Friday, February 02, 2007
"We don't say 'oooh,' we fix the problem."
We all--especially those of us in the education policy world--could learn a lot from the kids in Pre-K 114.
Spitzer Hearts Pre-K, Too
There's been a lot of bloggy talk about NY Governor Eliot Spitzer's budget proposal to dramatically increase funding for public education but require greater accountability and raise the charter cap. But what seems to have slipped under a lot of folks' radar--including, as Richard Colvin notes, the major print media outlets--is Spitzer's proposal to ramp up funding for New York's "Universal" Pre-k program over the next three years so that it actually gets to the point where it deserves that adjective. New York launched the program in 1998, with plans to ramp up funding through several "waves" of school districts, starting with the most disadvantaged. But it never quite got there, so it's remained in effect a smaller targeted preschool program. Now Spitzer wants to bring it all the way to full scale. That should be big news, and it would have been if Spitzer hadn't packed so many bold and controversial ideas into his proposals. But even with everything else going on, it still deserves significant attention.
All That Baggage
I think Joe Williams has a great point here:
There's a tendency among folks in positions like mine to characterize teachers as being obstructionist or anti-accountability when they oppose the types of reform ideas Joe lists above, but the reality is that teachers who have been living and working in dysfunctional systems have good reasons not to trust the people that would be given greater decision-making authority under some reform schemes. And policy types should listen to that, not just dismiss it or wish it away. The dysfunction and problematic behaviors that weaken many of our school systems aren't independently occurring phenomena--they are causally connected and feed off each other. You can't address one without also impacting a host of other relationships and behaviors. That's why "add on" reforms, like new curricula, or reducing class size, or extending class time, or whatever else is the flavor of the week, even though they may be really good ideas, can't fix things on their own. Fundamental improvement requires shocking the system in a way that breaks through the baggage of accumulated behaviors and relationships. I don't think anyone has yet figured out how to do that really well. Even in the cities that are making positive progress on reform, there's still a tremendous amount of conflict and mistrust, lots of incompetence remaining in the system, and dysfunctional behavior going on at all levels.
Message to people who like the idea of things like weighted student formulas, decentralization, merit pay, improving the tenure process, etc: You have to think hard about whether this is really the crew you want implementing this kind of important stuff. How can we even talk about getting rid of incompetent teachers when the mayor has created a system that so warmly embraces incompetent bureaucrats?
There's a tendency among folks in positions like mine to characterize teachers as being obstructionist or anti-accountability when they oppose the types of reform ideas Joe lists above, but the reality is that teachers who have been living and working in dysfunctional systems have good reasons not to trust the people that would be given greater decision-making authority under some reform schemes. And policy types should listen to that, not just dismiss it or wish it away. The dysfunction and problematic behaviors that weaken many of our school systems aren't independently occurring phenomena--they are causally connected and feed off each other. You can't address one without also impacting a host of other relationships and behaviors. That's why "add on" reforms, like new curricula, or reducing class size, or extending class time, or whatever else is the flavor of the week, even though they may be really good ideas, can't fix things on their own. Fundamental improvement requires shocking the system in a way that breaks through the baggage of accumulated behaviors and relationships. I don't think anyone has yet figured out how to do that really well. Even in the cities that are making positive progress on reform, there's still a tremendous amount of conflict and mistrust, lots of incompetence remaining in the system, and dysfunctional behavior going on at all levels.
Thursday, February 01, 2007
Sex Offender Surprise
This story is truly a gem, but I'll try to stick to the education side. The basic story line is that 29 year-old sex offender Neil H. Roderick II attended a series of Arizona charter schools posing as a 7th grade student for almost 2 years. Using the assumed name Casey Price, Roderick lived in El Mirage, and attended a school called Imagine Charter School in a town called Surprise. (Far too good to make up). Aiding in his scheme were two older men, also sex offenders, who enrolled him in school.
Leaving aside the fairly obvious question of how a 29 year-old could masquerade as a 7th grader for nearly two years without attracting attention, why didn't Price's suspicious documentation alert officials before? The school that ultimately called authorities noted that Price's documents had different dates of birth and spellings of Price's first name. Also, why did he choose to enroll in a series of charter schools?
My personal suspicion is that in the hot charter state of Arizona, where there are 450 charter schools (1 in every 4 public schools) that enroll 8% of the student body, competition is real, and enrollment processes may not be as stringent as in the traditional system. In fact, a parent in the Times story comments that Roderick probably thought a charter school was an easier target, noting that "it is not really difficult to enroll."
While eliminating bureaucracy can be an important benefit of charter schools (which I support), sometimes red tape can be useful in creating a filter. Imagine Charter School is unclear about what documentation it requires (though notes it is reviewing its procedures), but its online enrollment form is fairly cursory. In contrast, the local school district in Surprise asks parents to provide: an original birth certificate, last school attended and academic records, proof of residence, custody papers, and proof of immunization. I'm sure all this paperwork is a hassle for parents, but nonetheless probably a good idea to ensure kids have not been kidnapped, are not actually adult sex offenders, etc.
