Posts
The report doesn't establish causality (and doesn't claim to), but the authors clearly think that NCLB and the standards movement in general is working: working in the sense that the bottom 10% on NAEP are steadily improving their achievement:
This is the first time I've seen the idea that NCLB is working supported by data.
It's also the first time I've heard that it's the bottom scorers, not the "bubble children" who are benefiting from NCLB.
A couple of things for now.
The report doesn't seem to mention the 1995 recentering of SAT scores or the fact that the decline in SAT scores was concentrated at the top. The report practically invites readers to shrug off the "needs" of the top 10% -- if they're already on top, how can they go higher?
Beyond this, I'm somewhat disturbed by the universal acceptance of the idea that "excellence" and "equity" are two separate things. Apparently the policy world is prepared to recognize only two conceivable positions:
- you can have equity or you can have excellence, but you can't have "both"
- you can have equity and you can have excellence; you can have "both"
The possibility that equity and excellence are flip sides of a coin isn't on the menu.
What I've seen, time and again, that if a school isn't doing a good job teaching the bottom 10%, it isn't doing a good job teaching the top 10%, either. It may look like it's doing a good job. But once you factor out the parent reteaching & the tutors, you see that ineffective teaching is ineffective teaching. Period.
I had started to wonder about this in terms of athletic programs. Often people think of athletics and academics as either/or -- and when you're talking about athletics and academics at the highest level of individual achievement, of course they are either/or.
But when you're looking at a school, what goes with what?
Good academics with poor athletics?
Good athletics with poor academics?
I'm coming to the conclusion that's not the case.
No time to give my various "data points" at the moment, so I'll content myself with just one.
Two weeks ago I attended the Sports Orientation Night at C's new school. The place was mobbed. The principal spoke first. Toward the end of this talk he said that 10 or 12 years ago, the school had decided to raise its admission standards. The one thing he regretted at the time, he told his wife, was that the school had always been known for its strong athletic programs. Once they started admitting more academically oriented kids with higher scores, their win-loss records would suffer.
But that's not what happened. Instead, the wins show up; in one year alone the school won 3 more citywide championships than they had in the preceding 7 years. The principal and the athletic director both said they still don't understand why that happened.
To me, it made sense. I'd been noticing that great high schools, academically speaking, tend to have great teams.
A school that's on the march is on the march. They're not on the march here, but phoning it in there. When you're on a mission, you're on a mission.
I understand that trade-offs exist, opportunity costs are real, etc. But I don't think "trade-offs" and "opportunity costs" capture the way a high-performing organization functions.
In fact, I'm sure of it.
Back later.
20 comments:
The problem could be that in order to be considered a "high-performing organization" schools have to ensure that lower performing students are showing improvement. Because of this, the reality of the situation is that that is where the focus of effort and money goes.
Apparently the teachers who participated in the survey are very unhappy about this and believe that it is not "just"
I agree. Resources should be appropriated to encourage ALL children to reach their fullest potential.
Shouldn't high-achievers be even that much more capable of making substantial gains?
Something is preventing that from happening.
I think so much of it has to do with work ethic. A kid that works hard at the academic stuff probably works just as hard at the athletic stuff too.
I tell my kids all the time that it's not about "natural talent"--it's about what you do with the talent you have.
I believe you're right. Successful schools are successful across the board. It's about setting high standards and doing your darndest to achieve them even when you don't feel like it.
p. 36
The math courses offered to NCLB-HA students deserve close scrutiny. As noted above, great progress has been made in providing algebra in most schools. Yet there is room for improvement. About one-quarter of NCLB-HA students(26.4%) are in math classes that precede algebra (prealgebra,general math, or other) compared to 18.0% of all high-achieving eighth graders. Thousands of excellent math students are not being adequately challenged in the subject—at a time when these students are about to enter high school.
THOUSANDS!!
When I was growing up, kids were either sports oriented or academics oriented. You could also afford to go to a professional baseball or basketball game. Sports are no longer the domain of the blue collar worker. Almost all kids start soccer or baseball by Kindergarten. Sports are big for even the smart kids. Add to that the impression (or reality) that sports matter on your college application and you have teams filled with smart, driven kids who have been playing sports for years.
