the largest endowment and highest tuition lists to be elite. There are about 3,000 or so colleges in our country, so I'd say at least the top 300 or so should be considered elite. I find the idea that only the top 25 or so are really elite to be . . . well, elitist.
4.) Yes, it's okay for people to argue that public schools are doing fine with their current spending levels but that they should be allowed to spend more on their kid. If you don't think the city collects recycleables often enough, you're allowed to pay an outside company to come collect them more. Everybody always wants more for their families. The distinction that I'm drawing is that one cannot simultaneously want more for their families and argue that getting more doesn't matter. It just doesn't make sense.
"If money doesn't matter in education, why are all of the most expensive colleges among the nation's elite?"
I got quite a bit of pushback in the comments, and it wasn't really a very thoughtful comment, so I think it's appropriate to take more than one sentence to explore the issue.
First, a little background: One of the main battles in education is around funding. All sorts of people have a personal stake in the funding of schools -- from employees who want a salary boost to homeowners who want a tax break. An awful lot of the reforms that have been pushed for schools (particularly smaller class sizes and higher teacher pay among others) cost an awful lot of money. As result of both the fact that spending more on schools deprives other people of the pleasure of that money and the fact that we want our schools to be both efficient and effective, people began to ask whether money mattered in education (see here, for example).
Now, I don't think that every person who's against more school funding as a solution actually means that more money will never matter -- regardless of how much or how it's spent. Indeed, there are any number of qualifications that can be added into the statement (see here, for example). Eric Hanushek, perhaps the researcher most often associated with the phrase, is on the record as
As I was insinuating in my one-sentence thought, an awful lot of people believe that the wealthiest, most expensive colleges are also the best. If we look at a list of the colleges and universities with the largest endowments, it's pretty clear that the wealthiest institutions are the ones we consider elite. And an awful lot of people aspire(d) to attend these colleges, have attended these colleges, or have paid for their children to attend these colleges.
Regardless of whether or not these schools are actually better, the perception that they are -- and the actions resulting from that perception -- say an awful lot about our society and our beliefs.
Views of private K-12 schools are somewhat similar. Last year the NY Times ran a story on prep schools that included a list of those with the largest endowments. I'm no expert, but I recognize a number of the schools on the list. The bottom line is that parents are willing to spend money -- lots of money (over $30,000 per year, not including room and board, in some cases) -- to send their kids to the most prestigious private schools.
Well, actions speak louder than words. Clearly, our society believes that schools with more resources are better. Therefore, anybody who argues that money doesn't matter in education and then brags about their degree from Harvard is a hypocrite. And anybody who argues that boosting spending at their town's schools cannot make a difference and then writes a check for their kid's tuition at Peddie is also a hypocrite. Anybody who truly believes that money doesn't matter shouldn't participate in their school bake sale or donate money to their alma mater.
Now, I don't think it's that simple. Like I said before, the intellectual leaders of the "money doesn't matter" school of thought would make more nuanced arguments. But the general public doesn't often pick up on nuance. And the result is that a lot of people repeat the talking points without realizing there's more to the argument. And then those people become hypocrites.
Finally, let me address a few points that others have made or that I anticipate they will make:
1.) One commenter claimed that schools are like cars because spending more money than one would on a Camry cannot result in the procurement of a better car. Which is demonstrably false. Spending more money than one would on a Camry means that one can procure a car that can go 0-60 in the blink of an eye (Porsche), get 50 miles per gallon (Prius), or climb a mountain (Hummer), for example. In this case, the definition of "better" was conflated with the definition of "necessary," and that type of confusion can destroy a debate. I don't need my car to climb a mountain or go 0-60 in 4 seconds (though I would like to use less gas). I can afford to buy myself an adequate car, and I don't feel like I need anything else. My car meets my needs. But spending more money could buy me a car that's faster, stronger, safer, more efficient, and/or better at hauling things. So while I don't think that spending more money is necessary, it's not without utility.
We can make a similar argument with schools. It might not be necessary for a school to hire only teachers with doctorate degrees, cap class sizes at 5, and operate 12 hours per day 300 days per year -- but it would probably make the school better. In short, the question "is it worth it?" is separate from the question "will it make things better?"