Barely related aside: As a reward for reading to the end of the Times article, the reader is treated to the lovely revelation that the men who had posed as Price's uncle and grandfather were also tricked by him and had believed that he was a minor, though they were disappointed by his deception. Yes, you read correctly. These men were disappointed to discover they had been engaging in a sexual relationship with an adult, instead of a child. Surprise!
Leaving aside the fairly obvious question of how a 29 year-old could masquerade as a 7th grader for nearly two years without attracting attention, why didn't Price's suspicious documentation alert officials before? The school that ultimately called authorities noted that Price's documents had different dates of birth and spellings of Price's first name. Also, why did he choose to enroll in a series of charter schools?
My personal suspicion is that in the hot charter state of Arizona, where there are 450 charter schools (1 in every 4 public schools) that enroll 8% of the student body, competition is real, and enrollment processes may not be as stringent as in the traditional system. In fact, a parent in the Times story comments that Roderick probably thought a charter school was an easier target, noting that "it is not really difficult to enroll."
While eliminating bureaucracy can be an important benefit of charter schools (which I support), sometimes red tape can be useful in creating a filter. Imagine Charter School is unclear about what documentation it requires (though notes it is reviewing its procedures), but its online enrollment form is fairly cursory. In contrast, the local school district in Surprise asks parents to provide: an original birth certificate, last school attended and academic records, proof of residence, custody papers, and proof of immunization. I'm sure all this paperwork is a hassle for parents, but nonetheless probably a good idea to ensure kids have not been kidnapped, are not actually adult sex offenders, etc.
Barely related aside: As a reward for reading to the end of the Times article, the reader is treated to the lovely revelation that the men who had posed as Price's uncle and grandfather were also tricked by him and had believed that he was a minor, though they were disappointed by his deception. Yes, you read correctly. These men were disappointed to discover they had been engaging in a sexual relationship with an adult, instead of a child. Surprise!
New York's Watchful Eye
Two news stories this week indicate that New York Katherine Gibbs School
Preferred lender lists are lists of lenders that financial aid offices recommend their students use for their loans. These lists can be as short as one lender or can include several options, and students almost always choose a lender off this list. For lending companies, getting on preferred lender lists is essential to maintaining high profits; it gives them access to federal loan business, but also to more lucrative private loan business. Of course, when high profits are involved, there is the potential for shady behavior – lenders aren’t supposed to bribe financial aid officers to get on preferred lender lists, but some smaller loan companies are accusing them of doing just that. It will be interesting to see how the Attorney General’s investigation shakes out, and whether it impacts the Department of Education’s proposed regulatory changes on loan company and university practices.
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Say It Loud, Eliot Spitzer, and Say It Proud
Blogging again after a week on vacation. I could say I'm glad to be back, but given that I was here, that would be an egregious lie.
On Monday, Governor Elitot Spitzer made a big announcement about school funding in New York, supporting a multi-billion dollar increase in resources, but saying that the money would come with strings attached to new standards for high performance. Specifically, he said:
“My vision for education reform is built on a single premise: To be effective, new funding must be tied to a comprehensive agenda of reform and accountability.”
The details are forthcoming, and so this will sink or swim based on whether the implementation is smart and well-integrated into established accountability systems. But there is a very important symbolic issue here as well, one that could more significant in the long run than what actually happens in New York.
Supporters of more school funding, who tend to be liberals, Democrats, and/or people working in schools, basically have three options:
1) Fight the proposal, on the grounds that more state-based accountability and performance-driven oversight is a bad idea. In other words, the money isn't worth the strings.
2) Accept the proposal, on the grounds that the money is worth the strings, but in a grudging fashion, taking many opportuntities along the way to grumble that while this is an okay deal, more money with fewer (that is, no) strings would be a lot better.
3) Support the proposal wholeheartedly.
Some ostenible school funding supporters will choose (1), but most will probably choose (2). This is a bad and ultimately short-sighted choice to make. In the long run, (3) is the only way to go, both in terms of what's right for kids, but also purely in terms of the cause of more school funding.
Here's why: Before I moved to Washington, DC to write blogs and do other, more productive work, I spent six years working in the Indiana Statehouse, focusing on tax policy, budgeting, and school finance. I spent two of those years working as the chief advisor to the senior Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee. The committee had a Budget subcommittee, chaired by a Republican.
I didn't agree with his politics, but I had a lot of respect for him as a person and a legislator. He was a retired farmer and a Quaker with a Harvard M.B.A, a conservative in the sensible midwestern way. He thought that public resources should be spent sparingly and wisely, a principle that's hard to argue with, regardless of your politics. He was also a really nice, even-tempered guy. It took a lot to make him angry.
