A Good Thing About What Works

I'm not the biggest fan of the What Works Clearinghouse (as you might note from my earlier rant on "What Works" best for ELL tots: lions or aardvarks). So it gives me pleasure to share, as reported in a recent EdWeek article, that IES has formally acknowledged that WWC might need some tweaking to actually become relevant to educators.

You might have expected big things in the first 4 years of the WWC. I mean, when the American Institutes for Research, which must be the biggest ed research firm by now having eaten up most of its smaller competitors in the past five years, teams up with big-time subcontractors like Lockheed Martin and the University of Pennsylvania, you'd think something pretty big would come out of it. But you'd be wrong.

Yes, there's been a lot of time and effort (oh, and a little money too) invested in creating an initial infrastructure and then protocols for review, advisory groups and other "products, activities and services". But still there are only 7 topics covered and a paltry number of studies that may or may not work but at least made it through the crazy filter set up to distinguish good research from bad.

Really, though, I'm glad that they've seen the light and are looking for ways to include real programs and practices that schools and communities are using. It should push AIR or any other potentially winning bidders to change the approach, which is a good thing.

Julie Amero and Technical Literacy

Technology and science bloggers and writers have been buzzing recently about the case of Julie Amero, a substitute teacher from Connecticut facing up to 40 years in prison because of an incident in which some students saw pornographic photos on a classroom computer. Amero's defense argues that the pictures the students saw were unwanted pop-ups, the result of a spyware infecting the computer. Her story sounds quite plausible and people who know more than I do about both technology and the specific facts of the case seem to believe she's an innocent victim here, not a criminal.

Somewhat surprisingly, education blogs have been pretty quiet about the case.

Reading accounts of the case, I couldn't help but be struck by the level of technological incompetence and neglect they suggested. The classroom computer involved was seriously outdated--WaPo reports it was running Windows 98. What's more, the school's technology infrastructure appears to have been very poorly maintained: Both the school's firewall subscription and the machine's anti-virus software were expired, which seems pretty inexcusable and possibly a violation of federal law. And I would be shocked if Norwich--which has more-disadvantaged kids than the average Connecticut school, but is hardly high-poverty and spends about the statewide average--is the only school district where this is the case. There's a lot of talk in education circles about the need to get kids proficient in using modern information technology, of which I'm sort of skeptical, but it's hard to see much chance of that happening if the adults in charge can't even take care of basic maintenance of their technology equipment. Moreover, and I know this is a cliche, but what other professionals would put up with working with the kind of out-dated, ill-maintained technology so many teachers are expected to use?

Better Than Anything in the SOTU

So, I think Assorted Stuff's suggestion for open source textbooks is a pretty good idea.

And, all due respect to The Essential Blog's objections, this sounds pretty sweet, too, certainly no worse than the umpteen other game shows out there built around the same "superficial nature of displaying knowledge" that Essential Blog finds so offensive. And way cooler than Deal or No Deal, which seemingly requires no knowledge at all.

Will the real Margaret Spellings please stand up?

Note to NBC: This woman is NOT Margaret Spellings.


This is Margaret Spellings. Yes, the pink suits can be confusing.

Bush Hearts Baby Einstein

Am I the only person who found it odd and somewhat unseemly that the President of the United States used a portion of his State of the Union Address to essentially advertise a line of baby toys? Does this mean they qualify as being based in scientifically-based research? (Cuz I'm skeptical: more TK)

.

The Most Education-y Oscars Ever?

Let other folks be all about the SOTU; I want to talk about the educational implications of today's Academy Award nominations. In what may well be an historical first, three out of the 20 acting nominees are nominated for their performances as teachers: Ryan Gosling in Half Nelson and Judi Dench and Cate Blanchett in Notes on a Scandal. I haven't seen Half Nelson--though I want to--but Notes on a Scandal was very good and impressively acted. It's worth noting that none of these actors are playing the sort of teacher/hero/martyr character NYT contributor Tom Moore was all worked up about earlier this week; in fact, none of the characters are admirable, and some might even find them, especially Dench's Barbara Covett, despicable. I'm not sure if this says anything about public perception of teachers today (I kind of doubt it) or simply reflects that fact that deeply flawed characters tend to give actors more opportunities to show off their chops than saintly ones do. While you'd think martyr teacher roles would be Oscar bait, given the Academy's affection for "socially-conscious" movies (cough!-Blood Diamond-cough!), that doesn't seem to be the case. I can't find a recent example of someone being nominated for such a role, and I believe the last person to win an Academy Award for playing a teacher was Maggie Smith in the Prime of Miss Jean Brodie--a complicated character who inspired her students, but with some tragic effects. (I may be missing someone here, though: If I am, please shoot me a note and I'll correct.)

The educational relevance of this year's Oscar noms doesn't end there, however: Will Smith got a nomination for his performance in The Pursuit of Happyness, from which Richard Colvin drew some very interesting observations related to education.

And, lest we forget it's really all about the kids, there's awesomely adorable Abigail Breslin with a supporting actress nomination for Little Miss Sunshine. Indeed, the entire best supporting actress category is pretty kid-centric this year, including Breslin, Blanchett, Adriana Barraza as a nanny/housekeeper in Babel (her storyline includes some moments of not-high-quality childcare), and Rinko Kikuchi, also in Babel, playing a deaf mute teenager (even though Kikuchi herself is 25). The only one I can't make fit into that scheme is Jennifer Hudson in Dreamgirls, which I guess is sort of appropriate seeing as how her character also winds up getting cut out of the group in the movie.

UPDATE: So it's not really Academy Awards or education related, but I'm pleased to read this story (via Joanne Jacobs) about young girls admiring recent Golden Globe winner (for Ugly Betty) America Ferrera. Ever since I saw Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants (ok, make fun of me, yeah), I've believed that, if we lived in a good, righteous, just and proper world, America Ferrera would be oodles, oodles more famous, highly-compensated and adored than, say, Lindsay Lohan or the zillions of other stick-skinny, dippy starlets I keep seeing on the magazine covers in the supermarket chekout line. I was annoyed to learn she was being cast an an "ugly" character in Betty, but the show is proving itself worthy and Ms. Ferrera's getting mad kudos, so maybe the world is good after all.

UPDATE II: Speaking of things that prove the world is good and just (and now totally unrelated to education), yay for Mark Wahlberg getting nominated for his hysterically profane performance in The Departed.

More School Time

There are a lot of people celebrating the merits of Time right now. Policy proposals to add time to the school day or school year are popping up in states, districts and even on the national front. More school time is seen as the best way to help schools and students meet higher academic standards and keep the U.S. globally competitive. More time, it is said, will lead to more of everything: more core academics, more enrichment, more teacher planning and professional development.

There is no question that schools are struggling to fit it all in. But is adding time the answer?

Education Sector just released a new report on time. In it, I turn to research on time and learning to try to explain that while time certainly matters, it may not be the linchpin of school improvement. Of course it's a valuable resource for schools and yes, in good schools with quality teachers and strong curriculum, having more of it will lead to more good learning. But in schools with fewer experienced teachers, high turnover rates in staff and leadership, and a record of poor performance, it just doesn't sit right to keep kids in these schools longer. The kids in these schools-- generally the poorer kids who don't have their parents waiting at home to read to them or take them to private music lessons or language programs--do need more quality learning time to keep up with their peers and to get the education they deserve. But we must be careful not to assume that quantity matters as much as quality. It simply doesn't.

Read Jay Mathews take on it here, and read the full Education Sector report here.

Join us on February 7th to hear more perspectives on extending time in school.