There was a landmark event in the history of American education yesterday. Secretary Spellings announced that she is going let North Carolina and Tennessee change the way they rate their schools under NCLB. With that seemingly unremarkable bureaucratic declaration, Spellings set in motion a fundamental shift in education policy that stands, in time, to dramatically improve the nation's public education system.
In their desire to encourage schools to improve by linking sanctions to school performance, NCLB's drafters embraced a crude system of measuring school performance because it was the only system available that could be put in place in every state at the time. It tested students once a year and held schools accountable for having a sufficient percentage of students in various subgroups pass the tests. Unfortunately (and ironically), that snapshot system didn't measure how much schools were teaching students over the course of a school year. It was (and is) a school-performance system that didn't (doesn't) measure school performance. To actually measure how much school were teaching students, schools would need to compare individual students' scores at the beginning and then again at the end of a school year.
That, in effect, is what Spellings has permitted Tennessee and North Carolina to do. The result is that parents, educators, and policymakers alike in those two states stand to get school-rating systems that they can trust and that will give educators stonger incentives to improve the education of all students.
Skeptics of the so-called growth, or value-added, rating systems that Spellings approved yesterday worry that such systems could result in schools getting credit for educating low-achieving students to lower standards. Schools, they reason, could improve test scores but students entering school performing at very low levels could still not meet state standards. Spelling required that students eventually meet state standards uner the newly approved value-added plans. That provision helped win over value-added skeptics and liberal activists like Kati Haycock of the Education Trust and William Taylor of the Citizens Commission on Civil Rights, who sat on the review panel that Spellings created to vet the states' plans. The panel, and Spellings, rejected over a dozen other applications from states that lacked the infrastructure they needed, or that sought to use very different types of growth models to weaken rather than strengthen NCLB's accountability provisions.
North Carolina and Tennessee are among the few states that currently have the sophisticated student-tracking systems needed to create value-added school-rating systems. But many other states are building the same capacity and the prospect of every state using the promising new rating systems that North Carolina and Tennessee are pioneering is increasingly real. Spellings could speed the process by giving states financial incentives to catch up to their Southern brethern.
Thursday, May 18, 2006
ABCTE Teachers Performing Well, Aside From the ABCs....
Some interesting new findings were released last week about the effectiveness of teachers certified by the American Board for Certification of Teacher Excellence (ABCTE).
ABCTE provides an alternate, test-based certification for mid-career professionals who want to enter teaching but don't want to endure the cost and the pain of taking countless hours of education courses. Such“fast track” alternate certification programs are hotly contested by critics who fear that unqualified teachers may be placed in our country’s classrooms. Despite the documented success of alternate programs like Teach for America, traditional ed school folks continue to defend teacher education programs as the only acceptable form of teacher training. (Disclosure: I taught for two years in Colorado with an alternate license and helped develop the social studies component of the ABCTE test).
Last week ABCTE released findings from a study* of elementary school teachers in Tennessee who passed the ABCTE tests. But while the overall findings look positive for ABCTE (despite the small sample of 55 teachers analyzed) student reading scores are a potential source of concern.
To conduct the study, researchers gave the two ABCTE tests (one for subject matter knowledge, one for knowledge of teaching skills) to a group of classroom teachers and compared the performance of students taught by teachers who passed both exams to that of students taught by teachers who failed at least one. On average, students of passing teachers had a B+ grade point average (3.36 on a 4.0 scale) compared to a C or 2.0 average earned by students of teachers who didn't pass.
This may underestimate the value of the ABCTE process, since the teachers in the study were given far less time to prepare for the exam than those who normally take the tests. It wasn’t too long ago that I was pouring over my teacher’s manuals and old AP study guides in preparation for my own licensure exam, grateful for the time I spent reviewing the British Civil Wars prior to its unveiling as the essay topic.
Yet while these preliminary results suggest ABCTE may be helpful in identifying good new math, science, and social studies teachers, the results for reading were far less encouraging. Math, science, and social studies results for students taught by passing teachers were two letter grades higher than for failing teachers. Reading results were not; students of passing and non-passing teachers alike had the same low average of 2.0.
This is disconcerting considering that the majority of teachers in the study hold a teaching license and over half hold masters degrees. All elementary teachers should know how to teach reading, but this suggests many don't. However, given that only the results for math were statistically significant, further analysis with a larger sample size is necessary to see if the low reading scores for ABCTE certified teachers are anything to raise a stink about.
Interestingly, ABCTE also offers a reading endorsement for certified elementary teachers, yet no information has been provided on the correlation between passing rates on the reading endorsement exam and student outcomes. Until such results are made available to contradict the ABCTE study, it seems ABCTE reading standards and candidate performance may require a second look.
-Posted by Margaret Price
*This post originally stated that Mathematica had conducted this study. In fact, they are doing the longitudinal evaluation; this study was done by Josh Boots at ABCTE. Sorry for anyconfusion.
ABCTE provides an alternate, test-based certification for mid-career professionals who want to enter teaching but don't want to endure the cost and the pain of taking countless hours of education courses. Such“fast track” alternate certification programs are hotly contested by critics who fear that unqualified teachers may be placed in our country’s classrooms. Despite the documented success of alternate programs like Teach for America, traditional ed school folks continue to defend teacher education programs as the only acceptable form of teacher training. (Disclosure: I taught for two years in Colorado with an alternate license and helped develop the social studies component of the ABCTE test).
Last week ABCTE released findings from a study* of elementary school teachers in Tennessee who passed the ABCTE tests. But while the overall findings look positive for ABCTE (despite the small sample of 55 teachers analyzed) student reading scores are a potential source of concern.
To conduct the study, researchers gave the two ABCTE tests (one for subject matter knowledge, one for knowledge of teaching skills) to a group of classroom teachers and compared the performance of students taught by teachers who passed both exams to that of students taught by teachers who failed at least one. On average, students of passing teachers had a B+ grade point average (3.36 on a 4.0 scale) compared to a C or 2.0 average earned by students of teachers who didn't pass.
This may underestimate the value of the ABCTE process, since the teachers in the study were given far less time to prepare for the exam than those who normally take the tests. It wasn’t too long ago that I was pouring over my teacher’s manuals and old AP study guides in preparation for my own licensure exam, grateful for the time I spent reviewing the British Civil Wars prior to its unveiling as the essay topic.