2.) Prestige undoubtedly has a lot to do with why people spend a lot of money on schools, cars, or other goods. If somebody thought they'd receive equal educations at Harvard and East Cupcake University and money were no object, which one would they choose? Most would choose the former, if for no other reason than because other people would be more impressed by it. But therein lies the rub: somebody has to think something is better for it to be more prestigious. If everybody thought that BMW made horrible cars, who would pay the premium to buy one?
Besides, whether or not more money actually makes a school (or car) better isn't really germane to the argument. The point is that most people think that more money = better school, and their actions are proof.
3.) Yes, I consider virtually all of the colleges near the top of the largest endowment and highest tuition lists to be elite. There are about 3,000 or so colleges in our country, so I'd say at least the top 300 or so should be considered elite. I find the idea that only the top 25 or so are really elite to be . . . well, elitist.
4.) Yes, it's okay for people to argue that public schools are doing fine with their current spending levels but that they should be allowed to spend more on their kid. If you don't think the city collects recycleables often enough, you're allowed to pay an outside company to come collect them more. Everybody always wants more for their families. The distinction that I'm drawing is that one cannot simultaneously want more for their families and argue that getting more doesn't matter. It just doesn't make sense.
Monday, October 26, 2009
Today's Random Thoughts
-Did you know that "kids love year-round school"? Of course, the year-round school discussed decided to extend its school year by adding "intersessions" every nine weeks or so. During these intercessionals, kids take less traditional classes like "math you can eat" or karate. They then have summer break that's only about half as long as usual. I disagree with the author that summer breaks are completely outdated, but she does seem awfully enthusiastic about her kids' school.
-The Economist is my favorite news magazine for a number of reasons, but chief among them is that they always take a removed, thoughtful tone. After reading through the Lexington (the American politics columnist) blog, they might want to re-think their blogging. In many instances, the blog is neither removed nor thoughtful in tone. For instance, a knee-jerk reaction to demographic data on New Orleans charter schools here. I once heard a speech by an advocate for New Orleans charter schools that highlighted how their students were doing better than the students who remained in traditional public schools. When asked if it was possible if better students were simply choosing to enroll in charter schools, he admitted that was probably what was going on but said he was paid to gloss over that fact. I was quite disturbed. And it's quite likely that the report Lexington references was influenced by the speaker I heard and his employer -- who admitted to engaging in dishonesty to sell their favorite reform.
-Here's a pretty fair article on corporal punishment in Mississippi from a few days back. Like a number of people interviewed, I generally have a visceral -- and negative -- reaction to corporal punishment when the subject is broached. But my opposition wavered when I saw the other punitive measures repeatedly tried and subsequently fail during my tenure in the Bronx.
-The Economist is my favorite news magazine for a number of reasons, but chief among them is that they always take a removed, thoughtful tone. After reading through the Lexington (the American politics columnist) blog, they might want to re-think their blogging. In many instances, the blog is neither removed nor thoughtful in tone. For instance, a knee-jerk reaction to demographic data on New Orleans charter schools here. I once heard a speech by an advocate for New Orleans charter schools that highlighted how their students were doing better than the students who remained in traditional public schools. When asked if it was possible if better students were simply choosing to enroll in charter schools, he admitted that was probably what was going on but said he was paid to gloss over that fact. I was quite disturbed. And it's quite likely that the report Lexington references was influenced by the speaker I heard and his employer -- who admitted to engaging in dishonesty to sell their favorite reform.
-Here's a pretty fair article on corporal punishment in Mississippi from a few days back. Like a number of people interviewed, I generally have a visceral -- and negative -- reaction to corporal punishment when the subject is broached. But my opposition wavered when I saw the other punitive measures repeatedly tried and subsequently fail during my tenure in the Bronx.
Friday, October 23, 2009
Today's Random Thoughts
-I somehow missed Thomas Friedman's op-ed the other day. Pretty standard boilerplate stuff about how we have to fix our schools to fix our economy in the long run. Except that there's a bit of a twist with the "fix our schools" part. He writes, "our schools have a doubly hard task now — not just improving reading, writing and arithmetic but entrepreneurship, innovation and creativity." While anybody who argues that test scores aren't, to some degree, indicative of a person (or country's) academic ability, is wrong, we have to keep in mind that they're not necessarily the ultimate goal. Improving test scores is a worthwhile endeavor, but we also have to ensure that we train our kids to think if we want to remain the wealthiest and most powerful country in the world.