Set high expectations and you may achieve them. Set low expectations and that's what you will get.
To the issue of the top being cut off at the knees, and this correct sentence:
-- you see that ineffective teaching is ineffective teaching. Period.
The problem is that ineffective teaching of the brightest doesn't much add to the welfare state, even if in the long run, it hampers society's ability to create new Apples, Googles, Vanguards, WalMarts, AT&Ts, Goldman Sachs, etc. On the margin, it's easy to see the detrimental value of illiterates, but hard to see the detrimental value of a lack of a cure for cancer or the lack of a new derivative or financial product, or the lack of that new invention we can't predict. So people look at the bright and say "well, you'll manage just fine".
Most of the people in education, though, also have a political viewpoint that lines up with the Road to Serfdom. They aren't really pleased with the idea that the world is filled with inequity anyway--and they don't really mind if the bright or well connected or wealthy are hobbled, because they don't like them much.
"Most of the people in education, though, also have a political viewpoint that lines up with the Road to Serfdom. They aren't really pleased with the idea that the world is filled with inequity anyway--and they don't really mind if the bright or well connected or wealthy are hobbled, because they don't like them much."
Do you really believe this?
Do you have some evidence to support this?
Regarding NAEP scores, Loveless documented in the 2004 Brown Center report that questions on the math NAEP have become easier, not harder, over the years. Thus, the rise in test scores is an artifact of a dumbed down test, not smarter students.
See here and here.
Allison wrote:
"...and they don't really mind if the bright or well connected or wealthy are hobbled, because they don't like them much."
But the bright, well connected or wealthy like them because they have been convinced that these ineffective techniques represent the sophisticated 21st century approach and that opponents must be ignorant fundamentalists who want to brainwash their kids.
when you're talking about athletics and academics at the highest level of individual achievement, of course they are either/or.
Gee, I wonder if the Olympic student-athletes at Stanford know that....
Well, Tiger Woods did, anyway: dropped out of Stanford to play golf full time.
And yet somehow I'm certain Tiger would have done very well at Stanford had he chosen to stay.
My kid's behind in soccer. She just turned 5.
In the new class she aged into she's (a) the only girl and (b) the one kid playing *at* soccer, not playing the sport.
In talking to the other parents, apparently we were supposed to be tutoring her at home in explicit soccer skills starting several years ago. Silly me, I thought I was supposed to be doing mathy things and Englemann (as well as leaving time for dress-up, playing store, and experimental-craft-making).
We did recently TiVo one of the Euro games so she could see how a real game is played -- that's useful, right?
-m (not Mark)
My son played *at* soccer for many years. He liked it from a skill standpoint, but he really didn't want to run all the time and mix it up. "If you really want the ball that much, you can have it." Unfortunately, by about 11 years old, you have to get serious or get out.
I can see why some kids like alternative or X-sports. My son likes sailing, but around here, they push you into the Opti circuit by 11 years old. Lots of sports seem like all or nothing. However, I have heard about some no-cut sports in high school.
Concerned wrote:
Shouldn't high-achievers be even that much more capable of making substantial gains?
I am not sure. I teach 6th grade at a public charter school that uses a Core Knowledge/Classical approach and(gasp) groups children for math and reading instruction. I have privately communicated the test scores of our students to Catherine and I think she would be willing to agree that the approach seems to work and most students achieve spectacular growth in math and, to a lesser degree, in reading.
Our school tests growth twice yearly with NWEA Measures of Academic Progress tests (otherwise known as MAPS). MAPS are computerized tests that automatically adjust the next question up or down in difficulty level based on whether a student's response is correct or incorrect. I noticed that students at the highest reading level(those reading as well as or better than 96-99% of other 6th grade students nationwide) quickly ended up with questions on extremely complex literature selections that most students would encounter in the upper high school grades. These 12 year olds really did not have the background knowledge or awareness into human behavior to correctly analyze and interpret the literature selections in order to discern the correct answers to the qustions. Because they missed some questions, their scores did not match the average 2 years of growth exhibited by the students at the lowest levels.
