The EDifierJuly 28, 2010 I was recently reminded of one of my favorite books in education: Under Deadman’s Skin, by Jane Katch. The book opens this way:
“The five- and six-year-olds in my class have invented a new game they call Suicide….I have never seen a game I hate so much in which all the children involved are so happy.”
Katch takes an explosive subject — violent play — and explores it thoughtfully, going beyond the usual arguments and her own sensitivies to reach a deeper understanding of why children are attracted to violent images and how they deal with them. The book was published almost ten years ago, but it’s no less insightful.
I live in a small apartment. I don’t have room for many more books. But I bought a copy of this one. If you’re looking for summer reading, start with this one. You won’t regret it. –Rebecca St. Andrie
July 27, 2010 The ability to relate various school factors to student outcomes is a powerful tool for educational improvement. This data allows educators to examine their own practices for their effect on student learning and helps them to identify what is working and what they need to improve.
Policymakers also see a lot of potential in this data as a key element in school reform policies, notably those intended to assure that all students have access to effective teachers. The federal Race to the Top competition awards its sizable grants in part on states’ capacity to link teachers to student performance, and judging by the amount of state action in this area, the federal strategy seems to be working.
In my work, I love having data to help me gauge how I’m doing, whether it’s in the form of survey feedback or analyzing web traffic. I think educators would likewise welcome having really good information about the impact of their instruction. But like all tools, you need the right one to fit the purpose.
As we have written in these pages before, the statistical methods that produce this data are not designed to do all things (see in particular Measuring student growth). For example, data that is used for hiring or compensation decisions must meet a more rigorous standard than data that teachers use to reflect on their own practices. In addition, it can be difficult to get data for teachers who teach subjects that aren’t tested.
The Data Quality Campaign recently published a very useful policy brief that lays out major implications that policymakers should consider in putting together a valid and reliable teacher-student link (Effectively Linking Teachers and Students). Foremost among these are purely logistical: how do you define the teacher of record? what about team teaching? teachers of untested subjects? virtual classes? are student rosters up to date and accurate? DQC emphasizes that while IT and data staff will necessarily be at the table to solve these problems, the issue is fundamentally a policy matter. They recommend that any system be designed in collaboration with all the stakeholders, especially the teachers it will affect. We agree. –Patte Barth
July 23, 2010 Budget cuts leave tall grass, weeds. This headline from USA Today caught my eye a couple of weeks ago. I’ve been getting quite annoyed seeing the tall grass surrounding the roads I drive every day. Not only are they an eyesore, they are making it more dangerous to make turns. And I really wasn’t happy to hear Virginia’s Transportation officials plead for private citizens to help mow public areas. Beyond the fact that sounds like a lawsuit waiting to happen, it got me thinking about the budget cuts our nation’s schools have been facing.
While states are asking their citizens to mow their lawns, schools are asking teachers, parents, and students to provide resources once supplied by the school. Schools are asking for parents to bring in basic supplies such as cleaning supplies and chalk to help offset the severe cuts almost every school district in the country is facing. Unfortunately, the cuts go way beyond cutting necessary supplies. More than two-thirds of districts are eliminating teacher positions and even more are eliminating effective instructional programs.
There is some arguing that such cuts will be good for schools in the long-run by forcing them to become more efficient. I have my doubts. Since the economic downturn began in 2008, schools had already eliminated most of the so-called “fluff” in their budgets. They had altered thermostats to lower utility costs, deferred maintenance, and cut back on the number of employee BlackBerrys given out, just to name a few. But there is little fluff to cut anymore. With the dramatic decrease in revenues from state and local coffers, schools have been making more dramatic cuts that directly affect students.
Students are going to start school in September in larger classes, with fewer courses to choose from. Districts have had to lay off teachers and eliminate course offerings that are not required for graduation. Districts also have had to eliminate instructional programs not because they were ineffective but just because they didn’t have the money. The ineffective programs have been long gone and all that’s left to cut are programs that are actually working.