-David Brooks joined the party today, writing that state legislatures that have recently taken steps to prevent the implementation of merit pay were "moving backwards". Given that we have virtually no evidence as of yet that merit pay works, I find it . . . let's say, odd . . . when people criticize those who don't implement it. It's somewhere between speculative and intellectually dishonest to suggest that those who support it are doing the right thing while those who don't are not.
-Bill Ferriter has a distressing piece on the recent school board elections in Wake County, NC. In case you didn't know, Wake County currently prohibits any school in the county from having a population made up of more than 45% economically disadvantaged students. The policy seems good on paper -- and there's evidence to support the notion that it's working -- but many people don't like the way it's implemented. Since neighborhoods are more homogeneous than schools are allowed to be, wide-scale busing is used to integrate schools. And people don't like their kids getting bused to another neighborhood or other kids getting bused into theirs. In other words, it looks like NIMBYism might win out yet again.
-Alexander Hoffman shares an interesting quote that I'd never heard before from the recently deceased Ted Sizer: Education is "the worthy residue that remains after the lessons have been forgotten." That sounds about right.
-One teacher writes about her negative experiences with fill-in teachers from the Absent Teacher Reserve in her school over at GothamSchools. I have little doubt that there are a number of less-than-committed teachers still in the ATR. But I also can't help but notice that the coverage of the ATR issue has been more than a little slanted in virtually all media outlets. More on this next week.
-David Brooks joined the party today, writing that state legislatures that have recently taken steps to prevent the implementation of merit pay were "moving backwards". Given that we have virtually no evidence as of yet that merit pay works, I find it . . . let's say, odd . . . when people criticize those who don't implement it. It's somewhere between speculative and intellectually dishonest to suggest that those who support it are doing the right thing while those who don't are not.
-Bill Ferriter has a distressing piece on the recent school board elections in Wake County, NC. In case you didn't know, Wake County currently prohibits any school in the county from having a population made up of more than 45% economically disadvantaged students. The policy seems good on paper -- and there's evidence to support the notion that it's working -- but many people don't like the way it's implemented. Since neighborhoods are more homogeneous than schools are allowed to be, wide-scale busing is used to integrate schools. And people don't like their kids getting bused to another neighborhood or other kids getting bused into theirs. In other words, it looks like NIMBYism might win out yet again.
-Alexander Hoffman shares an interesting quote that I'd never heard before from the recently deceased Ted Sizer: Education is "the worthy residue that remains after the lessons have been forgotten." That sounds about right.
-One teacher writes about her negative experiences with fill-in teachers from the Absent Teacher Reserve in her school over at GothamSchools. I have little doubt that there are a number of less-than-committed teachers still in the ATR. But I also can't help but notice that the coverage of the ATR issue has been more than a little slanted in virtually all media outlets. More on this next week.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Today's Random Thoughts
-If money doesn't matter in education, why are all of the most expensive colleges among the nation's elite?
-Did you know that even the most pessimistic teachers are significantly more optimistic than the general public about the extent to which teachers can help even poor students who have uninvolved parents? With all the rhetoric about defeatists and bad teachers flying around, let's not forget that most teachers are neither.
-A number of districts have taken to filling their teaching vacancies with foreign teachers. While culture shock means it doesn't always work out, done the right way we can learn a lot from foreign teachers.
-I've devoted more than a few posts to asking whether we should educate poor kids differently. Deborah Meier says that what works for rich students works for all students.
update: and a couple more:
-Here's a good, super-short story about corruption, cops, and truancy (hat tip: GothamSchools)
-I give any new blog a lengthy tryout before I think about adding it to my blogroll or subscribe to the feed in Google Reader, but Linda Perlstein's new blog is off to a good start. In her second post, she corrects Obama's insinuation that teachers influence achievement more than even home factors. Though I don't quite understand why she thinks that principals, who many kids barely see, influence kids as much as teachers.