Yet while these preliminary results suggest ABCTE may be helpful in identifying good new math, science, and social studies teachers, the results for reading were far less encouraging. Math, science, and social studies results for students taught by passing teachers were two letter grades higher than for failing teachers. Reading results were not; students of passing and non-passing teachers alike had the same low average of 2.0.
This is disconcerting considering that the majority of teachers in the study hold a teaching license and over half hold masters degrees. All elementary teachers should know how to teach reading, but this suggests many don't. However, given that only the results for math were statistically significant, further analysis with a larger sample size is necessary to see if the low reading scores for ABCTE certified teachers are anything to raise a stink about.
Interestingly, ABCTE also offers a reading endorsement for certified elementary teachers, yet no information has been provided on the correlation between passing rates on the reading endorsement exam and student outcomes. Until such results are made available to contradict the ABCTE study, it seems ABCTE reading standards and candidate performance may require a second look.
-Posted by Margaret Price
*This post originally stated that Mathematica had conducted this study. In fact, they are doing the longitudinal evaluation; this study was done by Josh Boots at ABCTE. Sorry for anyconfusion.
Wednesday, May 17, 2006
Quick and the Ed Roster Expands
The post below marks the first entry from a new member of Education Sector's policy team, Elena Silva. Elena has a Ph.D in education from UC-Berkeley and previously worked as the director of research for the American Association of University Women, where she directed a number of national research projects on gender equity in education and the workplace. Much more from Elena to come.
Dreaming About College
Kevin Carey's Crying Wolf About Immigration clarifies some key points about immigrant youth, including the fact that most children of immigrants are not undocumented. Yet as the debate on immigration reform rages on, there are gnawing questions about how we will educate the nearly 5 million children of undocumented immigrants who are currently living in the United States.
According to a recent Pew Hispanic Center report, an estimated two-thirds of children of undocumented immigrants are U.S. citizens by birth (leading to a large number of "mixed status" families). That leaves more than 1.5 million children who are themselves undocumented, although many of these youth have been in the U.S. for as long as they can remember and have attended U.S. public schools since kindergarten. This is possible, of course, because the United States provides free public elementary and secondary education to all children, regardless of immigrant status.
College, however, is another matter.
Under federal law, undocumented students are not eligible for in-state tuition rates (unless all other U.S. citizens are also made eligible for the same rate). The added fact that undocumented students cannot qualify for financial aid is the dealbreaker for many of these students. States are now grappling with the issue, and many have introduced legislation to change residency requirements (California already offers resident tuition). Meanwhile, the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act would provide qualified undocumented students conditional legal status to attend college and would also give states the power to determine residency policies for tuition purposes. Read the full text of the Dream Act as introduced in 2005 (type "S.2075" into search).
The legislation is now sitting in committee as the nation debates the broader issue of immigration reform. Meanwhile, barely half of undocumented students are attending or have attended college, compared to nearly three-quarters of documented immigrant and native-born students. As it is likely that these students will remain in the United States, we must consider if the cost of making college more accessible and affordable to them is more or less than doing nothing.
According to a recent Pew Hispanic Center report, an estimated two-thirds of children of undocumented immigrants are U.S. citizens by birth (leading to a large number of "mixed status" families). That leaves more than 1.5 million children who are themselves undocumented, although many of these youth have been in the U.S. for as long as they can remember and have attended U.S. public schools since kindergarten. This is possible, of course, because the United States provides free public elementary and secondary education to all children, regardless of immigrant status.
College, however, is another matter.
Under federal law, undocumented students are not eligible for in-state tuition rates (unless all other U.S. citizens are also made eligible for the same rate). The added fact that undocumented students cannot qualify for financial aid is the dealbreaker for many of these students. States are now grappling with the issue, and many have introduced legislation to change residency requirements (California already offers resident tuition). Meanwhile, the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act would provide qualified undocumented students conditional legal status to attend college and would also give states the power to determine residency policies for tuition purposes. Read the full text of the Dream Act as introduced in 2005 (type "S.2075" into search).
The legislation is now sitting in committee as the nation debates the broader issue of immigration reform. Meanwhile, barely half of undocumented students are attending or have attended college, compared to nearly three-quarters of documented immigrant and native-born students. As it is likely that these students will remain in the United States, we must consider if the cost of making college more accessible and affordable to them is more or less than doing nothing.
Tuesday, May 16, 2006
Why Club-Hoppers Should be Interested in DC Schools "Rightsizing"
Several folks have e-mailed me links to or questions about Washington, D.C., Superintendent Clifford Janey's announcement yesterday of six D.C. schools that will be closed as part of DCPS's plan to eliminate 3 million square feet of vacant space by August 2006. Parts of nine other D.C. campuses will be opened for co-location with city agencies or charter schools.
Analysis from DC Education Blog tells me that three of the 6 schools slated for closure are in Ward 7, and one is in each of Wards 2, 6, and 8. The predictable carping that 75 percent of the closures are east of the Anacostia River has already begun. I don't know as much as I probably ought to about the schools in Ward 7, so I'll refrain from saying anything much about the specific choices.
I will offer two random bits of trivia, however. One of the schools, Van Ness elementary in Ward 6, is only a few blocks down M street from my home. With only 90 students, it's been severely under-enrolled, although I continue to hope the new Hope V I development in near southeast will mean more kids in that neighborhood's public schools soon. In addition, one of the schools slated for merger--Adams Elementary in Ward 1, slated to merge with Oyster Bilingual--is the source of half of the name of D.C.'s Adams-Morgan neighborhood, known to D.C.-area 20-somethings for its bar and club scene.
More substantively, I will say that I respect Janey for having the guts to move with this.
Excess space has been a tremendous financial drain on the district and a foolish and unecessary one when the district's growing population of charter schools are scrambling for space. Closing schools is something that has to happen, but it's an incredibly difficult thing to do politically--no one will thank you for it, and a lot of people will be pissed off. Janey deserves credit for facing these tough facts and moving forward.
Analysis from DC Education Blog tells me that three of the 6 schools slated for closure are in Ward 7, and one is in each of Wards 2, 6, and 8. The predictable carping that 75 percent of the closures are east of the Anacostia River has already begun. I don't know as much as I probably ought to about the schools in Ward 7, so I'll refrain from saying anything much about the specific choices.