My reading instruction was consistently centered in Grade 8-9 level books and we worked hard to push into more sophisticated analysis of literature.If I had gone higher I surely would have encountered a lot of content that was not grade-level appropriate. And these were elementary students that were just stepping beyond analyzing basic plot elements. I am not sure it would have been appropriate to delve into the elements of irony and satire for example, or the structure of Shakespearian sonnets. But because they had not covered those facets of literature, they did miss questions. Nearly every student made a year's worth of growth but I do believe (at least on MAP reading tests) that it is harder to make greater gains at the tope levels of scoring.
Concerned wrote "Shouldn't high-achievers be even that much more capable of making substantial gains?"
They should be capable, but gains are only possible when the kids have access to curriculum and materials that they don't already know. I've got three kids I am reasonably certain are fairly bright. The 9 year old going to be fifth grader has spent YEARS in the classroom reading under her desk while her teacher(s) go over subjects she mastered years before. The school won't due subject acceleration. The 6 year old going to be second grader has spent YEARS waiting to learn some new math concepts/skills. The school won't due subject acceleration. The five year old going to be Kindergartener is not likely to sit quietly waiting for something he hasn't already seen....
Apparently, the school doesn't get any points toward AYP when kids like mine learn, or increase their scores on standardized tests. So, the school's rational response is to ignore my kids.
As an economist it makes complete sense, as a mother it is infuriating.
But, 6th grade teacher, if my nine year old had access to someone who would cover irony and satire she might actually be able to analyze literature.
Anynomous said
"They (high-achievers) should be capable, but gains are only possible when the kids have access to curriculum and materials that they don't already know."
EXACTLY what I was thinking!!
AND
These children, when exposed to new concepts in a coherent manner, could probably take the ball and really run with it!
I'm often amused by the contributions to math related topics (blogs and elsewhere too) that ignore the math in the topic, preferring instead, some dark conspiratorial conjecture with zero proof. This thread is a good example. Let's do some math.
My school district is organized on a K-8 model, neighborhood schools being the driving concept (post busing model). In the elementary grades this means a typical school might have two cohorts of 30 or so kids at each grade level, so 60 kids per grade. Kids are arbitrarily placed in grade level buckets irrespective of their ability and curricula are geared toward the median child in each bucket. Each grade then, has a normal distribution of abilities.
The teacher is teaching to the median of this distribution. You could have a nice long argument about how many kids are thrown under the bus by this model but let's assume the teacher is able to 'hit' plus or minus a standard deviation with a successful lesson. This means 15%, nine kids, are bored to tears and another 15% don't get it.
In this model the teacher misses the mark with 18 kids every day. All the parents with kids above a standard deviation want advanced placement and all the parents with kids below a standard deviation want full time remediation. Oops, there's only one teacher.
How many towns do you know of that would voluntarily sign up to triple the number of teachers in their schools? Oh and by the way, what you would then see in such a school is two advanced math classes with 4.5 kids in each, two remediation classes with 4.5 kids each, and two regular classes with 21 kids each.
Now there's probably some clever scheduling algorithm that would mitigate my scenario but the point is that anything special takes more resources in the model that is in use all over the country.
Bottom line? You don't need a conspiracy to explain why stuff happens and if you want to concoct one be sure you've exhausted reality first.
I've never met a teacher who even remotely matches the conjectures in this thread about teaching for AYP movement. I have however, met many, many who work their butts off inside dysfunctional organizations. Sure, there are a few slugs but there's not enough of them to pull off a conspiracy, there not in leadership positions, and by definition they don't have the energy or initiative for it.
Paul B wrote "I've never met a teacher who even remotely matches the conjectures in this thread about teaching for AYP movement."
I have. Last year my fourth grader's teacher told me it wasn't his job to teach children like my daughter.