But it happened, as it did one day when some group or another was making a particularly ill-conceived and poorly justified plea to the committee for a sizeable increase in state appropriations. I don't remember if it was an education group or not, but their request basically boiled down to, "We think you should give us many millions of new dollars, on the grounds that we deserve it, and would probably be better off with that money than without it, all things considered."
To which the chairman reddened, shook his finger, and said "What you're asking is for the taxpayers of Indiana to give you more money for the same thing. And I am not going to do that."
Needless to say, he didn't. He wasn't a maniac anti-government conservative who thought that taxation was tantamount to theft. He thought the government did a lot of good--that's why he ran for office. He just thought it should do good in a restrained, efficient way.
The point being, most people in this country feel this way. There's really no such thing as big-government liberalism in 2007. There might have been once, but that was a long time ago. Hard-core anti-government conservatives are better represented on talk radio and in Congress and the White House than they are in the real world. Most people will pay taxes with relatively few complaints as long as they're reasonable and used for something useful. And education is pretty high on their list of useful things.
But there's a catch: they, like the chairman, don't want to pay more money for the same thing. This is completely sensible. It is the instinct that Eliot Spitzer is speaking to. It's the right thing to do from a policy perspective; there are a lot of children out there suffering in schools that are both under-funded and badly run. The only way to help them is to tackle both problems forcefully, at the same time.
Crucially, it's also the right thing politically. It's the path to broad public support for financial help for public education. There are a lot of people out there who could be convinced to pay for or even sacrifice on behalf of the public schools, not just the schools their kids go to but all public schools, if they could only have some reasonable assurance that the money would mean something, that it would be spent wisely and well.
Unfortunately, our education system has been trapped for decades in a unspoken agreement between conversatives who care more about keeping taxes low than improving the schools and left-leaning interest groups who care more about protecting the status quo than improving school funding. Neither will budge, and the students lose.
That's why it's incumbent on school funding supporters to not just go along with proposals like Spitzer's--assuming the particulars are well-thought out--but embrace them. To hold them up as the first, best option. That's what it will take to get the majority of the citizens to a place where they'll support the kind of broad, far-reaching funding reforms that many schools really need.
On Monday, Governor Elitot Spitzer made a big announcement about school funding in New York, supporting a multi-billion dollar increase in resources, but saying that the money would come with strings attached to new standards for high performance. Specifically, he said:
“My vision for education reform is built on a single premise: To be effective, new funding must be tied to a comprehensive agenda of reform and accountability.”
The details are forthcoming, and so this will sink or swim based on whether the implementation is smart and well-integrated into established accountability systems. But there is a very important symbolic issue here as well, one that could more significant in the long run than what actually happens in New York.
Supporters of more school funding, who tend to be liberals, Democrats, and/or people working in schools, basically have three options:
1) Fight the proposal, on the grounds that more state-based accountability and performance-driven oversight is a bad idea. In other words, the money isn't worth the strings.
2) Accept the proposal, on the grounds that the money is worth the strings, but in a grudging fashion, taking many opportuntities along the way to grumble that while this is an okay deal, more money with fewer (that is, no) strings would be a lot better.
3) Support the proposal wholeheartedly.
Some ostenible school funding supporters will choose (1), but most will probably choose (2). This is a bad and ultimately short-sighted choice to make. In the long run, (3) is the only way to go, both in terms of what's right for kids, but also purely in terms of the cause of more school funding.
Here's why: Before I moved to Washington, DC to write blogs and do other, more productive work, I spent six years working in the Indiana Statehouse, focusing on tax policy, budgeting, and school finance. I spent two of those years working as the chief advisor to the senior Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee. The committee had a Budget subcommittee, chaired by a Republican.
I didn't agree with his politics, but I had a lot of respect for him as a person and a legislator. He was a retired farmer and a Quaker with a Harvard M.B.A, a conservative in the sensible midwestern way. He thought that public resources should be spent sparingly and wisely, a principle that's hard to argue with, regardless of your politics. He was also a really nice, even-tempered guy. It took a lot to make him angry.
But it happened, as it did one day when some group or another was making a particularly ill-conceived and poorly justified plea to the committee for a sizeable increase in state appropriations. I don't remember if it was an education group or not, but their request basically boiled down to, "We think you should give us many millions of new dollars, on the grounds that we deserve it, and would probably be better off with that money than without it, all things considered."
To which the chairman reddened, shook his finger, and said "What you're asking is for the taxpayers of Indiana to give you more money for the same thing. And I am not going to do that."
Needless to say, he didn't. He wasn't a maniac anti-government conservative who thought that taxation was tantamount to theft. He thought the government did a lot of good--that's why he ran for office. He just thought it should do good in a restrained, efficient way.
