Posts
In the midst of the state financial crisis, the governor and legislature still found funds in the budget to increase education spending across the state by a record $1.75 billion dollars. School spending has long been at the center of a key public policy debate, one that was "resolved" by a settlement of the long standing Campaign for Fiscal Equity lawsuit.
That lawsuit began as an effort to create a uniform funding formula that would insure that New York City schoolchildren would get a "fair" share of total state spending. It morphed into debate as to just how much public spending it takes to provide a quality education.
Now that settlement is at risk. This year the funds were "found." Next year is likely to bring a heavy dose of fiscal reality due to an uncertain economy.
[snip]
If one measures a quality education by an improvement in test scores, we have already proven in New York City that there is no linkage between increased education expenditures and better performance, at least those measured by test scores.
Students here have been the beneficiaries of the most substantial increase in school spending ever. The city education budget has ballooned under Mayor Bloomberg from $12.5 billion in Fiscal Year 2003 to more than $20 billion annually now. Although some of this results from increased state aid, and a bit from federal largesse, most of the influx of cash comes out of the pockets of city taxpayers. All this money is serving a measurably smaller student population — during this same period, city public schools lost 60,000 students, about a 5% decline.
[snip]
Curriculum Choice. Teaching and curriculum strategies can be divided, albeit simplistically, into two categories: progressivism and instructivism. Progressive education, which assumes that children gather knowledge naturally with little intervention by teachers dominates our schools, almost to the exclusion of what most of us would deem "traditional" teacher-led instruction. This is the strategy that has failed us both in the days before mayoral control as well as today.
Why not offer parents, within the existing public schools, the explicit choice of which pedagogy they prefer for their children? This can be done in any school with two or more classes per grade, and not add anything to the cost of instruction. My suspicion is that the test scores of children taught a content-rich curriculum in a traditional setting will outpace those of the students in the "progressive" classroom next door. In fact, I would predict that in not too many years, progressive pedagogy would retreat into a small number of "boutique" schools, as parental demand for better instruction grows. While choice advocates continue their fight for vouchers and increasing the number of charter schools, parents can be given potent choices that can be put in place now, and with substantially less controversy. For those who seek to build better communities by strengthening neighborhood schools, here is a way to achieve this without removing more tax dollars from our pockets.
Making Do With Fewer Dollars
by Andrew Wolf
NY Sun April 11, 2008
I've been saying this for years.
Create a constructivist track and a classical or traditional track inside the same school. Let parents choose which track they prefer for their kids; let teachers choose which track they prefer to teach.
The Main Street School once did something like this. Two of the best teachers in the school teamed up to teach a "project course." All content was to be taught via projects.
Approximately 25% of the "rising" 5th grade parents signed their kids up for the class. And remember: these teachers were universally seen as terrific people and professionals. And yet I was told at the time that the school was having to recruit parents to enroll their kids in the class, and some parents signed up mainly to guarantee their children would be with their friends. The rest of us couldn't choose our kids' classmates.
The point is: Irvington has already run this experiment, and we have our answer. A constructivist class here in Irvington will attract 25% of the parent population at most even under the best of circumstances. The vast majority of parents -- that would be the people who are paying the bills and elect the school board -- did not want their kids in a project-based class.
Today, just 4 years later, we are a project-based district K-8, and the high school is in the cross hairs.
They do what they do.
8 comments:
"I've been saying this for years."
I know. Me too. It costs only a little bit more effort, and they give parents what they want. They also have a real experiment in what works and what doesn't.
It would be simple to set up two math class groupings for K-6. Parents get to select either Singapore Math or Everyday Math in first grade. They would quickly see that Singapore Math is the high expectation track and Everyday Math is the low expectation track. All of this talk of understanding and balance is meaningless. Less can't be more. I think schools really understand the differences between the two approaches(easy vs. hard).
When I had long discussions about Singapore Math with the curriculum head at my son's old private school, she said that she liked Singapore Math, but Everyday Math was better for the mix of kids they had. Did that mean that these kids had diverse learning styles or that she thought Singapore Math was too difficult. Too difficult. Teachers who aren't good in math are making decisions based on their own biases and low expectations.
