Comments on: Eduwonk’s $5 Billion Challenge http://blog.coreknowledge.org/2008/06/04/eduwonks-5-billion-challenge/ Closing the Achievement Gap: Teaching Content Sat, 21 Nov 2009 17:59:33 -0600 hourly 1 By: Robert Pondiscio http://blog.coreknowledge.org/2008/06/04/eduwonks-5-billion-challenge/comment-page-1/#comment-4111 Robert Pondiscio Fri, 06 Jun 2008 20:48:05 +0000 http://www.coreknowledge.org/blog/?p=472#comment-4111 Thanks, John. I always worry about sounding harsh or hard-hearted in suggested home-tutoring for disruptive kids, but you've nailed it. I've never seen a kid who didn't respond to one-one-one tutoring (at least in elementary school), and I agree that it would be very cost-effective. For time on-task, I'd be content with researchers sitting in classrooms (or in front of videotapes) timing teacher and student time on task with a chess clock. I'd wager that students in low-achieiving schools lose about one-fourth to one-third of their instructional time to disruption or executing routines designed to prevent disruptions. I'd also wager that low-achieving students spend an inordinate amount of time simply not doing anything due to lack of explicit instructions from teachers, but that's another subject. Thanks, John. I always worry about sounding harsh or hard-hearted in suggested home-tutoring for disruptive kids, but you’ve nailed it. I’ve never seen a kid who didn’t respond to one-one-one tutoring (at least in elementary school), and I agree that it would be very cost-effective.

For time on-task, I’d be content with researchers sitting in classrooms (or in front of videotapes) timing teacher and student time on task with a chess clock. I’d wager that students in low-achieiving schools lose about one-fourth to one-third of their instructional time to disruption or executing routines designed to prevent disruptions.

I’d also wager that low-achieving students spend an inordinate amount of time simply not doing anything due to lack of explicit instructions from teachers, but that’s another subject.

]]> By: john thompson http://blog.coreknowledge.org/2008/06/04/eduwonks-5-billion-challenge/comment-page-1/#comment-4110 john thompson Fri, 06 Jun 2008 19:05:27 +0000 http://www.coreknowledge.org/blog/?p=472#comment-4110 Regarding the random testing, I'm just thinking out loud, but what if you had two or three one month windows like October for the 1st quarter standards, January for 1st semester. Counselors and everyone else would be prepared for the logistics, and perhaps they would be notofied a day in advance. This means that testing would have to be done on computers not bubble sheets, so results would come quickly. And you would have to be prepared for bad news. But actually, I see standardized testing as primarily a guage of three things, the quality of your elementary school education and home life, reading comprehension, and morale. Students could figure out the answers of plenty of questions if a) they had practice in critical thinking, and b) motivation to think through the options. Classes with good morale and a learning culture would not have their scores drop. Classes just going through the motion and that are out of control would drop. It would be sorta like an unannounced classroom evalutations. Most students who like their teachers will do everything they can to impress the evaluator to help their teacher. Those classes would pull it together for a random test. And since the tests wouldn't be high stakes, we wouldn't exclude anyone's scores. Then you would get a real picture of what percentage of the kids who we are reaching. I'm also intrigued by your idea of tutoring at home for the most disruptive students. In my experience, there are a lot of good hearted teachers who get defeated by the peer pressure that disrupts class, even small special ed classes where there shouldn't be the time on task problem. But one on one, those teachers could be very effective traveling teachers. It could be very cost effective. The key is whether the idea would be helpful in breaking the ideological logjam that keeps us from investing in alternative slots that are absolutely necessary to create orderly environments in high poverty neighborhood schools. I'm going to try the idea out on a couple of Board memebers. Lastly, I just want to add my support to the achievement gap really being the time on task gap. Firstly, that's a profound explanation. Secondly, why not measure time on task. Train selected students and program their cell phones to buzz at set times. The students then fill out a form recounting what they see happening around them. Again, be prepared for some bad news. And what if the time on task report takes place as the random testing is being conducted? We could really get some good info. Then teachers, administers, and others would meet with students to analyse the results. Regarding the random testing, I’m just thinking out loud, but what if you had two or three one month windows like October for the 1st quarter standards, January for 1st semester. Counselors and everyone else would be prepared for the logistics, and perhaps they would be notofied a day in advance. This means that testing would have to be done on computers not bubble sheets, so results would come quickly. And you would have to be prepared for bad news. But actually, I see standardized testing as primarily a guage of three things, the quality of your elementary school education and home life, reading comprehension, and morale. Students could figure out the answers of plenty of questions if a) they had practice in critical thinking, and b) motivation to think through the options. Classes with good morale and a learning culture would not have their scores drop. Classes just going through the motion and that are out of control would drop. It would be sorta like an unannounced classroom evalutations. Most students who like their teachers will do everything they can to impress the evaluator to help their teacher. Those classes would pull it together for a random test.

And since the tests wouldn’t be high stakes, we wouldn’t exclude anyone’s scores. Then you would get a real picture of what percentage of the kids who we are reaching.

I’m also intrigued by your idea of tutoring at home for the most disruptive students. In my experience, there are a lot of good hearted teachers who get defeated by the peer pressure that disrupts class, even small special ed classes where there shouldn’t be the time on task problem. But one on one, those teachers could be very effective traveling teachers. It could be very cost effective. The key is whether the idea would be helpful in breaking the ideological logjam that keeps us from investing in alternative slots that are absolutely necessary to create orderly environments in high poverty neighborhood schools. I’m going to try the idea out on a couple of Board memebers.

Lastly, I just want to add my support to the achievement gap really being the time on task gap. Firstly, that’s a profound explanation. Secondly, why not measure time on task. Train selected students and program their cell phones to buzz at set times. The students then fill out a form recounting what they see happening around them. Again, be prepared for some bad news. And what if the time on task report takes place as the random testing is being conducted? We could really get some good info. Then teachers, administers, and others would meet with students to analyse the results.

]]>