I will offer two random bits of trivia, however. One of the schools, Van Ness elementary in Ward 6, is only a few blocks down M street from my home. With only 90 students, it's been severely under-enrolled, although I continue to hope the new Hope V I development in near southeast will mean more kids in that neighborhood's public schools soon. In addition, one of the schools slated for merger--Adams Elementary in Ward 1, slated to merge with Oyster Bilingual--is the source of half of the name of D.C.'s Adams-Morgan neighborhood, known to D.C.-area 20-somethings for its bar and club scene.
More substantively, I will say that I respect Janey for having the guts to move with this.
Excess space has been a tremendous financial drain on the district and a foolish and unecessary one when the district's growing population of charter schools are scrambling for space. Closing schools is something that has to happen, but it's an incredibly difficult thing to do politically--no one will thank you for it, and a lot of people will be pissed off. Janey deserves credit for facing these tough facts and moving forward.
Monday, May 15, 2006
That Doesn't Sound Like Curricular Narrowing to Me
So, this weekend was the last one for the production of A Midsummer Night's Dream in which I appeared (I'm the one in pink). Lots of terrific things about the experience, not related to education, that I won't go into here. One very interesting and educationally-relevant thing I learned about, though, was some of the great work the Washington, D.C., area theaters are doing with local public and private schools to expose youngsters to theater--including kids who otherwise wouldn't get this kind of experience.
Our phenomenal Puck, Niki Jacobsen (below, in red), works professionally with several local theater companies teaching acting and other classes to children in a variety of schools throughout the area. Another member of the cast, Joe Angel Babb, manages community outreach programs with the Shakespeare Theatre, which operates some of the most extensive educational and community outreach programs in the country. Most of the area's other theaters provide educational and outreach programs in a variety of ways too numerous to mention here.
These partnerships between local theaters and schools are broadening kids' cultural and educational opportunities. At their best, they also give lie to the myth that standards means narrowing the curriculum and eliminating "fun" activities, like theater, that get students engaged in school. For example, Young Playwrights' Theater--a unique program that brings playwrighting into the schools--designed its curriculum in alignment with D.C.'s English Language Arts Standards, so that students are building literacy skills and learning towards the standards even while they're learning to express themselves creatively.
If you're interested in learning more about how to bring these programs into your school, or your child's school, click on the links above.
Saturday, May 13, 2006
Free Market Uber Alles
My wife and I moved into our house on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC almost five years ago. At first we got a lot of mail addressed to the previous owners, but that quickly slowed to a trickle and then stopped altogether, with two exceptions: a seed catalogue based in the Midwest (tithonias, only $2.45 for 50), and regular propaganda from the Cato Institute. Apparently, the wondrous efficiencies of an unfettered free market don't extend to updating your mailing list.
The Spring 2006 "Cato's Letter" arrived this morning, feauturing some kind of manifesto from Tucker Carlson--ack--and an interview with Andrew Coulson, director of Cato's "Center for Educational Freedom." In addition to the usual monomaniacal focus on vouchers he adds:
This is a nice summary of where logic takes you when you embrace one and only one principal--"markets, good; government, bad"--to the exclusion of all else, such as the obvious best interests of students and children.
The free market does a pretty decent job of providing Pre-K services to children of people who can afford them. It does a lousy job of providing them to low-income children, just as it does a lousy job of providing nearly everything to low-income people: witness the shady pawn shops, grungy grocery stores, check cashing outlets, and payday lenders common to low-income neighborhoods.
That's why a lot of people are pushing for universal preschool. There are legitimate arguments about how to get there, whether to expand rapidly or focus on the most vulnerable populations. But to reject helping all children get a decent education in the critical early years on principle--well, you'd have to be some kind of extremist organization that simply doesn't believe in public education at all. As Education Sector's Sara Mead recently wrote, there are ways to expand Pre-K funding while preserving the diversity and dynamism of the market. One doubts Cato would have interest, there are larger anti-government principles at stake.
Ditto the concern about higher education--again, it's abundantly clear that higher education does a bad job of serving many students, particularly low-income and minority students, less than half of whom graduate on time and who appear to be learning much less than their more affluent, white peers. The smart solution is for the government to bring more information about student success into the higher education market through mandatory transparency and reporting--like the SEC does for publicly-traded companies--but again, that's just not as hard-core as rejecting government involvement out of hand.
Markets, competition, choice--these are all good things, of which public education needs more, not less. But bringing the benefits of choice into the education arena while staying true to bedrock public values of access, community, and fairness is difficult and complicated. It's possible, but it means opening your mind to multiple--even competing--principles. But if you're pure of heart like Cato, that kind of thinking just marks irresolution and weakness. Free market today, free market tomorrow, free market (and, apparently, quarterly publications I don't want) forever.
The Spring 2006 "Cato's Letter" arrived this morning, feauturing some kind of manifesto from Tucker Carlson--ack--and an interview with Andrew Coulson, director of Cato's "Center for Educational Freedom." In addition to the usual monomaniacal focus on vouchers he adds:
"We have to fight for market reforms at the K-12 level and also against state and federal government encroachment at the preschool and university levels."
This is a nice summary of where logic takes you when you embrace one and only one principal--"markets, good; government, bad"--to the exclusion of all else, such as the obvious best interests of students and children.
The free market does a pretty decent job of providing Pre-K services to children of people who can afford them. It does a lousy job of providing them to low-income children, just as it does a lousy job of providing nearly everything to low-income people: witness the shady pawn shops, grungy grocery stores, check cashing outlets, and payday lenders common to low-income neighborhoods.
That's why a lot of people are pushing for universal preschool. There are legitimate arguments about how to get there, whether to expand rapidly or focus on the most vulnerable populations. But to reject helping all children get a decent education in the critical early years on principle--well, you'd have to be some kind of extremist organization that simply doesn't believe in public education at all. As Education Sector's Sara Mead recently wrote, there are ways to expand Pre-K funding while preserving the diversity and dynamism of the market. One doubts Cato would have interest, there are larger anti-government principles at stake.
Ditto the concern about higher education--again, it's abundantly clear that higher education does a bad job of serving many students, particularly low-income and minority students, less than half of whom graduate on time and who appear to be learning much less than their more affluent, white peers. The smart solution is for the government to bring more information about student success into the higher education market through mandatory transparency and reporting--like the SEC does for publicly-traded companies--but again, that's just not as hard-core as rejecting government involvement out of hand.