At the Site Council meeting the principal detailed the steps the school would take to make AYP. She went over the points the school would get from moving children from Below Basic to Basic. Someone asked about the children who had scored Proficient or above....the principal said that there was no credit given for having those children maintain or increase their scores, and so the school would focus their attention and resources elsewhere.
FYI, in my nine year's grade, there are 120 kids. If 15% of them are bored out of their minds, that is 18 kids getting left behind, and almost enough for their own class.
Paul B I don't think there are any conspiracy theories floating around here... otherwise, your statements make sense to me.
I'm a teacher, and I know most of us are working very hard to effectively teach as many students as humanly possible.
When you said "the point is that anything special takes more resources in the model that is in use all over the country" you nailed it!
I hope that our discussion, absent of conspiracy and firmly grounded in reality, is addressing your point.
The teachers surveyed in the Fordham report seem to feel that the allocation of resources is not equitable or "just" This could be due to higher-achievers being ignored at the school level because of the scoring method for AYP.
I've been in meetings where this was discussed among school officials. I'm certainly not a NCLB expert, but I've watched where the money/personnel has gone since its inception.
And I'm not saying that it's all bad either, but there's room for improvement.
Paul B,
That most people in education have a political view that lines up with central planning, are anti free market systems, supports collecivism, wishes to use coercion to achieve their ends?
Yes. Are you suggesting they don't?
--Do you have some evidence to support this?
Do you have any evidence to the contrary of my point?
Let's start with teachers' unions NEA and AFT. Look at their resolutions. They call for early childhood edcaution programs in the public schools from birth to eight. http://www.nea.org/annualmeeting/raaction/images/resolutions2006-2007.pdf
says:
The Association therefore opposes education for profit...
Charter school programs must be qualitatively different from what is available in mainstream public schools and not just an avenue for parental choice...Private, for-profit entities should not be eligible to receive a charter...Charters should not be granted for the purpose of home schooling, including providing services over the Internet to home schooled students.
The National Education Association believes that tax credit programs, management-by-objective systems, block grants, and revenue sharing programs have at times been implemented in ways that are harmful to public education.
Shall we look at state version's of the NEA? They adopt the same language:
The National Education Association Rhode Island believes that the following programs and practices are detrimental to public education and must be eliminated: privatization, performance contracting, tax credits for tuition to private and parochial schools, voucher plans (or funding formulas that have the same effect as vouchers), planned program budgeting systems (PPBS), and evaluations by private, profit-making groups.
The Association believes that proposals that would allow or foster the flow of public monies to private, parochial or sectarian schools, the re-segregation of schools, a selectivity in admissions, the employment of unlicensed or uncertified educators, and a weakening of collective bargaining protections are detrimental to the health and well-being of the public schools and should be defeated.
The Association also believes that tax credit programs, management-by-objective systems, block grants and revenue sharing programs have at times been implemented in ways that are harmful to public education. The Association further believes such programs should be monitored to prevent such abuses. (98)
You can go here http://www.mnea.org/gr/campaign08/Recommendations_state08.pdf
to see who the Missouri NEA recommends as candidates. Not exactly proportional representation.
Their endorsements at state and national levels are overwhelming on one side of the aisle. The PACs of theirs give millions to one side of the aisle.
Moving on, Let's move on to education schools, their deans and faculty and ask who they vote for, what policies they support, and who and which PACs they give money to politically. You think Bill Ayers is unique?
Then let's talk about political litmus tests in higher education espoused by NCATE. no, let's not. It's depressing.
But you don't succeed in graduating from ed school if you don't play this game. And those folks who support the free market, oppose central planning, and don't appreciate coercion don't make it through ed school in even substantial minority numbers.
Not convinced? Go search ERIC for articles with the keywords "political attitudes" and "educators". Look at the articles written.