The point being, most people in this country feel this way. There's really no such thing as big-government liberalism in 2007. There might have been once, but that was a long time ago. Hard-core anti-government conservatives are better represented on talk radio and in Congress and the White House than they are in the real world. Most people will pay taxes with relatively few complaints as long as they're reasonable and used for something useful. And education is pretty high on their list of useful things.
But there's a catch: they, like the chairman, don't want to pay more money for the same thing. This is completely sensible. It is the instinct that Eliot Spitzer is speaking to. It's the right thing to do from a policy perspective; there are a lot of children out there suffering in schools that are both under-funded and badly run. The only way to help them is to tackle both problems forcefully, at the same time.
Crucially, it's also the right thing politically. It's the path to broad public support for financial help for public education. There are a lot of people out there who could be convinced to pay for or even sacrifice on behalf of the public schools, not just the schools their kids go to but all public schools, if they could only have some reasonable assurance that the money would mean something, that it would be spent wisely and well.
Unfortunately, our education system has been trapped for decades in a unspoken agreement between conversatives who care more about keeping taxes low than improving the schools and left-leaning interest groups who care more about protecting the status quo than improving school funding. Neither will budge, and the students lose.
That's why it's incumbent on school funding supporters to not just go along with proposals like Spitzer's--assuming the particulars are well-thought out--but embrace them. To hold them up as the first, best option. That's what it will take to get the majority of the citizens to a place where they'll support the kind of broad, far-reaching funding reforms that many schools really need.
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
D.C. Governance Reform
The D.C. Council is holding hearings today on Mayor Adrian Fenty's proposal to take control over governance of the District of Columbia Public Schools. If you're a real school reform geek, you can watch the hearings here.
You can sense from the hearings that many of the councilmembers are very frustrated with the current system and eager for change. Carol Schwartz (R-At Large) seems to be the most opposed to Fenty's plans: She penned a Washington Post op-ed airing her concerns that ran over the weekend. I think Ms. Schwartz makes one very good point. Improving the District's public schools in long-term, laborious work that requires clear focus and a lot of political capital. Despite the D.C. Government's progress during the Williams adminsitration, there are plenty of city programs and agencies besides education that still need dramatic achievement. It is reasonable to ask whether a Mayor can have the energy and political capital to run the schools and improve student achievement while also fixing other city services. But the reforms Ms. Schwartz recommends in place of mayoral control are pretty weak. In particular, giving the council line-item authority over the school budget is a recipe for micromanagement that will only further complicated the tangled governance arrangements for schools in D.C. Mayor Fenty's legislation would also have given the Council a bigger role in school budgeting, and I think that's a mistake, too.
The current Board of Education also presented its own alternative plan yesterday. Under their plan, the existing board would maintain day-to-day control of school operations but set specific targets for school improvement in the next 18 months. Unlike Fenty's plan, which is purely a governance reform plan, the Board of Education's legislation includes a set of specific education reforms and goals. Both Fenty's plan and the Board of Education plan would create a new State Department of Education under the Mayor's control.
It seems pretty likely that, whatever else, we will get a new State Education Department for D.C. If so, we should take into account what nearly every major analysis of NCLB implementation so far has said: Existing State Departments of Education weren't designed to run accountability systems or support efforts to school improvement. The resources are focused in the wrong places and so they're doing a lousy job implementing the law. D.C. has an opportunity to build a new model of State Education Agency designed for today's education policy goals. Congress has an opportunity to help improve D.C. schools and address a key issue in NCLB by providing D.C. with additional funding to build an excellent model State Education Agency.
btw: Lots of speakers are talking about the impacts of other mayoral takeovers and what D.C. can learn from them. Completely independent of today's hearing, Ryan at edspresso looks at goings-on in NYC and LA here.
You can sense from the hearings that many of the councilmembers are very frustrated with the current system and eager for change. Carol Schwartz (R-At Large) seems to be the most opposed to Fenty's plans: She penned a Washington Post op-ed airing her concerns that ran over the weekend. I think Ms. Schwartz makes one very good point. Improving the District's public schools in long-term, laborious work that requires clear focus and a lot of political capital. Despite the D.C. Government's progress during the Williams adminsitration, there are plenty of city programs and agencies besides education that still need dramatic achievement. It is reasonable to ask whether a Mayor can have the energy and political capital to run the schools and improve student achievement while also fixing other city services. But the reforms Ms. Schwartz recommends in place of mayoral control are pretty weak. In particular, giving the council line-item authority over the school budget is a recipe for micromanagement that will only further complicated the tangled governance arrangements for schools in D.C. Mayor Fenty's legislation would also have given the Council a bigger role in school budgeting, and I think that's a mistake, too.
The current Board of Education also presented its own alternative plan yesterday. Under their plan, the existing board would maintain day-to-day control of school operations but set specific targets for school improvement in the next 18 months. Unlike Fenty's plan, which is purely a governance reform plan, the Board of Education's legislation includes a set of specific education reforms and goals. Both Fenty's plan and the Board of Education plan would create a new State Department of Education under the Mayor's control.