Markets, competition, choice--these are all good things, of which public education needs more, not less. But bringing the benefits of choice into the education arena while staying true to bedrock public values of access, community, and fairness is difficult and complicated. It's possible, but it means opening your mind to multiple--even competing--principles. But if you're pure of heart like Cato, that kind of thinking just marks irresolution and weakness. Free market today, free market tomorrow, free market (and, apparently, quarterly publications I don't want) forever.
Tuesday, May 09, 2006
CNN.com Award for Egregious Sensationalism
Today's award goes to ABC.com's third leading story (in their continuously updating stream of five) running under the banner "Sexy Video Sends Teacher Back to Jail." Clicking on the link brings you to the less egregiously titled story "Ex-Teacher Back in Jail," but rest assured it's filled with the requisite voyeurism, sexploitation, and parental outrage.
Posted by Ethan Gray
Monday, May 08, 2006
Is Wendy Kopp Today's Jane Addams?
After reading Christine Stansell's New Republic review of it, I'm really eager to read Louise W. Knight's Citizen: Jane Addams and the Struggle for Democracy. While I certainly don't agree with everything they did, I feel a particular debt to the early 20th century Progressive women reformers such as Addams, both for the positive social changes to which they contributed and the doors they opened for me asa woman.
I did have to question one line in Stansell's review, though:
But, with tens of thousands of our nation's brightest college graduates applying to teach in some of our nations most disadvantaged urban and rural communities through Teach for America, I wonder if Stansell isn't missing a piece of the picture here. While we know that many of these young people remain in the classroom, it's also clear that Teach for America alums are emerging as a key source of leaders in both education and other social and public service and policy realms. Certainly, Teach for America is very different from the settlement movement in its methods, aims, and focus. But is it serving a similar function in developing connections between bright, priviledged, driven young people and disadvantaged communities, and in fostering a crop of future leaders for social and political justice?
I did have to question one line in Stansell's review, though:
By 1900, a stay in a settlement house was de rigueur for new college graduates who wanted to make the world better. Now, few things could seem less appealing to the best of my college students; what Addams called "the subjective necessity of the settlement"--the need to be in contact with others different from oneself--is more likely to propel young idealists to go live with the poor in the barrios of Mexico City or the shantytowns of Johannesburg rather than Chicago, Boston, or New York.
But, with tens of thousands of our nation's brightest college graduates applying to teach in some of our nations most disadvantaged urban and rural communities through Teach for America, I wonder if Stansell isn't missing a piece of the picture here. While we know that many of these young people remain in the classroom, it's also clear that Teach for America alums are emerging as a key source of leaders in both education and other social and public service and policy realms. Certainly, Teach for America is very different from the settlement movement in its methods, aims, and focus. But is it serving a similar function in developing connections between bright, priviledged, driven young people and disadvantaged communities, and in fostering a crop of future leaders for social and political justice?
Terrorist U?
Don't look now, but there's a terrorist at Yale, or so many folks would have you believe. Rahmatullah Hashemi, the former "roving ambassador and spokesman" for the Taliban has been enrolled in a special, non-degree program at Yale University and is now—after securing a 3.33 GPA with little more than a 4th grade education, lots of self motivated study, and a keen interest—attempting to enroll in a full-fledged, four-year undergraduate program. Some, including my colleague
Posted by Ethan Gray
Meaning from Marshmallows
In yesterday's NYT, columnist David Brooks argued* that "structural" education reforms--such as accountability, school choice and teacher pay reforms--have a lousy track record of success because they fail to address "core questions, such as how do we get people to master the sort of self-control that leads to success." According to Brooks,
Brooks is basing his arguments on the famous "Marshmallow Test" performed by psychologist Walter Mischel in the 1960's: Small children (about age 4) were given a marshmallow and told that they could have a second marshmallow if they waited until a researcher returned to eat the marshmallow they had; longitudinal follow-up found children who were able to wait had better life outcomes down the road. Brooks is joining a litany of researchers and commentators who have seized on this result to argue that "emotional intelligence" or psychological traits, such as the ability to delay gratification, may be more important to children's longterm success than academic skills. I doubt that many reasonable people disagree with that conclusion, but what kind of pragmatic guidance that's supposed to offer policymakers is far less clear than Brooks seems to think it is.
After all, it's not as if schools have never tried to impact children's emotional and psychological development or personal habits. In fact, the history of the Progressive education movement is littered with efforts to inculcate specific habits and values--from personal hygiene, to how to make friends, to good work habits, to self-esteem--in youngsters, often at the expense of academic content. Far from a lack of interest in intervening in what Brooks labels "the murky world of psychology and human nature," politicians and educators have evidenced a seemingly insatiable desire to do so, but one which history shows us has often been poorly implemented or focused on misguided ends. And fights between different schools of educators and idealouges over precisely what aspects of children's psychology and nature our public schools ought to seek to alter, and in what ways, have consumed an extraordinary amount of energy and produced a great deal of unproductive division within our nation's education system.
Contemporary education reformers focus on structural and organizational concerns not because they are myopic but because these tools are the most effective levers policymakers have to drive broad change. For example, high-quality preschool programs--the very type of structural reform Brooks derides--have shown positive long-term impacts in children's lives in large part because they focus on supporting children's social and emotional development--including the type of self-regulatory skills the Marshmallow Test measures--at least as much as academics. More broadly, when policymakers set clear expectations, hold educators accountable, and give them the freedom to run schools effectively, teachers and school leaders--who realize the importance of fostering children's moral, social and emotional as well as their cognitive development--choose to run schools in ways that foster the very skills Brooks wishes to see inculcated. Parents who are given choices also tend to choose such schools.
Throughout the country we find examples of high-performing public, private, and charter schools that seek to educate children to high standards in both academics and such virtues as responsibility, self-control, integrity, and respect. But numerous structural policy barriers conspire to prevent the creation or expansion of more such schools. Eliminating these barriers will do far more to generate the type of results Brooks seeks--and would do so with more respect for basic conservative values of family privacy and autonomy--than would legislating another indifferently implemented and controversial "values" program at the state or federal level.
*Sorry for Times Select link. Normally I try not to highlight anything many people can't access.