Here's one:
On Being Unreasonable:NCTE, CEE, and Political Action (EJ776369)
English Education, v39 n2 p120-145 Jan 2007
Abstract:
This article analyzes CEE's and NCTE's current positions related to political action and highlights the increasing need for public intellectual and political activism as an integral part of organizational policy. Using Lakoff's (2005) concept of cognitive/linguistic framing in political discourse along with Kuchapski's (2002) characterizations of competing discourses in education accountability reform, the essay underscores how current national discourses about education are being framed in ways that challenge literacy educators' autonomy and authority while de-stabilizing public school teaching as a profession. Findings from an analysis of CEE and NCTE policy texts and online resources suggest that while both organizations have done considerable political work, they have only recently begun to position themselves in ways that will allow them to re-frame public conversations about literacy education and activate their memberships in the effort to increase professional authority and autonomy. The article concludes by suggesting ways that CEE, NCTE, and their constituents can act to re-frame policy conversations and engage in grassroots political work to promote progressive ideals and professional interests
Here's another:
Rainbow's End: Consciousness and Enactment in Social Justice Education. Research Article (EJ769235)
Author(s):
Francis, Dennis; Hemson, Crispin
Source:
Perspectives in Education, v25 n1 p99-109 Mar 2007
Pub Date:
2007-03-00
Pub Type(s):
Journal Articles; Opinion Papers
Peer-Reviewed:
No
Descriptors:
Teaching Methods; Critical Theory; Safety; Medical Students; Justice; Social Change; Feminism; Foreign Countries; Educational Policy; Education Courses; Student Behavior; Graduate Students; Higher Education; Student Attitudes; Power Structure; Academic Discourse; Educational Environment; Freedom; Political Attitudes; Social Values
Abstract:
The article questions why experienced MEd students, on a course in pedagogy in social justice education, resorted to actions that clashed with this approach. Drawing on student and staff accounts of the course, the authors, teachers on this course, pose questions as to whether these reactions resulted from increased safety in the class, from issues of authority, or from the transition students are making from learning about oppression to having to promote justice through their pedagogy. The article, which works from a framework of critical pedagogy, argues against a view that increased safety leads to more explicit expression of oppressive attitudes. Drawing on critical and feminist theorists, it recognises the need for greater reflexivity on issues of power and authority. The authors question a sharp dichotomy made in South African writing between oppression and liberation, and argue for an approach to social justice education that sees this work as inducting educators into what Gee (1990) terms a new Discourse. Such a Discourse, including social practice, is not assumed to be complete. Given the nature of the society, the transition into such a discourse is both essential and difficult. This view has implications for all education that claims to be based on values of social justice and inclusion, as is the intention of South African educational policy.
Don't let's stop now!
Stossel in America: A Case Study of the Neoliberal/Neoconservative Assault on Public Schools and Teachers (EJ795158)
Author(s):
Gabbard, David; Atkinson, Terry
Source:
Teacher Education Quarterly, v34 n2 p85-109 Spr 2007
Pub Date:
2007-00-00
Pub Type(s):
Journal Articles; Opinion Papers; Reports - Descriptive
Peer-Reviewed:
Yes
Descriptors:
Public Schools; Ideology; Unions; Educational Change; Public Education; Democratic Values; Agenda Setting; Critical Theory; Political Attitudes; Politics of Education; Teacher Associations; Critical Viewing
Abstract:
This article aims to help those who support the pivotal role of public education in promoting a critically informed and actively engaged democratic citizenry understand what the American Federation of Teachers (2006) inaccurately describes as "The John Stossel Agenda." In his "20/20 Report," "Stupid in America: How Lack of Choice Cheats Our Kids Out of a Good Education," aired on American Broadcasting Company (ABC), John Stossel functioned as an agent of an agenda, but not as its source. The agenda in question pursues the pragmatic aims of two mutually reinforcing ideologies: neoliberalism and neoconservatism. Here, the authors begin with an exacting analysis of the specific variety of liberalism advanced by the forces of neoliberal ideology. They demonstrate how the attack on public schools represents a small part of a much larger attack on the public and its role in a liberal, constitutional democracy. While the authors laud the open letters written to ABC in protest of Stossel's "Stupid in America" by the National Parent Teachers Association (2006) and the National School Boards Association (2006), as well as the report issued by the American Federation of Teachers, they urge everyone concerned with the future of the schools to look beyond John Stossel. The authors hope that teachers and teacher educators everywhere can now understand that the neoliberal/neoconservative agenda places more than the future of public schools at risk.