-Did you know that even the most pessimistic teachers are significantly more optimistic than the general public about the extent to which teachers can help even poor students who have uninvolved parents? With all the rhetoric about defeatists and bad teachers flying around, let's not forget that most teachers are neither.
-A number of districts have taken to filling their teaching vacancies with foreign teachers. While culture shock means it doesn't always work out, done the right way we can learn a lot from foreign teachers.
-I've devoted more than a few posts to asking whether we should educate poor kids differently. Deborah Meier says that what works for rich students works for all students.
update: and a couple more:
-Here's a good, super-short story about corruption, cops, and truancy (hat tip: GothamSchools)
-I give any new blog a lengthy tryout before I think about adding it to my blogroll or subscribe to the feed in Google Reader, but Linda Perlstein's new blog is off to a good start. In her second post, she corrects Obama's insinuation that teachers influence achievement more than even home factors. Though I don't quite understand why she thinks that principals, who many kids barely see, influence kids as much as teachers.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Standards: Why Anyone Should Bother
For the last couple weeks, Alexander Hoffman has been writing about why he thinks standards are pointless over at Gotham Schools. He raises a number of good points, and I generally agree with him that aren't the silver bullet that many seem to think they are. Anybody sitting in a statehouse who thinks that adding or a deleting a standard is going to magically transform schools is sorely mistaken: most teachers don't even spend that much time thinking about the standards.
But I disagree with the implication that standards are useless and a waste of time. I think they're both moderately helpful and an appropriate thing for state and federal governments to create. Here are my top four reasons why we should support the formation of standards:
1.) They give distant governments the right level of control. Districts, schools, and teachers should all have a fair amount of autonomy when deciding what and how to teach their students. Hoffman points out that standards don't influence those decisions all that much, which seems appropriate to me. If I were still teaching, I wouldn't want a state-mandated curriculum that mapped out every second of every day for me. But it's appropriate that the people of the state, through the state legislature, create a document outlining goals that students at each grade should strive to meet. It allows the state to gently guide instruction without becoming overly intrusive.
2.) Students should have some common experiences in schools. Some education scholars argue that the main purpose of schooling, historically speaking, has been social cohesion -- bonding a country together by ensuring that people grow up with similar experiences and knowing similar things. Even if you don't buy that argument, ensuring that students have somewhat similar experience in school has pragmatic implications as well: I have to believe that the majority of students move to a new school at some point in time, and it helps if that new schools is teaching somewhat similar things in a somewhat similar way.
3.) National standards are the only hope for NCLB-like accountability. NCLB has pluses and minuses, but most people still support an accountability system in some shape or form. And even those who back NCLB-like accountability 100% have to admit that NCLB is not working the way it should. And that's largely due to the way that states have gamed the system when they create their own tests and set their own passing scores on those tests. I am convinced, as are many others, that the only way an NCLB-like accountability system can work is if there are national tests. And the only way we can have national tests is if we first create national standards, both politically and practically. Politically because there's no way that states are going to agree to submit themselves to national tests immediately without some sort of lead up. And practically because without national standards there's no fair way to determine what should be on national tests.
4.) They're the most practical solution to the problem. In all three of the situations I describe above, there are other possible solutions. We could create a comprehensive federal curriculum (like France, for example) in lieu of standards. But that's not happening anytime soon, and I don't think most people would like to see it happen. Let's face it, governments at the state and federal level need to have some level of control over schools. And I can think of no better solution than allowing them to create standards. Sure, they're not going to magically transform schools -- and many teachers will scoff and mostly ignore them -- but it's the best of both worlds: society at large gets a say in determining what happens in our schools, but teachers and school leaders still get to fill in the details.
But I disagree with the implication that standards are useless and a waste of time. I think they're both moderately helpful and an appropriate thing for state and federal governments to create. Here are my top four reasons why we should support the formation of standards:
1.) They give distant governments the right level of control. Districts, schools, and teachers should all have a fair amount of autonomy when deciding what and how to teach their students. Hoffman points out that standards don't influence those decisions all that much, which seems appropriate to me. If I were still teaching, I wouldn't want a state-mandated curriculum that mapped out every second of every day for me. But it's appropriate that the people of the state, through the state legislature, create a document outlining goals that students at each grade should strive to meet. It allows the state to gently guide instruction without becoming overly intrusive.