If you're a policy maker and you are not talking about core psychological traits like delayed gratification skills, then you're just dancing around with proxy issues. You're not getting to the crux of the problem.
Brooks is basing his arguments on the famous "Marshmallow Test" performed by psychologist Walter Mischel in the 1960's: Small children (about age 4) were given a marshmallow and told that they could have a second marshmallow if they waited until a researcher returned to eat the marshmallow they had; longitudinal follow-up found children who were able to wait had better life outcomes down the road. Brooks is joining a litany of researchers and commentators who have seized on this result to argue that "emotional intelligence" or psychological traits, such as the ability to delay gratification, may be more important to children's longterm success than academic skills. I doubt that many reasonable people disagree with that conclusion, but what kind of pragmatic guidance that's supposed to offer policymakers is far less clear than Brooks seems to think it is.
After all, it's not as if schools have never tried to impact children's emotional and psychological development or personal habits. In fact, the history of the Progressive education movement is littered with efforts to inculcate specific habits and values--from personal hygiene, to how to make friends, to good work habits, to self-esteem--in youngsters, often at the expense of academic content. Far from a lack of interest in intervening in what Brooks labels "the murky world of psychology and human nature," politicians and educators have evidenced a seemingly insatiable desire to do so, but one which history shows us has often been poorly implemented or focused on misguided ends. And fights between different schools of educators and idealouges over precisely what aspects of children's psychology and nature our public schools ought to seek to alter, and in what ways, have consumed an extraordinary amount of energy and produced a great deal of unproductive division within our nation's education system.
Contemporary education reformers focus on structural and organizational concerns not because they are myopic but because these tools are the most effective levers policymakers have to drive broad change. For example, high-quality preschool programs--the very type of structural reform Brooks derides--have shown positive long-term impacts in children's lives in large part because they focus on supporting children's social and emotional development--including the type of self-regulatory skills the Marshmallow Test measures--at least as much as academics. More broadly, when policymakers set clear expectations, hold educators accountable, and give them the freedom to run schools effectively, teachers and school leaders--who realize the importance of fostering children's moral, social and emotional as well as their cognitive development--choose to run schools in ways that foster the very skills Brooks wishes to see inculcated. Parents who are given choices also tend to choose such schools.
Throughout the country we find examples of high-performing public, private, and charter schools that seek to educate children to high standards in both academics and such virtues as responsibility, self-control, integrity, and respect. But numerous structural policy barriers conspire to prevent the creation or expansion of more such schools. Eliminating these barriers will do far more to generate the type of results Brooks seeks--and would do so with more respect for basic conservative values of family privacy and autonomy--than would legislating another indifferently implemented and controversial "values" program at the state or federal level.
*Sorry for Times Select link. Normally I try not to highlight anything many people can't access.
Friday, May 05, 2006
Summer Daze
Ok, I have to admit that I've had a bit of a case of spring fever lately. The weather's gotten warmer and suddenly all I really want to think about is how soon my pool will open, when I can get in that first weekend trip to the beach, and how long I'll have to spend in the sun to get rid of the ghastly pasty white color now covering my arms and legs. I love summer, even hot, sticky, humid D.C. summers.
But the reality is that, for education policy wonks, summer should actually be a pretty grim time. During the summer months, we see a significant widening in achievement gaps between poor and affluent children. That's largely because, while summers for middle-class kids mean organized sports, day- and sleep-away camps, horizon-widening family vacations, parentally-encouraged reading for fun, and lots of other brain-stimulating and school-reinforcing activities, for lower-income kids, like many of those in my neighborhood, summer mostly means boredom, opportunities to get in trouble, and losing a lot of educational ground. Another casualty of the outdated agricultural model of public schooling.
Former Clinton economic wonk Gene Sperling writes about this in his latest column, as well as two recent policy proposals--one from Princeton economists Alan Krueger and Molly Fifer for Brookings' Hamilton Project, the other from New Vision Institute smarties Scott Winship, Matissa Hollister, Joel Horwich, Pat Sharkey, and Christopher Wimer, who are working with the Center for American Progress--that would establish government-funded summer opportunity scholarships to give disadvantaged youngsters access to the same educational opportunities middle-class families take for granted during the summer. (It's also worth noting that a number of high-performing charter schools already have created some type of summer institutes, extended school years, or summer enrichment connections to help their disadvantaged students get up to speed and stay there.)
Stay tuned for this topic--along with the weather--to heat up in the coming months.
Thanks to reader CC for the tip on this article.
But the reality is that, for education policy wonks, summer should actually be a pretty grim time. During the summer months, we see a significant widening in achievement gaps between poor and affluent children. That's largely because, while summers for middle-class kids mean organized sports, day- and sleep-away camps, horizon-widening family vacations, parentally-encouraged reading for fun, and lots of other brain-stimulating and school-reinforcing activities, for lower-income kids, like many of those in my neighborhood, summer mostly means boredom, opportunities to get in trouble, and losing a lot of educational ground. Another casualty of the outdated agricultural model of public schooling.
Former Clinton economic wonk Gene Sperling writes about this in his latest column, as well as two recent policy proposals--one from Princeton economists Alan Krueger and Molly Fifer for Brookings' Hamilton Project, the other from New Vision Institute smarties Scott Winship, Matissa Hollister, Joel Horwich, Pat Sharkey, and Christopher Wimer, who are working with the Center for American Progress--that would establish government-funded summer opportunity scholarships to give disadvantaged youngsters access to the same educational opportunities middle-class families take for granted during the summer. (It's also worth noting that a number of high-performing charter schools already have created some type of summer institutes, extended school years, or summer enrichment connections to help their disadvantaged students get up to speed and stay there.)
Stay tuned for this topic--along with the weather--to heat up in the coming months.
Thanks to reader CC for the tip on this article.
More Kid Lit and a Book for Grown-ups, Too (Special Notice Readers in D.C. and Philadelphia)
Q&E's comrade-en-blog Joanne Jacobs is touring to promote both her recent book, Our School: The Inspiring Story of Two Teachers, One Big Idea, and the School that Beat the Odds. The book tells the tale of Downtown College Prep, a high-performing San Jose, Calif., charter school that serves academically disadvantaged students and prepares them to succeed in four-year-colleges.