Seeing such cuts doesn’t give me optimism that our schools will all of sudden realize they can do more with less. Our schools face tremendous challenges. Research provides guidance on what works to meet those challenges. Unfortunately, districts are having to cut programs that have been proven to work. This isn’t more efficient. This is leaving the grass along the side of the road to grow until someone else cuts it. Schools should and are doing more with less, but how much less can schools get before they are unable to do more? – Jim Hull
July 21, 2010 NBC has had a great idea and decided to put education in the spotlight with its Education Summit this September. However, I have to say NBC needs a little education itself on how to read data.
First off, NBC provides the statistic that U.S. students ranked 21st in the world in math and 25th in science on the international assessment PISA. First, PISA results are not designed to rank countries, as if testing was like a horse race (read more about in the Center’s Guide to international assessments).
Second, PISA is just one international assessment. In TIMSS, which assesses the math and science performance of 4th and 8th graders, U.S. students compare favorably to their peers by scoring significantly (see statistically significant) above the international average in math in both grades. At the 8th grade level, U.S. students scored significantly better than 37 out of the 47 participating countries. Only 5 countries (all Asian countries) scored significantly above U.S. 8th graders. We may not be number one, but we’re doing a lot better internationally than you would think from NBC’s press release.
When using international assessments NBC just didn’t give a full picture of how U.S. students really perform. When using national assessments, NBC just got it plain wrong. NBC claims that NAEP scores show that 68% of eighth graders can’t “read at grade level.” This is not true. Sixty-eight percent of eighth graders scored below Proficient in 2009.
If NBC had read our report The proficiency debate, it would know that NAEP’s “Proficient” level is not synonymous with “on grade level.” Proficient is a higher standard than being on grade level. So saying that two-thirds of eighth graders can’t read at grade level is plain wrong.
It’s not that all our schools are doing so well that we don’t need to do anything. NAEP’s “Below Basic” level shows that far too many students perform poorly in our schools. But exaggerating the problems and painting all schools with the same brush will do nothing to help the students that need the most help. Across the country, there are countless traditional public schools that are just as or even more successful than highly touted successful charter schools such as KIPP and Harlem’s Children Zone. Although you can read about the traditional public schools’ success stories here, they rarely garner the national media attention successful charter schools receive. If we focus too much on national averages, as NBC has done, we will lose sight of these successful public schools – and their lessons on how to improve other public schools.
So, when evaluating our public schools we have to be careful to get the picture right. We have numerous great public schools that parents, communities, and local businesses know are meeting the needs of their students. We also have too many schools that are struggling to meet tremendous challenges. Instead of painting all schools with the same negative brush, NBC should ask these questions: what are the problems, where are they, and what can we do about them? Basing our decisions about education on a couple of misinterpreted pieces of data will only impair our effective schools while denying ineffective schools the support they need. – Jim Hull
July 6, 2010 Small schools are the latest education strategy to be reportedly “losing steam,” and I wish educators would stop throwing the reform baby out with the bathwater.
Two articles in the Philadelphia Inquirer provide a fairly thoughtful look at the results of that city’s four new small high schools. Two in particular are highlighted — one that has done very well, and another that has struggled.
Reading through the articles, the reasons why seem pretty understandable. The struggling small high school had high turnover and a shifting mission. The successful one had clear goals and stable leadership.
Yet the article reports that “the results have been mixed [for the small-school strategy], national and local research shows. Students at small high schools were more likely to graduate, have positive relationships with their teachers, and feel safer. Still, they did no better on standardized tests than did their peers at big schools.”
Wait. A higher graduation rate and better attitude towards school aren’t enough?
I agree that school reform strategies should only happen if they measurably affect student outcomes. But small schools are primarily a strategy to improve environment. And there’s lots of research (summarized in a report by the Center) that shows, when they’re planned correctly, they do just that.
But what this article and so many others in education imply is that one reform strategy should solve every educational problem present in schools.
I think it’s smart to remember that we are dealing with people here. Large groups of people. Not to mention lots of different requirements. Think about your own work life. How hard is it for change to happen there? How many different factors affect whether something gets produced well, on time, and on budget?
Let’s stop dismissing any one education reform because it doesn’t do everything. I think it’d be far more interesting to start considering what combinations of education reforms might work best. –Rebecca St. Andrie
« Newer Posts — Older Posts »
 RSS Feed |
|
Print