2.) Students should have some common experiences in schools. Some education scholars argue that the main purpose of schooling, historically speaking, has been social cohesion -- bonding a country together by ensuring that people grow up with similar experiences and knowing similar things. Even if you don't buy that argument, ensuring that students have somewhat similar experience in school has pragmatic implications as well: I have to believe that the majority of students move to a new school at some point in time, and it helps if that new schools is teaching somewhat similar things in a somewhat similar way.
3.) National standards are the only hope for NCLB-like accountability. NCLB has pluses and minuses, but most people still support an accountability system in some shape or form. And even those who back NCLB-like accountability 100% have to admit that NCLB is not working the way it should. And that's largely due to the way that states have gamed the system when they create their own tests and set their own passing scores on those tests. I am convinced, as are many others, that the only way an NCLB-like accountability system can work is if there are national tests. And the only way we can have national tests is if we first create national standards, both politically and practically. Politically because there's no way that states are going to agree to submit themselves to national tests immediately without some sort of lead up. And practically because without national standards there's no fair way to determine what should be on national tests.
4.) They're the most practical solution to the problem. In all three of the situations I describe above, there are other possible solutions. We could create a comprehensive federal curriculum (like France, for example) in lieu of standards. But that's not happening anytime soon, and I don't think most people would like to see it happen. Let's face it, governments at the state and federal level need to have some level of control over schools. And I can think of no better solution than allowing them to create standards. Sure, they're not going to magically transform schools -- and many teachers will scoff and mostly ignore them -- but it's the best of both worlds: society at large gets a say in determining what happens in our schools, but teachers and school leaders still get to fill in the details.
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Sunday Commentary: Are "Reformers" Really Offering Reform?
Over the past year or more we've heard a lot about the "reformers vs. defenders of the status quo" (or "deformers vs. realists," depending on what you read). Indeed, support for what started out as a small set of reforms proposed by conservatives has now come to represent, to many, whether somebody actually wants to improve schools or not.
What "reformers" are talking about are really a very narrow set of reforms: more charter schools, merit pay, and generally weaker unions. Ten years ago these were pushed by conservative think thanks. But now they've gone mainstream. The gospel has spread to liberal op-ed columnist Nicholas Kristof ("cowed by teachers’ unions, Democrats have too often resisted reform and stood by as generations of disadvantaged children have been cemented into an underclass by third-rate schools."), and the liberal Washington Post editorial board ("Charter Success: Poor Children Learn. Teachers Unions are not Pleased") and become the backbone of Obama's education policy. Meanwhile, conservative publications lionize "reformers" by, for example, portraying Michelle Rhee as Joan of Arc (rather ironic that conservatives are lionizing reformers when you think about it, but that's another topic for another time).
I have little doubt that all of these reforms have the support of the majority of Americans right now. And I have little doubt that all will continue to spread for at least the next few years. And it's possible that they might even help out our schools and our country. But I find the rhetoric surrounding these reforms incredibly disturbing -- and, really, non-sensical.
I'm disturbed that many who push these reforms often imply that they've been proven to work and that anybody who stands in their way is standing in the way of progress. Meanwhile, as former Bush appointee Russ Whitehurst wrote on Friday, evidence to date shows that a number of other reforms are far more effective.
More troubling, however, is the notion that one is only a "reformer" if they support these particular reforms. It's a somewhat impressive rhetorical sleight of hand, but it makes no sense when critically examined. There are tons of reforms with a similar amount (i.e. very little) of research (or more) behind them. And there are a ton of reforms we could advocate that would be far more radical and "reform-y" than the narrow set that is dominating the current conversation on schools. Here are a few:
-Shrink class sizes. The Tennessee STAR project showed fairly definitively that children in smaller classes learned more.
-Double pay for starting teachers and see if we can't attract more people away from Wall St. and into the classroom.
-Integrate schools. Wake County has has some success with this, while many other districts create charters that are often more segregated than non-charter schools.