Next week, on Thursday, May 11 at 5:30 P.M., Jacobs will be speaking and signing copies of her book in Washington, D.C., at the William E. Doar Jr. Public Charter School for the Performing Arts (click link for address and contact info), a very cool performing-arts themed charter school in Northeast D.C. that currently serves children in pre-k through fifth grade. (WEDJ eventually plans to expand to serve students through high school). Attendees will also be treated to a musical performance by the school's students.
Then, on Wednesday, May 17, also at 5:30 P.M., Jacobs will speak and sign books at the Russell Byers Charter School in Center City Philadelphia (click link for school address and info).
Both events are open to the public free of charge, and no advance registration is required. Jacobs does request, however, that guests bring a children's book to donate to the schools' libraries. Here are a few ideas.
Next week, on Thursday, May 11 at 5:30 P.M., Jacobs will be speaking and signing copies of her book in Washington, D.C., at the William E. Doar Jr. Public Charter School for the Performing Arts (click link for address and contact info), a very cool performing-arts themed charter school in Northeast D.C. that currently serves children in pre-k through fifth grade. (WEDJ eventually plans to expand to serve students through high school). Attendees will also be treated to a musical performance by the school's students.
Then, on Wednesday, May 17, also at 5:30 P.M., Jacobs will speak and sign books at the Russell Byers Charter School in Center City Philadelphia (click link for school address and info).
Both events are open to the public free of charge, and no advance registration is required. Jacobs does request, however, that guests bring a children's book to donate to the schools' libraries. Here are a few ideas.
Thursday, May 04, 2006
The Yale - Taliban Connection
The NYTimes reports that Rahmatullah Hashemi, a former spokesman and roving ambassador for the Taliban who is currently taking classes at Yale, has formally applied for admission to a degree-granting program at the university.
There appear to be two arguments for why Hashemi belongs at Yale. The first is that he would benefit from a Yale education. Well, sure. Who wouldn't? There are a thousand times more people for whom that is true than Yale has space for. Why choose him? Why not give the golden ticket in the American education lottery to someone less morally compromised, like one of the countless Afghan women the Taliban barred from school?
That leads to the second argument, which is that Yale would benefit from having Hashemi as a student:
The supposed benefits of Hashemi's presence seems to be animated by the idea that only through communication and understanding can we ultimately come to reconciliation and peace. As a principle of human relations, I agree with this idea wholeheartedly. But where is the supposed lack of understanding here? Is there any outstanding ambiguity left to resolve regarding the Taliban, any uncertainty as to what it's done or what it stands for? This is an organization that has defined itself in the most unambiguous terms imaginable.
Some would say principles of diversity and tolerance are only meaningful when defended at unpopular extremes. But this is a case of worthy principles extended to illogical lengths, to the point of obvious self-contradiction. It's clear that the relatively small number of universities with the luxury of choosing the composition of their student bodies have a powerful--if somewhat vague-preference for diversity along a large number of dimensions. Again, a good thing. But does it make sense to extend the principle of diversity to people who have aided and abetted regimes that are ruthlessly preoccupied with stamping out diversity by deadly means, particularly when it comes at the expense of some other student?
There appear to be two arguments for why Hashemi belongs at Yale. The first is that he would benefit from a Yale education. Well, sure. Who wouldn't? There are a thousand times more people for whom that is true than Yale has space for. Why choose him? Why not give the golden ticket in the American education lottery to someone less morally compromised, like one of the countless Afghan women the Taliban barred from school?
That leads to the second argument, which is that Yale would benefit from having Hashemi as a student:
In a statement issued in March, the university said: "We acknowledge that some are criticizing Yale for allowing Mr. Hashemi to take courses here, but we hope that critics will also acknowledge that universities are places that must strive to increase understanding, especially of the most difficult issues that face the nation and the world."The "abridgement" of women's rights? Abridgement is a, shall we say, somewhat muted way of characterizing things like shooting women in the back of the head with a rifle in a soccer stadium full of cheering spectators. Just to take one example of many.
Mr. Hashemi worked for the Office of Foreign Affairs under the Taliban, serving initially as a translator and then as a diplomat in the Afghan Embassy in Islamabad, Pakistan. He was named a roving ambassador in 2000, traveling to the Middle East and Europe. He toured the United States early in 2001, speaking at Yale and several other universities and appearing on public television and radio; he defended the abridgement of women's rights by the Taliban and the destruction of huge Buddhist statues, among other things.
The supposed benefits of Hashemi's presence seems to be animated by the idea that only through communication and understanding can we ultimately come to reconciliation and peace. As a principle of human relations, I agree with this idea wholeheartedly. But where is the supposed lack of understanding here? Is there any outstanding ambiguity left to resolve regarding the Taliban, any uncertainty as to what it's done or what it stands for? This is an organization that has defined itself in the most unambiguous terms imaginable.
Some would say principles of diversity and tolerance are only meaningful when defended at unpopular extremes. But this is a case of worthy principles extended to illogical lengths, to the point of obvious self-contradiction. It's clear that the relatively small number of universities with the luxury of choosing the composition of their student bodies have a powerful--if somewhat vague-preference for diversity along a large number of dimensions. Again, a good thing. But does it make sense to extend the principle of diversity to people who have aided and abetted regimes that are ruthlessly preoccupied with stamping out diversity by deadly means, particularly when it comes at the expense of some other student?
Kid Lit Is the Answer to Everything
This hillarious Slate article by Jacob Weisberg,* about how impossible it is to comprehend, let alone sing, our national anthem, put me in mind of this episode from one of my favorite children's books:**
Next Miss Binney taught the class the words of a puzzling song about "the dawnzer lee light," which Ramona did not understand because she did not know what a dawnzer was. "Oh, say, can you see by the dawnzer lee light," sang Miss Binney, and Ramona decided that a dawnzer was another word for a lamp.
Once again reinforcing my belief that you can learn everything you could possible want to know about a culture from reading its children's books and childrearing manuals.
*Hat tip to Matt Yglesias.
**The first person who e-mails me the title and author of this book gets a free copy of A Qualified Teacher in Every Classroom, which, sadly, is not children's literature but is, according to Amazon, a $49.95 value.
UPDATE: Congrats to Marjorie Cohen, who was the first to correctly identify the source of this excerpt as being Ramona the Pest, by Beverly Cleary.