Constructivism versus Instructivism translates into low versus high expectations. It doesn't have to be, but that's really the whole point. If you implement these two techniques in one school, it will quickly be seen as two separate academic tracks. Schools understand this, but this is their turf and they will decide.
It's all quite incredible.
"The point is: Irvington has already run this experiment, and we have our answer."
Has this choice ever been made public in the way you have done here? What happened when the program disappeared? Why wasn't there an armed uprising? They let the cat out of the bag, but the parents let them put it back in?
A school in New Milford, CT that had been using Everday Math exclusively ran a pilot program with Singapore Math and Saxon a number of years ago. Both pilot programs showed significant gains over EM, students were happier and parents were convinced that change was the ticket. The fascinating part of the whole process is that even though Singpore Math resulted in amazing gains, the teachers found it "less teacher friendly". The district ended up implementing a hybrid of Everyday Math and Saxon. So, even though Singapore Math was the better choice by the results of their own pilot study, and Saxon was much better than what they had been doing, EM refused to die.
They do what they do.
It would be simple to set up two math class groupings for K-6. Parents get to select either Singapore Math or Everyday Math in first grade. They would quickly see that Singapore Math is the high expectation track and Everyday Math is the low expectation track.
Parents at a board meeting once told administrators to offer a Trailblazers track and a Saxon or Singapore track.
The administrators said that couldn't possibly be done & the parents said obviously it could be done.
My district is probably planning to implement constructivist math in grades 6-12. The sense I get from the Tri State Consortium report, which praises Trailblazers to the skies and laments the "traditional" math environment of the middle & high school.
Has this choice ever been made public in the way you have done here? What happened when the program disappeared? Why wasn't there an armed uprising?
It was just an experiment that was never repeated (partly because one of the team teachers was pregnant that year, as I recall).
They did it; then they didn't do it again.
even though Singapore Math was the better choice by the results of their own pilot study, and Saxon was much better than what they had been doing, EM refused to die
I know!
Time to secede.
--It costs only a little bit more effort, and they give parents what they want. They also have a real experiment in what works and what doesn't.
They KNOW what works. they admit DI works. But it limits them.
http://www.ccsso.org/projects/National_Teacher_of_the_Year/Selection_Process/ lists the council of chief state school offericers National Teacher of the Year program. Here are the criteria for selection:
A candidate for National Teacher of the Year should be an exceptionally dedicated, knowledgeable, and skilled teacher in any state-approved or accredited school, prekindergarten through grade twelve, who is planning to continue in an active teaching status (Supervisory and administrative responsibilities should be of secondary consideration).
-inspire students of all backgrounds and abilities to learn
-have the respect and admiration of students, parents, and colleagues
-play an active and useful role in the community as well as in the school
-be poised, articulate, and possess the energy to withstand a taxing schedule
They want to be Good People! They want to be inspiring! It's all about THEM!
That's why they can't give parents what they want, because they see "parents" as "those chaotic creatures that all want different things, and we can't function that way." Because how could they be inspiring following the DI script, when they want to be free spirits?
The other problem is that there really aren't enough teachers left to teach the classical or traditional model. They are not schooled in it, not capable of it. The administrators wouldn't know where to begin if they created such autonomy.
And fundamentally, they think the parents are wrong. Parents don't know about pedagogy, or about diversity or about creating an education-by-inquiry world. If they thought parents should influence what children learn, they wouldnt' have gone into Ed school in the first place! They went in to FIX what's wrong with parents who incorrectly raise their own kids...
those chaotic creatures that all want different things, and we can't function that way
I love that: chaotic creatures.
I haven't the wherewithal at the moment to get into all this, but my next book (probably) will be on the "compulsive-impulsive dimension" --- which is beautifully expressed by this Allison's phrase.
The other problem is that there really aren't enough teachers left to teach the classical or traditional model. They are not schooled in it, not capable of it.
This is certainly true (true of me, too) -- but you would find plenty of teachers who are naturally drawn to direct instruction (small letters)
Post a Comment