It seems pretty likely that, whatever else, we will get a new State Education Department for D.C. If so, we should take into account what nearly every major analysis of NCLB implementation so far has said: Existing State Departments of Education weren't designed to run accountability systems or support efforts to school improvement. The resources are focused in the wrong places and so they're doing a lousy job implementing the law. D.C. has an opportunity to build a new model of State Education Agency designed for today's education policy goals. Congress has an opportunity to help improve D.C. schools and address a key issue in NCLB by providing D.C. with additional funding to build an excellent model State Education Agency.
btw: Lots of speakers are talking about the impacts of other mayoral takeovers and what D.C. can learn from them. Completely independent of today's hearing, Ryan at edspresso looks at goings-on in NYC and LA here.
Monday, January 29, 2007
Reapply or Say Goodbye
The Baltimore Sun reports that Annapolis superintendent Kevin Maxwell is making the entire staff of Annapolis High School reapply for their jobs. The school is chronically low-performing and will face intervention next year if something's not done to improve student achievement. Teachers are feeling scapegoated (most amusing quote of the Sun article: "Where is the proof that teachers were to blame for this...Do you blame your doctor if you have cancer? Is it Giant Food's fault if I'm fat?").
And people are wondering... is this a desperate step, or a real strategy for change?
Maxwell might look to what superintendent Jesse Register did in Chattanooga five years ago with nine of the worst elementary schools in Tennessee. Register led a major overhaul of the teaching staff and principal leadership in an effort to turn these schools around. It seems to have worked–these eight schools have consistently improved their performance every year. But it wasn't just re-staffing that made the difference.
The Benwood Initiative, as it is called because of $5 million funding from the Chattanooga-based Benwood Foundation (added to $2.5 million more from Chattanooga's Public Education Foundation), involved a comprehensive plan for change. Teacher performance was evaluated by a fairly unique and objective measure. Teachers who were rehired, or who started anew, received intense training in reading instruction. Reading specialists and teaching coaches were hired, and incentives were set up to attract and keep good teachers (including performance bonuses, housing incentives and a free master's program). A parent involvement coordinator was also hired, along with extra staff for after-school and summer programs.
So take note, Annapolis. TN's was an expensive and comprehensive approach to reconstituting schools (and it still wasn't easy). Yours better be too if you want to see real change.
And people are wondering... is this a desperate step, or a real strategy for change?
Maxwell might look to what superintendent Jesse Register did in Chattanooga five years ago with nine of the worst elementary schools in Tennessee. Register led a major overhaul of the teaching staff and principal leadership in an effort to turn these schools around. It seems to have worked–these eight schools have consistently improved their performance every year. But it wasn't just re-staffing that made the difference.
The Benwood Initiative, as it is called because of $5 million funding from the Chattanooga-based Benwood Foundation (added to $2.5 million more from Chattanooga's Public Education Foundation), involved a comprehensive plan for change. Teacher performance was evaluated by a fairly unique and objective measure. Teachers who were rehired, or who started anew, received intense training in reading instruction. Reading specialists and teaching coaches were hired, and incentives were set up to attract and keep good teachers (including performance bonuses, housing incentives and a free master's program). A parent involvement coordinator was also hired, along with extra staff for after-school and summer programs.
So take note, Annapolis. TN's was an expensive and comprehensive approach to reconstituting schools (and it still wasn't easy). Yours better be too if you want to see real change.
Friday, January 26, 2007
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.
Thursday, January 25, 2007
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?
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?
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
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.
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.
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)
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
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.
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.
Join us on February 7th to hear more perspectives on extending time in school.
Thursday, January 18, 2007
The 99th Percentile of Intellectual Dishonesty
Charles Murray, in the first($) of a three-part(!) series on the relationship between IQ and education in the WSJ opinion page, says:
I may have made some of that up (not the quotes). But you see my point.
Note also the class condescension here:
Apparently, we should all appreciate the sacrifices made by Charles Murray and his ilk in the white-collar world, who have selflessly foregone the arcadian satisfactions of a blue-collar livelihood in order to enlighten us with their wisdom. And what do they get in return? An education system so hell-bent on giving everyone a chance to learn that you can't get any good help around the house. Why are those people wasting time in college when they could be downstairs fixing my sink?!