Renaissance 2010: The Reassertion of Ruling-Class Power through Neoliberal Policies in Chicago (EJ795772)
Author(s):
Lipman, Pauline; Hursh, David
Source:
Policy Futures in Education, v5 n2 p160-178 2007
Pub Date:
2007-00-00
Pub Type(s):
Journal Articles; Reports - Descriptive
Peer-Reviewed:
Yes
Descriptors:
Public Schools; Educational Change; Corporations; Political Attitudes; Privatization; Power Structure; Politics of Education; Educational Policy; Change Strategies; Futures (of Society); Community Change; Social Change; Locus of Control; Accountability; Educational Practices
Abstract:
The Chicago Public Schools, along with the city of Chicago itself, serve as an exemplary case of neoliberal reorganization, as corporate and governmental "leaders" remake Chicago into a global city meeting the needs of capitalism. As such, Chicago provides us with an example of "actually existing neoliberalism," in which neoliberalism's goals are contradictory and contested. The focus in this article is on Renaissance 2010, a corporate proposal to reform both the city and its schools to create schools and spaces that will attract the professionals needed in a global city. Renaissance 2010 places public schooling under the control of corporate leaders who aim to convert public schools to charter and contract schools, handing over their administration to corporations and breaking the power of unions. However, as the article shows, such reforms not only disenfranchise the poor, people of color, students, parents, and educators, but also create an economically and spatially separate city. Consequently, while neoliberalism is promoted as an efficient and neutral reform, in Chicago neoliberalism faces increasing resistance. (Contains 5 notes
Because those free marketers are really into progressive ideals and pedagogy in social justice education. Uh huh.
These are illustrative. Start counting the ones in any other direction. you can't. I didn't just chery pick. I couldn't find one that didn't read like this, except when they were REALLY about somehwere else, like, oh, 1920 Russia.
I don't think there is a conspiracy, but it's not just about numbers. Assumptions have a great influence and they are based on something other than numbers. These assumptions may not be explicitly politically-based on a local level, but you can clearly see the bias on a national level, as Allison points out. It has a big effect.
Schools are not just dealing with a normal spread of capabilities in kids, they are creating them. I avoided using ability, and capability is perhaps not right. How about a non-normal spread in readiness for new material? Our town goes further by using full-inclusion. Schools want to treat all kids of the same age as equals. (I like to call it tracking by age.) This is their fundamental assumption, but they know on a practical level that kids are not equal academically. This leads to the use of differentiated instruction as a way to make it work. It can't, but schools will not change their primary assumption and structure. In my son's school, the administration will do what they can (a recent change), but the fundamental assumption remains. They've backtracked on separating kids in 7th and 8th grades for math and foreign language, but that's just moved the big problem jump between 6th and 7th grades. Their assumptions and reality don't mix well.
We've talked about how Everyday Math is designed to allow kids to achieve mastery on their own timeframe. This is specifically used to accomodate full-inclusion. This increases the readiness spread each year. Educators are able to justify this on a number of levels, including the one that says that learning is the responsibility of the student. This is not research-based. Low expectations are not research-based. The assumptions comes first and everything else is built around it. I've avoided arguing these points on a political basis because our schools talk only about doing the most for all students. But their assumptions are not on the table for negotiation. The schools had a meeting to discuss long-term goals and no basic assumptions could be discussed. They hired a facilitator to make sure.
Schools can't argue their position and pretend that these huge assumptions are a given.
For years, I've thought about a variation of Churchill's quote:
The vice of school choice is the unequal sharing of brilliance, and the virtue of public education is the equal sharing of mediorcity.
Perhaps another way to look at this is the focus on the collective, rather than the individual. Although a rising tide floats all boats, nobody learns to fly. Schools really do want kids to fly, but it's got to be on their terms.
Post a Comment