FDA Approves Drug That Harms “Only 7% of Patients”

by Robert Pondiscio
March 20th, 2009

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Curriculum, Research and Reports | 8 Comments »

Would that headline raise your eyebrows?  Of course it would.

So why is it no big deal that a GAO report shows that only 7% of schools spend less time on the arts under No Child Left Behind?  As one headline put it, ”GAO finds school arts curriculum not hurt by standardized testing”

Over at Eduwonk, Andy says that if the report had shown a higher percentage of schools reporting a loss of class time on the arts there would have been a big stink.  I have no doubt that’s true.  But it’s equally wrong (not that Andy says this) to dismiss concerns about curriculum narrowing by saying it’s “only” seven percent of schools.  Also, the GAO report notes teachers at schools identified as needing improvement and those with higher percentages of minority students were more likely to report a reduction in time spent on the arts.

FIrst, there’s every reason to be skeptical of data gathered by estimating time spent on a subject rather than measuring it.  But more to the point, why suggest that curriculum narrowing at “only” seven percent of schools is not a cause for concern?  If a prescribed drug had adverse side effects in “only” seven percent of patients–and a higher rate among poor and minority patients (!) – it would be subject to an immediate recall and the line of lawyers filing suit would “only” stretch for miles.

It’s easy to dismiss these findings when it “only” happens in someone else’s school.

I have not poured over the methodologies and results of the GAO report in detail, but one thing does jump out.  According to the GAO, most elementary school teachers-about 90 percent-reported that instruction time for arts education remained the same between school years 2004-2005 and 2006-2007.” If I were filling out the survey, I would have reported no change during that time period too.  My students had almost zero art and music time during the 2004-2005 school year.  Two years later?  Still almost none. 

No change.

Take That, AIG

by Robert Pondiscio
March 20th, 2009

Tags:
Posted in Education News, Students | No Comments »

An upstate New York high school student could teach a course in character to the bonus babies of AIG.  Nicole Heise of Ithaca High School was one of The Concord Review’s six winners of The Concord Review’s Emerson Prize awards for excellence this year. But as EdWeek’s Kathleen Kennedy Manzo tells the story, she sent back her prize, a check for $800 with this note:

As you well know, for high school-aged scholars, a forum of this caliber and the incentives it creates for academic excellence are rare. I also know that keeping The Concord Review active requires resources. So, please allow me to put my Emerson award money to the best possible use I can imagine by donating it to The Concord Review so that another young scholar can experience the thrill of seeing his or her work published.

The Concord Review publishes research papers by high school scholars.  It’s a one-of-a-kind venue for its impressive young authors.  Manzo notes TCR ”has won praise from renowned historians, lawmakers, and educators, yet has failed to ever draw sufficient funding.”

It operates on a shoestring, as Founder and Publisher Will Fitzhugh reminds me often. Fitzhugh, who has struggled for years to keep the operation afloat, challenges students to do rigorous scholarly work and to delve deeply into history. His success at inspiring great academic work is juxtaposed against his failure to get anyone with money to take notice.

Young Ms. Heise noticed.  Anyone else?

“Over-Aiding” Students on Exams on the Rise

by Robert Pondiscio
March 20th, 2009

Tags: ,
Posted in Assessment and Testing, Education Practice | No Comments »

Teachers are becoming bigger cheaters than their students on standardized tests, according to a British study.  Allegations of British invigilators (that’s what they call proctors in the Mother Country) ”over-aiding” pupils is on the rise.

“Teachers’ leaders have warned that their members are under increasing pressure to make sure their pupils do well in tests because of schools’ desire for a good showing in government league tables listing primary school results,” Britain’s Independent newspaper reports. 

I haven’t seen hard data on “over-aiding” in U.S. schools but I suspect it’s not uncommon, especially in struggling schools.  Teachers in my elementary school were ordered by the district to engage in ”active proctoring,” continually moving among students, during state exams.  We were expected not to sit down.  Active proctoring, we were told, had been demonstrated to result in higher test scores. 

I suspect if that’s true it’s because “active proctoring” encourages “over-aiding.”

Conditions of Lying…I Mean Learning!

by Robert Pondiscio
March 20th, 2009

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Education News, Education Theory | 3 Comments »

Australian whole language guru Brian Cambourne has found himself in a minor dust-up Down Under for suggesting a “subliminal campaign” to undermine phonics as an approach to teaching reading by subconsciously linking it with the idea of failure.

Cambourne, best known in the U.S. for his “Conditions of Learning” theory, sent a mass email to literacy educators suggesting they flood an education minister’s office with emails linking phonics to “readicide”, which Cambourne describes as ”the systematic killing of the love of reading, often exacerbated by the inane, mind-numbing practices found in schools,” the Australian reports.  Cambourne’s suggestion was in response to the official’s announcement of the nation’s “first direct comparison of phonics-based reading methods with other techniques.”

Asked why he had to resort to a subliminal campaign instead of relying on evidence, Professor Cambourne first said: “You don’t really believe we can influence the minister’s subconscious?”  Cambourne tells the Australian:

When the email was quoted back to him, Professor Cambourne said he and his colleagues had to rely on cognitive science’s framing theory. “It’s a way of making ideas change based on new theories rather than just denying or trying to argue with people you can’t argue with,” Professor Cambourne said. “When you rely on evidence, it’s twisted. We can also present evidence but we never get a fair hearing. We rely on the cognitive science framing theory, to frame things the way you want the reader to understand them to be true – framing things that you’re passionate about in ways that reveal your passion.”

Framing things the way you want the reader to understand them to be true?  Forgive me, but isn’t that a fancy definition of lying?

“We have to use the same kind of tactics that have been used to demean and demonise whole language,” he said before adding that, if The Australian reported his comments: “I will deny I ever said this.”

Oops.