What IQ is necessary to give a child a reasonable chance to meet the NAEP's basic achievement score? Remarkably, it appears that no one has tried to answer that question.He then goes on to say:
That total lack of knowledge will not, however, prevent me from making a series of wholly unsubstantiated assertions about the educational limits of persons possessing various levels of intelligence. Such as saying of a student in the 49th IQ percentile, "It is not within his power to learn to follow an exposition written beyond a limited level of complexity." Or that a student at the 20th percentile "will be able to comprehend only simple written material." Or that "To have an IQ of 100 means that a tough high-school course pushes you about as far as your academic talents will take you." Or that "it makes sense for only about 15% of the population, 25% if one stretches it, to get a college education." These statistics and facts are, mind you, complete fabrications. But that's okay! As a reader of the Wall Street Journal Opinion page, you undoubtedly have a high enough IQ to discern the larger truth.
I may have made some of that up (not the quotes). But you see my point.
Note also the class condescension here:
The spread of wealth at the top of American society has created an explosive increase in the demand for craftsmen. Finding a good lawyer or physician is easy. Finding a good carpenter, painter, electrician, plumber, glazier, mason -- the list goes on and on -- is difficult, and it is a seller's market. Journeymen craftsmen routinely make incomes in the top half of the income distribution while master craftsmen can make six figures. They have work even in a soft economy. Their jobs cannot be outsourced to India. And the craftsman's job provides wonderful intrinsic rewards that come from mastery of a challenging skill that produces tangible results. How many white-collar jobs provide nearly as much satisfaction?
Apparently, we should all appreciate the sacrifices made by Charles Murray and his ilk in the white-collar world, who have selflessly foregone the arcadian satisfactions of a blue-collar livelihood in order to enlighten us with their wisdom. And what do they get in return? An education system so hell-bent on giving everyone a chance to learn that you can't get any good help around the house. Why are those people wasting time in college when they could be downstairs fixing my sink?!
Bennet's (Revised) Rescue Plan
This week's New Yorker magazine features a story about Denver superintendent Michael Bennet's efforts to reform one of Denver's worst public schools. You may have seen some pieces of the ongoing saga about Manual High School, which by all accounts was a tough place to succeed as a reformer or as a student. Boo's account captures the story of this school and its students as a defining part of Bennet's tenure as superintendent, which began in the summer of 2005.
Bennet previously served as the chief of staff for Denver's mayor Hickenlooper and as a managing director for an investment company. An "educational outsider", Bennet looked to some basic principles of management and problem-solving, and immediately announced bold plans to improve and reform Denver's lowest performing schools. He developed three "steps to success", which he laid out in a July 2005 op-ed:
1. Create a safe and orderly environment in every school and every classroom;
2. Develop a highly skilled faculty in every school with access to robust professional development and real-time diagnostic data to evaluate student progress;
3. Support and equip principals to be instructional leaders for the faculty in their school.
All good ideas. But not enough. At least not for Manual High School. With good reason, Bennet set his sights on Manual from the start. Reforms at Manual had failed. Achievement was among the lowest in a low-performing district. In 2005, the 35 percent of Denver public school 9th graders scored proficient in reading, 24 percent in writing, and 12 percent in math. At Manual, 9th grade proficiency levels were just 12 percent for reading, 4 percent for writing, and a miserable 2 percent for math.
Bennet decided to close Manual, abruptly and without community buy-in or involvement. Bennet called it a "rescue mission" but the community was outraged and called the closure an "attack" on the low-income minority neighborhood and student body (Manual's student body is 90 percent Latino and 10 percent Black, 70 percent receiving free and reduced lunch, and nearly half designated English language learners).
As Boo describes, the plan was to redistribute Manual students among four higher-performing schools but, despite campus tours, new bus routes, and additional counseling, the kids scattered to schools throughout the city, including other low-performing public schools as well as online and night programs. Many registered but never showed up at their new schools.
Bennet still has high hopes for Manual, which is scheduled to be re-opened next year with a ninth grade (subsequent grades to be added each year), and stands behind his goals for all schools to be rigorous, high-performing and headed by strong leaders.
Bennet previously served as the chief of staff for Denver's mayor Hickenlooper and as a managing director for an investment company. An "educational outsider", Bennet looked to some basic principles of management and problem-solving, and immediately announced bold plans to improve and reform Denver's lowest performing schools. He developed three "steps to success", which he laid out in a July 2005 op-ed:
1. Create a safe and orderly environment in every school and every classroom;
2. Develop a highly skilled faculty in every school with access to robust professional development and real-time diagnostic data to evaluate student progress;
3. Support and equip principals to be instructional leaders for the faculty in their school.
All good ideas. But not enough. At least not for Manual High School. With good reason, Bennet set his sights on Manual from the start. Reforms at Manual had failed. Achievement was among the lowest in a low-performing district. In 2005, the 35 percent of Denver public school 9th graders scored proficient in reading, 24 percent in writing, and 12 percent in math. At Manual, 9th grade proficiency levels were just 12 percent for reading, 4 percent for writing, and a miserable 2 percent for math.