Tuesday, May 02, 2006
The Lou Dobbs Award for Shameless Opportunism
So there I am last Friday, on vacation, sitting with my lovely wife in a bar about 100 yards from the beach on Grand Cayman. Temperature in the low 80s, sun starting to set over the clear blue-green ocean waters. Thoughts of upcoming snorkeling trip (see right) make me happy. A warm tropical breeze is blowing through my hair as I drink my second (third? fifth?) glass of the local rum/pineapple/coconut concoction.* I am relaxed, and (not coincidentally) education policy is far from my mind.Then I glance at the television hanging above the bar, and what do I see? CNN, and the regularly scheduled broadcast of "Lou Dobbs Hates Foreign People." Lou is talking about high school graduation rates for Latino students.
My shoulders tense. Hard-won relaxation drains away. Quickly, I beckon to the bartender, a deeply-tanned ex-pat Australian scuba diver named Nigel, for a third (seventh?) concoction. But it's too late.
Lou explains to his audience that because the borders are broken, our great nation is being overrun by illegal Mexican immigrants who are overwhelming our hospitals by selling computer technology to the Chinese, who then outsource IT jobs to Bangalore, which inevitably leaves us vulnerable to infiltration by Al Qaeda agents entering the country in uninspected shipping containers arriving at foreign-owned ports. This can be proved by the fact that the nationwide Hispanic high school graduation rate is barely 50%.
Lou's mostly right on this last point--on-time Hispanic high school graduation rates are much too low. He just didn't bother to mention that most of those Hispanic students aren't immigrants, illegal or otherwise, or that graduation rates for black students are equally low. Or that these numbers were bad long before the current wave of immigration. (For some more actual data on education and immigration, see this month's Charts You Can Trust).
But in briefly entering the education arena in pursuit of another, non-education agenda, Lou isn't breaking any new ground. This kind of thing unfortunately happens all the time. From creationism and school prayer to sex education and "self-esteem instruction," people with all manner of axes to grind use the public schools as a convenient forum for other cultural and societal debates.
Thus, we at the The Quick and The Ed are hereby instituting the "Lou Dobbs Award for Shameless Opportunism," given to people who thoughtlessly wade into education policy debates for reasons that have nothing to do with actually helping students or improving schools. Nominations for future awards are welcome.
*Concoction Recipe:
2,3, or 4 parts dark Caribbean rum (depending on circumstances, i.e. need to counteract effects of Dobbsian television broadcasts)
4 parts pineapple juice
1 part cream of coconut
1 part orange juice
Serve over ice, top with shavings of fresh nutmeg
The Best We Can Expect?
I don't want to overplay the reasons why I don't think Newsweek's "America's Best High Schools" list lives up to it's name, but, now that I've had a chance to look at this year's list, I've got a bit more to say.
One of the things I found most striking, when Andy and I were putting together our analysis of schools on last year's list, was that several schools in the "Top 100" reported half or fewer of their African American students graduating. All of those schools are still on Newsweek's list this year. (I haven't had a chance yet to see if any addition schools on this year's list have similarly low graduation rates.) Considering that a lot of states are still grossly underreporting the percentage of students who fail to graduate, this troubled me. Certainly, we know from research by the Manhattan Institute and Urban Institute that only slightly more than half of African American students nationwide graduate in four years, but shouldn't the schools on a list of the nation's "best" be doing better than that, rather than a little bit worse?
Now, Jay Mathews, who created the list, argues that including graduation rates in the analysis would mean high-poverty, high-minority schools will never make Newsweek's list of Top 100 schools, because their populations ensure they will have high drop-out rates. But I think that gives some of the schools on his list more credit than they deserve.
For example, Atlantic Community High School, in Delray Beach, Florida, ranked #25 on Newsweek's list, reported a 50 percent graduation rate for its African American students in 2004, according to its detailed NCLB report card from the Florida Department of Education. About 45 percent of the school's 2,000+ students are African American, and about 35 percent qualify for free and reduced-price lunch. That's not an affluent, lilly-white suburban school, like many on Newsweek's list, but it's not "high-poverty, high-minority," either. In fact, the percentage of economically disadvantaged students at Atlantic Community is lower than the statewide average in Florida, which is 46 percent. Now, I think it's a scandal that nearly half of Florida's kids are economically disadvantaged, but does that mean we shouldn't expect the state's high schools to get more than half their black students to graduation?
Further, there are schools on Jay's own list that prove him wrong. For example, this year's school #87, YES College Preparatory School in Houston, Texas, has a student enrollment that is 92 percent Hispanic, 5 percent black, and has 75 percent of students eligible for free and reduced-price lunch--a higher percentage of economically disadvantaged students than all but one other school in Newsweek's list. But YES reports a 93.9 percent graduation rate, and 100 percent of its graduates are accepted to four-year colleges.
Atlantic may be doing great things for some of its students, but a method that ranks it higher than YES seems to defy common sense.
One of the things I found most striking, when Andy and I were putting together our analysis of schools on last year's list, was that several schools in the "Top 100" reported half or fewer of their African American students graduating. All of those schools are still on Newsweek's list this year. (I haven't had a chance yet to see if any addition schools on this year's list have similarly low graduation rates.) Considering that a lot of states are still grossly underreporting the percentage of students who fail to graduate, this troubled me. Certainly, we know from research by the Manhattan Institute and Urban Institute that only slightly more than half of African American students nationwide graduate in four years, but shouldn't the schools on a list of the nation's "best" be doing better than that, rather than a little bit worse?
Now, Jay Mathews, who created the list, argues that including graduation rates in the analysis would mean high-poverty, high-minority schools will never make Newsweek's list of Top 100 schools, because their populations ensure they will have high drop-out rates. But I think that gives some of the schools on his list more credit than they deserve.
For example, Atlantic Community High School, in Delray Beach, Florida, ranked #25 on Newsweek's list, reported a 50 percent graduation rate for its African American students in 2004, according to its detailed NCLB report card from the Florida Department of Education. About 45 percent of the school's 2,000+ students are African American, and about 35 percent qualify for free and reduced-price lunch. That's not an affluent, lilly-white suburban school, like many on Newsweek's list, but it's not "high-poverty, high-minority," either. In fact, the percentage of economically disadvantaged students at Atlantic Community is lower than the statewide average in Florida, which is 46 percent. Now, I think it's a scandal that nearly half of Florida's kids are economically disadvantaged, but does that mean we shouldn't expect the state's high schools to get more than half their black students to graduation?