-End the 9-10 month school year and divide it up into smaller (e.g. six week) units. Then see if holding kids back that fail a unit doesn't work out a little better and motivate a little more.
-End teacher grading of students. Instead, create classrooms that work more like sports teams: teachers and kids have the same goal and they all fail or succeed together base on an external event (or impartial evaluator).
-Scrap the 8-3 (or 7:30-2:30) school day and start classes at 9am or later for older students, whose body clocks indicate they work better at later hours.
-"Unschool" children. Let them choose what they want to learn, rather than forcing things down their throats.
I could list a thousand more, but I think you get the point. I'm guessing that self-titled "reformers" (and others) would oppose a lot of these reforms. Does that make them defenders of the status quo? Does that mean that only people who support some of these reforms are truly "reformers"?
That supporting or opposing a very narrow set of reforms with very little evidence behind them has come to define one's standing as a "reformer" or an evildoer is preposterous. These particular reforms are far from the most radical out there. Nor are they necessarily the best ones out there. While deriding anybody who opposes this particular set of reforms as a "defender of the status quo" may score political points -- and advance this set of reforms -- it hardly lends itself to a productive debate. Or to bettering our nation's schools. Which should be the ultimate goal.
What "reformers" are talking about are really a very narrow set of reforms: more charter schools, merit pay, and generally weaker unions. Ten years ago these were pushed by conservative think thanks. But now they've gone mainstream. The gospel has spread to liberal op-ed columnist Nicholas Kristof ("cowed by teachers’ unions, Democrats have too often resisted reform and stood by as generations of disadvantaged children have been cemented into an underclass by third-rate schools."), and the liberal Washington Post editorial board ("Charter Success: Poor Children Learn. Teachers Unions are not Pleased") and become the backbone of Obama's education policy. Meanwhile, conservative publications lionize "reformers" by, for example, portraying Michelle Rhee as Joan of Arc (rather ironic that conservatives are lionizing reformers when you think about it, but that's another topic for another time).
I have little doubt that all of these reforms have the support of the majority of Americans right now. And I have little doubt that all will continue to spread for at least the next few years. And it's possible that they might even help out our schools and our country. But I find the rhetoric surrounding these reforms incredibly disturbing -- and, really, non-sensical.
I'm disturbed that many who push these reforms often imply that they've been proven to work and that anybody who stands in their way is standing in the way of progress. Meanwhile, as former Bush appointee Russ Whitehurst wrote on Friday, evidence to date shows that a number of other reforms are far more effective.
More troubling, however, is the notion that one is only a "reformer" if they support these particular reforms. It's a somewhat impressive rhetorical sleight of hand, but it makes no sense when critically examined. There are tons of reforms with a similar amount (i.e. very little) of research (or more) behind them. And there are a ton of reforms we could advocate that would be far more radical and "reform-y" than the narrow set that is dominating the current conversation on schools. Here are a few:
-Shrink class sizes. The Tennessee STAR project showed fairly definitively that children in smaller classes learned more.
-Double pay for starting teachers and see if we can't attract more people away from Wall St. and into the classroom.
-Integrate schools. Wake County has has some success with this, while many other districts create charters that are often more segregated than non-charter schools.
-End the 9-10 month school year and divide it up into smaller (e.g. six week) units. Then see if holding kids back that fail a unit doesn't work out a little better and motivate a little more.
-End teacher grading of students. Instead, create classrooms that work more like sports teams: teachers and kids have the same goal and they all fail or succeed together base on an external event (or impartial evaluator).
-Scrap the 8-3 (or 7:30-2:30) school day and start classes at 9am or later for older students, whose body clocks indicate they work better at later hours.
-"Unschool" children. Let them choose what they want to learn, rather than forcing things down their throats.
I could list a thousand more, but I think you get the point. I'm guessing that self-titled "reformers" (and others) would oppose a lot of these reforms. Does that make them defenders of the status quo? Does that mean that only people who support some of these reforms are truly "reformers"?