Bennet decided to close Manual, abruptly and without community buy-in or involvement. Bennet called it a "rescue mission" but the community was outraged and called the closure an "attack" on the low-income minority neighborhood and student body (Manual's student body is 90 percent Latino and 10 percent Black, 70 percent receiving free and reduced lunch, and nearly half designated English language learners).
As Boo describes, the plan was to redistribute Manual students among four higher-performing schools but, despite campus tours, new bus routes, and additional counseling, the kids scattered to schools throughout the city, including other low-performing public schools as well as online and night programs. Many registered but never showed up at their new schools.
Bennet still has high hopes for Manual, which is scheduled to be re-opened next year with a ninth grade (subsequent grades to be added each year), and stands behind his goals for all schools to be rigorous, high-performing and headed by strong leaders.
But Bennet has changed his tune and now acknowledges publicly that the culture of school and community has proven to be a stronger force than he expected, or bargained for. So he's now calling for more direct community involvement, even leadership, in redesigning Manual and other schools.
Boo's article reminds us of the obvious– school reform isn't easy. It also reminds us that separating school change from community change is not the best way out. Saving Manual will take innovation and smart ideas but, as Bennet has seen, it also will require collaboration and community support. There's a Manual Renewal Project, complete with community council, now in place. Whether this will work to save or re-invigorate this or any other failing school depends largely on how and if the community is really engaged and sustained in the effort to improve the school. After years of community-school reform efforts at one high school, I've learned that parent and student involvement in meetings and committees will not do the trick. Manual will need not only strong leadership (the job of Manual High School principal is open), high quality teachers and a new paint job, but also some systemic and ongoing partnerships with CBOS, local businesses and colleges to ensure that these kids get all of the resources and opportunities they need to succeed.
Boo's article reminds us of the obvious– school reform isn't easy. It also reminds us that separating school change from community change is not the best way out. Saving Manual will take innovation and smart ideas but, as Bennet has seen, it also will require collaboration and community support. There's a Manual Renewal Project, complete with community council, now in place. Whether this will work to save or re-invigorate this or any other failing school depends largely on how and if the community is really engaged and sustained in the effort to improve the school. After years of community-school reform efforts at one high school, I've learned that parent and student involvement in meetings and committees will not do the trick. Manual will need not only strong leadership (the job of Manual High School principal is open), high quality teachers and a new paint job, but also some systemic and ongoing partnerships with CBOS, local businesses and colleges to ensure that these kids get all of the resources and opportunities they need to succeed.
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
Down the Financial-Aid Hole
Reducing student loan interest rates would direct subsidies to college graduates, not to students and their families who are struggling to meet current and future educational expenses. College graduates have higher lifetime earnings, and can already take advantage of flexible repayment options available under current law and reduce the effective interest rate they pay through the existing tax deduction for student loan interest.
Mysteries, Puzzles, and Think Tanks
Malcom Gladwell published an article in the New Yorker a few weeks ago about the difference between a puzzle and mystery. While his focus was mainly on Enron, Watergate, and the changing nature of foreign intelligence, it strikes me that the distinction has a lot of relevance to some of the ongoing tensions between the research and think tank spheres. Gladwell says:
The foreign intelligence community has been struggling, according to Treverton, because the nature of its job is changing. During the Cold War, it spent a lot of time solving puzzles. In this day and age, it is increasingly charged with solving mysteries, which requires a different set of skills and attitudes.
On some level, the same kind of thing is happening in public policy. There's a lot we don't know about education. But we certainly know much more know than we ever knew before. Formulating good policy, therefore, is increasingly becoming a function of making sense of the information we have, not finding new information to consider. In other words, solving mysteries instead of puzzles.
The research and think tank spheres engage in both of these activities. But their underlying value systems are different. The most important thing you can do in the research sphere is create new knowledge, add to the collective sum of human understanding. The think tank sphere does some of this, but for reasons of design and purpose it tends to put more emphasis on interpreting information and translating it into specific policies. The end product of research lends itself to puzzle-solving, while think tanks tend to focus on mysteries.
You can see how these value systems clash by observing the way people criticize think tank reports. For example, a few weeks ago, Education Sector released a new report called "Frozen Assets," which used data and findings originally published by many other researchers to do two things: (1) Identify a group of common teacher contract provisions that, according to research, have a weak or inconsistent relationship with student learning, and (2) Estimate how much those provisions costs -- $77 billion nationwide.
Teachers union critics of the report immediately said, "There is no new or original research here." Implicit in this criticism is the idea that new and original research is inherently more valuable and worthy of discussion, and that by lacking those elements the paper is unworthy of serious consideration by definition. This is clearly an argument that resonates, otherwise critics wouldn't use it. "Move along," they're saying. "Nothing new to see here."
This misses the point entirely. "Frozen Assets," like a lot of think tank work, is not about solving puzzles by finding new information. It's about finding new meaning in the information we already have. In this case, that consists of connecting research about how various school factors and policies do--or do not--improve student learning with research and analysis about how much related contract provisions cost, in a way that makes sense to policymakers and the general public. This kind of mystery-solving isn't inherently more or less valuable than puzzle-solving. It's just different, and deserves to criticized on its own terms.