Further, there are schools on Jay's own list that prove him wrong. For example, this year's school #87, YES College Preparatory School in Houston, Texas, has a student enrollment that is 92 percent Hispanic, 5 percent black, and has 75 percent of students eligible for free and reduced-price lunch--a higher percentage of economically disadvantaged students than all but one other school in Newsweek's list. But YES reports a 93.9 percent graduation rate, and 100 percent of its graduates are accepted to four-year colleges.
Atlantic may be doing great things for some of its students, but a method that ranks it higher than YES seems to defy common sense.
Monday, May 01, 2006
There's no May 1 Heffalump, either
But there is a series of immigration-related protests taking place nationwide, as some advocates have called for immigrants to boycott work and school to participate in protests and demonstrate their economic significance to the country. The "boycott" isn't universally supported within the movement. Schools and a number of pro-immigrant leaders have urged students to attend classes rather than participating in protests, and many districts have put parents and students on notice that those who skip school to attend the rallies will be disciplined. Nevertheless a reported quarter of middle and high school students in the predominantly Hispanic Los Angeles Unifed School District are absent today.
I'm torn about this issue. On the one hand, education is key to the opportunity that immigrants come the this country to pursue, so their children should be attending school today to help them take advantage of that opportunity. On the other hand, what could be a more American lesson for children to learn than how, through grassroots organizing, a large group of people with little individual power can make those in power listen to them? Of course, the corrolary to this lesson is that true civic disobedience means accepting the consequences of one's actions, so students who do violate compulsory attendance laws and school policies to participate in protests deserve to be punished.
But there's something else that troubled me, too. We know that many of the schools that enroll large numbers of immigrants or their kids are not succeeding. There is a large achievement gap between white and Hispanic students; drop-out rates for Hispanic students--especially males--are abysmal; and overall we're not doing a great job educating English language learners. And organized, empowered parents and communities are critical to addressing these problems. Wouldn't it be cool if these protests generate longer-term political organizing that gives parents a voice and the skills to advocate for their kids? Then we might start to see more of this kind of thing happening. I'm not holding my breathe, though.
In Related News:
Alexander Russo notes that, in contrast to past waves of anti-immigration sentiment, this time around there's not as much talk about the cost of educating illegal immigrant students.
Of course, that might be partly because, as Kevin Carey points out in the latest Charts You Can Trust, undocumented immigrants are just a teensy percentage of children in our public schools. Kevin's got lots of other interesting factoids on immigrants in public education, so be sure to check out his timely piece.
I'm torn about this issue. On the one hand, education is key to the opportunity that immigrants come the this country to pursue, so their children should be attending school today to help them take advantage of that opportunity. On the other hand, what could be a more American lesson for children to learn than how, through grassroots organizing, a large group of people with little individual power can make those in power listen to them? Of course, the corrolary to this lesson is that true civic disobedience means accepting the consequences of one's actions, so students who do violate compulsory attendance laws and school policies to participate in protests deserve to be punished.
But there's something else that troubled me, too. We know that many of the schools that enroll large numbers of immigrants or their kids are not succeeding. There is a large achievement gap between white and Hispanic students; drop-out rates for Hispanic students--especially males--are abysmal; and overall we're not doing a great job educating English language learners. And organized, empowered parents and communities are critical to addressing these problems. Wouldn't it be cool if these protests generate longer-term political organizing that gives parents a voice and the skills to advocate for their kids? Then we might start to see more of this kind of thing happening. I'm not holding my breathe, though.
In Related News:
Alexander Russo notes that, in contrast to past waves of anti-immigration sentiment, this time around there's not as much talk about the cost of educating illegal immigrant students.
Of course, that might be partly because, as Kevin Carey points out in the latest Charts You Can Trust, undocumented immigrants are just a teensy percentage of children in our public schools. Kevin's got lots of other interesting factoids on immigrants in public education, so be sure to check out his timely piece.
(Over)Simply the Best?
Newsweek's annual list of America's Best High Schools is up online now. Earlier this year, Andy and I wrote a piece raising some concerns with Newsweek's methodology--particularly how the list ignores schools' graduation rates and equity between student subgroups in a school. Jay Mathews, who creates the list, has been kind enough to engage with Andy and me in a dialogue about those concerns, which he mentions in this story.
This year there are two changes in Newsweek's rankings. First, Mathews et. al. opened the list up to include more schools that admit students on a competitive basis (previously, schools that selected more than half of their students competitively were excluded). Second, each school's information is now accompanied by an "Equity and Excellence Percentage" (E and E%), which reflects the percentage of a school's senior class that passed at least one AP exam. The E and E% is an interesting idea, but I think it would be more useful if Newsweek allowed readers to look at the two different pieces of information that comprise it--1.) across what share of a school's students the AP tests that contribute to the school's ranking are distributed, and 2.) how students performed on those tests--separately, since they are very different concepts. (Just to be clear: Newsweek doesn't have these two separate pieces of information and combine them to create the E and E %. But the E and E %, as calculated, conflates those two pieces of information into one statistic.)
And, if you want to know what I really think, check me out on Newsweek radio, here.
This year there are two changes in Newsweek's rankings. First, Mathews et. al. opened the list up to include more schools that admit students on a competitive basis (previously, schools that selected more than half of their students competitively were excluded). Second, each school's information is now accompanied by an "Equity and Excellence Percentage" (E and E%), which reflects the percentage of a school's senior class that passed at least one AP exam. The E and E% is an interesting idea, but I think it would be more useful if Newsweek allowed readers to look at the two different pieces of information that comprise it--1.) across what share of a school's students the AP tests that contribute to the school's ranking are distributed, and 2.) how students performed on those tests--separately, since they are very different concepts. (Just to be clear: Newsweek doesn't have these two separate pieces of information and combine them to create the E and E %. But the E and E %, as calculated, conflates those two pieces of information into one statistic.)
And, if you want to know what I really think, check me out on Newsweek radio, here.
What Did the National Charter Schools Week Heffalump Bring You, Sara?
Ok, so there's really no such thing as a National Charter Schools Week Heffalump, and I didn't wake up and find a backpack full of jelly beans and school supplies on my doorstep this morning, nor has the charter community received any great policy treats so far this week. But this week is National Charter Schools Week, anyway. Learn more here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)