That supporting or opposing a very narrow set of reforms with very little evidence behind them has come to define one's standing as a "reformer" or an evildoer is preposterous. These particular reforms are far from the most radical out there. Nor are they necessarily the best ones out there. While deriding anybody who opposes this particular set of reforms as a "defender of the status quo" may score political points -- and advance this set of reforms -- it hardly lends itself to a productive debate. Or to bettering our nation's schools. Which should be the ultimate goal.
Friday, October 16, 2009
Today's Random Thoughts
-A new RAND report indicates that NYC's retention policy may be helping kids who are retained (GothamSchools, NYTimes). I haven't read the report yet, but news accounts indicate it finds that kids held back in the past three years have done better than similar kids in the three years prior to the policy. I'm not sure why they'd pick that comparison group instead of utilizing regression discontinuity to compare retained kids to other, nearly identical, kids who weren't retained. Meanwhile, Memphis is moving in the opposite direction -- they've decided not to hold back kids in K-3, in part to save money.
-Richard Whitmire says that Michelle Rhee "has no choice" -- she has to "play tough." I kind of buy that she can't always be a people pleaser in her position, but she'd do well to remember that the people she's dealing with are just that -- people. And there's seldom any acceptable reason to treat other human beings poorly. And his argument that charters succeed because they get to "can pick and choose their staff" is asinine. Traditional public schools choose their staff as well, it just so happens that more of the hiring decisions were made in the past. And if the district made poor hiring decisions or awarded people tenure when they shouldn't have, the district only has itself to blame.
-Ever notice that the self-titled "reformers" aren't really proposing radical reforms? Or that there's little evidence that their preferred reforms are even the right ones? It's really a brilliant sleight of hand, though it does little to help our schools and our children. More on this on Sunday.
-Richard Whitmire says that Michelle Rhee "has no choice" -- she has to "play tough." I kind of buy that she can't always be a people pleaser in her position, but she'd do well to remember that the people she's dealing with are just that -- people. And there's seldom any acceptable reason to treat other human beings poorly. And his argument that charters succeed because they get to "can pick and choose their staff" is asinine. Traditional public schools choose their staff as well, it just so happens that more of the hiring decisions were made in the past. And if the district made poor hiring decisions or awarded people tenure when they shouldn't have, the district only has itself to blame.
-Ever notice that the self-titled "reformers" aren't really proposing radical reforms? Or that there's little evidence that their preferred reforms are even the right ones? It's really a brilliant sleight of hand, though it does little to help our schools and our children. More on this on Sunday.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Has Kristof Gone Krazy?
Nicholas Kristof is at it again. He's written another misinformed op-ed about education in the NY Times.
Yes, I'm annoyed that he seems to imply that in-school factors are more important than non-school factors when we know the opposite is true. And, yes, I'm annoyed that he reverentially references Stephen Brill's hatchet job. And, yes, I'm annoyed that he cites anecdotal evidence to argue that the exception disproves the rule. And, yes, I'm annoyed that he assumes enacting certain reforms is moving in the right direction despite very little evidence that these reforms will improve things.
But what bothers me most is his statement that "A study found that if black students had four straight years of teachers from the top 25 percent of most effective teachers, the black-white testing gap would vanish in four years." Please -- everybody -- please stop saying this. It's, quite simply, not true
First of all, the study being referenced didn't "find" this -- it was speculation (or, in economist-speak, a back of the envelope calculation). Second of all, the speculation was based on an erroneous assumption -- that teacher effects were additive. In other words, that if a really good teacher could help kids close 1/4 of the achievement gap in one year, that four really good teachers could help kids completely close the gap in four years. But life doesn't work that way. For at least three reasons:
1.) The effect that a teacher has on students wanes over time as those kids go off and play over the summer and move on to different classes with different teachers.
2.) The large gain brought about by one teacher is, in part, due to the inferior teachers those students had in previous years. Now that they've had a world-beater, it will be harder for their teacher their next year to help them make as much progress.