The larger issue lies with the fact that as the amount of freely-available information grows ever larger and the world becomes more complex, education policy will become more like foreign intelligence. The key issues will tend to be mysteries, not puzzles, and influence will accrue to the mystery-solvers.
Many people in the research and academic communities find this troubling, for some completely valid reasons. The media, public, and policymakers don't always have the time or expertise needed to figure out which reports and information sources are truly credible. The academic community addresses this problem with strong internal controls based on credentialling and peer review. But as we learned during the recent Abramoff scandals, anyone can hang out a shingle and call themselves a think tank, all you need is a Web site and an important-sounding name. Remember the "American International Center," the "premiere international think tank" run by a lifeguard in Rehoboth Beach?
That said, there are also many really good think tanks and NGOs. They're meeting the growing demand for mystery-solving, in a way that's purposefully designed to change policy. That doesn't excuse them from any and all scrutiny of the quality or integrity of their work. But that scrutiny is more meaningful when it focuses on what their work actually is.
Update 1: Alexander Russo weighs in here.
The national-security expert Gregory Treverton has famously made a distinction between puzzles and mysteries. Osama bin Laden's whereabouts are a puzzle. We can't find him because we don't have enough information. The key to the puzzle will probably come from someone close to bin Laden, and until we can find that source bin Laden will remain at large.
The problem of what would happen in Iraq after the toppling of Saddam Hussein was, by contrast, a mystery. It wasn't a question that had a simple, factual answer. Mysteries require judgments and the assessment of uncertainty, and the hard part is not that we have too little information but that we have too much."
The foreign intelligence community has been struggling, according to Treverton, because the nature of its job is changing. During the Cold War, it spent a lot of time solving puzzles. In this day and age, it is increasingly charged with solving mysteries, which requires a different set of skills and attitudes.
On some level, the same kind of thing is happening in public policy. There's a lot we don't know about education. But we certainly know much more know than we ever knew before. Formulating good policy, therefore, is increasingly becoming a function of making sense of the information we have, not finding new information to consider. In other words, solving mysteries instead of puzzles.
The research and think tank spheres engage in both of these activities. But their underlying value systems are different. The most important thing you can do in the research sphere is create new knowledge, add to the collective sum of human understanding. The think tank sphere does some of this, but for reasons of design and purpose it tends to put more emphasis on interpreting information and translating it into specific policies. The end product of research lends itself to puzzle-solving, while think tanks tend to focus on mysteries.
You can see how these value systems clash by observing the way people criticize think tank reports. For example, a few weeks ago, Education Sector released a new report called "Frozen Assets," which used data and findings originally published by many other researchers to do two things: (1) Identify a group of common teacher contract provisions that, according to research, have a weak or inconsistent relationship with student learning, and (2) Estimate how much those provisions costs -- $77 billion nationwide.
Teachers union critics of the report immediately said, "There is no new or original research here." Implicit in this criticism is the idea that new and original research is inherently more valuable and worthy of discussion, and that by lacking those elements the paper is unworthy of serious consideration by definition. This is clearly an argument that resonates, otherwise critics wouldn't use it. "Move along," they're saying. "Nothing new to see here."
This misses the point entirely. "Frozen Assets," like a lot of think tank work, is not about solving puzzles by finding new information. It's about finding new meaning in the information we already have. In this case, that consists of connecting research about how various school factors and policies do--or do not--improve student learning with research and analysis about how much related contract provisions cost, in a way that makes sense to policymakers and the general public. This kind of mystery-solving isn't inherently more or less valuable than puzzle-solving. It's just different, and deserves to criticized on its own terms.
The larger issue lies with the fact that as the amount of freely-available information grows ever larger and the world becomes more complex, education policy will become more like foreign intelligence. The key issues will tend to be mysteries, not puzzles, and influence will accrue to the mystery-solvers.
Many people in the research and academic communities find this troubling, for some completely valid reasons. The media, public, and policymakers don't always have the time or expertise needed to figure out which reports and information sources are truly credible. The academic community addresses this problem with strong internal controls based on credentialling and peer review. But as we learned during the recent Abramoff scandals, anyone can hang out a shingle and call themselves a think tank, all you need is a Web site and an important-sounding name. Remember the "American International Center," the "premiere international think tank" run by a lifeguard in Rehoboth Beach?
That said, there are also many really good think tanks and NGOs. They're meeting the growing demand for mystery-solving, in a way that's purposefully designed to change policy. That doesn't excuse them from any and all scrutiny of the quality or integrity of their work. But that scrutiny is more meaningful when it focuses on what their work actually is.
Update 1: Alexander Russo weighs in here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)