3.) That large gain might not have even occurred. Measurement of teacher effects is notoriously imprecise. In a number of studies, the correlation between a teacher's effect one year and the next have been surprisingly inconsistent and have only low correlations.
note: Somehow an earlier, different, draft of this post ended up here after firefox crashed. This is the correct version.
update: really, seriously, his claim isn't true
Yes, I'm annoyed that he seems to imply that in-school factors are more important than non-school factors when we know the opposite is true. And, yes, I'm annoyed that he reverentially references Stephen Brill's hatchet job. And, yes, I'm annoyed that he cites anecdotal evidence to argue that the exception disproves the rule. And, yes, I'm annoyed that he assumes enacting certain reforms is moving in the right direction despite very little evidence that these reforms will improve things.
But what bothers me most is his statement that "A study found that if black students had four straight years of teachers from the top 25 percent of most effective teachers, the black-white testing gap would vanish in four years." Please -- everybody -- please stop saying this. It's, quite simply, not true
First of all, the study being referenced didn't "find" this -- it was speculation (or, in economist-speak, a back of the envelope calculation). Second of all, the speculation was based on an erroneous assumption -- that teacher effects were additive. In other words, that if a really good teacher could help kids close 1/4 of the achievement gap in one year, that four really good teachers could help kids completely close the gap in four years. But life doesn't work that way. For at least three reasons:
1.) The effect that a teacher has on students wanes over time as those kids go off and play over the summer and move on to different classes with different teachers.
2.) The large gain brought about by one teacher is, in part, due to the inferior teachers those students had in previous years. Now that they've had a world-beater, it will be harder for their teacher their next year to help them make as much progress.
3.) That large gain might not have even occurred. Measurement of teacher effects is notoriously imprecise. In a number of studies, the correlation between a teacher's effect one year and the next have been surprisingly inconsistent and have only low correlations.
note: Somehow an earlier, different, draft of this post ended up here after firefox crashed. This is the correct version.
update: really, seriously, his claim isn't true
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Not An Exceptional Performance
The latest NAEP results are out, and they're not particularly impressive. 4th grade scores were unchanged, but 8th grade scores inched upwards (doesn't it always seem like it's the opposite?). More importantly, racial and income achievement gaps were unchanged.
Here's something I learned from poking around their data explorer: the black-white achievement gap is larger in large cities (294-256=38 points or 12.9%) than it is in the country as a whole (293-261=32 points or 10.9%).
I also found these charts particularly interesting:
These are all 8th grade math scores, but the 4th grade math scores look similar. Since NCLB began in the 2002-03 school year, students who were in 8th grade in 2008-09 were in 2nd grade at the time -- meaning that NCLB has been in effect during every tested grade. As such, we'd expect to see a narrowing of gaps not only between students from of different races and socioeconomic statuses, but also between low and high achievers. And, except for the leap between 2000 and 2003, we've seen none of these.
update: It's also worth noting in the second chart that the "proficient" cut-off score is 299 -- something all students are supposed to able to reach by 2014 (yes, I know that NCLB only actually applies to the state tests and not NAEP). By now, we should be able to see more students that were a little below the proficient cut-off now making it.
One final note: D.C. looked better than perhaps any state in the report's breakdown of which states saw score increases since 2007. That could be good news for Michelle Rhee. Of course, it's also worth noting that D.C. still has lower scores than any state -- and by a fairly large margin.
Here's something I learned from poking around their data explorer: the black-white achievement gap is larger in large cities (294-256=38 points or 12.9%) than it is in the country as a whole (293-261=32 points or 10.9%).
I also found these charts particularly interesting:
These are all 8th grade math scores, but the 4th grade math scores look similar. Since NCLB began in the 2002-03 school year, students who were in 8th grade in 2008-09 were in 2nd grade at the time -- meaning that NCLB has been in effect during every tested grade. As such, we'd expect to see a narrowing of gaps not only between students from of different races and socioeconomic statuses, but also between low and high achievers. And, except for the leap between 2000 and 2003, we've seen none of these.
update: It's also worth noting in the second chart that the "proficient" cut-off score is 299 -- something all students are supposed to able to reach by 2014 (yes, I know that NCLB only actually applies to the state tests and not NAEP). By now, we should be able to see more students that were a little below the proficient cut-off now making it.
One final note: D.C. looked better than perhaps any state in the report's breakdown of which states saw score increases since 2007. That could be good news for Michelle Rhee. Of course, it's also worth noting that D.C. still has lower scores than any state -- and by a fairly large margin.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)