A “Not-To-Be-Missed Opportunity for American Education”

March 10th, 2010

The Common Core State Standards released today represents a ”not-to-be-missed opportunity for the nation to begin catching up in verbal achievement,” says E.D. Hirsch, Jr.  The Core Knowledge Foundation issued a statement in support of the initiative in which Hirsch describes the English Language Arts standards as “a significant improvement over the earlier drafts.”

“Especially welcome is the drafters’ insistence that the language arts standards must be complemented by a well-developed, content-rich curriculum and their recognition that verbal achievement–including reading comprehension–is based on general knowledge. By emphasizing the critical fact that language mastery also requires knowledge of history, art, music, and science, and moreover that these subjects should be included in the class time devoted to literacy, these standards go beyond the narrow literary emphasis of even the best of the existing state standards.” 

The big win for those who advocate for a coherent, specific core curriculum is the Standards’ call for elementary reading instruction to be “fully integrative, including a rich blend of stories, drama, and poetry as well as informational texts from a range of content areas.”  The call for schools to teach a coherent curriculum (not just nonfiction for the sake of nonfiction) that builds knowledge across grades is a validation of the Core Knowledge approach to literacy, notes Foundation President Linda Bevilacqua.  

“While various reading approaches include nonfiction, and textbook publishers are paying greater attention to reading in the content areas, they have typically failed to grasp the importance of developing a cumulative and coherent approach to building knowledge within grades and across grade levels.  States and textbook publishers who wish to be standards-ready will now need to understand that randomly selecting and inserting individual nonfiction titles into their English Language Arts programs is not sufficient.

“This random approach to content in language arts fails to recognize how domain knowledge builds within and across grade levels. It’s a missed opportunity and a waste of precious instructional time,” she said.   Hirsch is also quoted in support of the standards in this morning’s Washington Post.  Elsewhere Edweek’s Catherine Gewertz posts a comprehensive look at the reactions to the standards, both good and bad.

“No Daylight Between Us”

March 3rd, 2010

Diane Ravitch’s new book, The Death and Life of the Great American School System, has tongues wagging from one end of the edusphere to the other.  The New York Times’ Sam Dillon weighs in with a profile of Ravitch, which gives play to the overhyped “I was blind but now I see” angle that’s dominating reviews so far

Checker Finn files a review of the book over at Forbes.com, and he makes an important point about Ravitch’s putative reversals.  When it comes to curriculum, Ravitch’s views haven’t changed a bit:

Diane and I go back a very long way–three decades, give or take–and in addition to the personal friendship we have, during that period, shared a basic diagnosis of what’s awry in U.S. education. It boils down to this: Most kids aren’t learning nearly enough of the important stuff that they ought to be learning.  That was true in 1981, when we jointly launched the Educational Excellence Network, and it’s still true today. Our view of the central problem needing to be solved has, I believe, remained constant, and there is no daylight between us on that score.

Where Finn parts company with his friend is on where we go from here.  “She has become more conservative,” Finn writes, “while I have become more radical.”

School Turnaround Secrets of The Queen of Hearts

February 18th, 2010

The Queen had only one way of settling all difficulties, great or small. ‘Off with his head!’ she said, without even looking round.

Identifying and replacing 6 percent of a school system’s least effective teachers can turn around student performance and have a greater and more positive impact than any other expenditure designed to stimulate economic growth, according to Stanford University economist Eric Hanushek, who gave a speech last week on teacher quality at the University of Kentucky.

Speaking to a rapt audience of faculty and students, Hanushek lamented the years the United States has wasted on resource solutions to improve student outcomes that have not worked. Among the factors not found to impact student achievement were per-pupil expenditures, class size, pupil/teacher ratios, whether or not teachers have master’s degrees, years of experience possessed by teachers and teacher certification. Hanushek concluded the United States is enduring the consequences of “losing focus and failing to direct sufficient attention to teacher quality and teacher effectiveness.”

“What would happen if we simply adopted policies of systematically removing the most ineffective teachers?” Hanushek asks.  Here’s my guess:  we’d have a brand new bottom 6%, while doing nothing to make the other 94% any better.   There’s nothing wrong wanting to improve teacher quality — who wouldn’t want to replace the worst teachers? — but we’d get further, faster if we attended to curriculum and pedagogy, rather than simply looking at bad teachers and shouting “off with their heads!”

Look outside any school and you will not see a line of superstar teachers waiting patiently for the broken bats to be removed to make room for them.  Economically, we may never see a large enough raise in teacher salaries sufficient to attract a stable, permanent number of bright, superbly trained professionals to the field.  Hanushek, a first-rate scholar, surely knows this.  But the dialogue around teacher quality threatens to reduce it to just another ed reform bumper sticker. Consider:

1)      We define teacher quality as the ability to raise test scores, which is narrow, insufficent and unsatisfying.

2)      We think we can raise teacher quality through incentives like merit pay, which is naïve at best.

3)      Talk of teacher quality tends to ignore curriculum, which can improve the quality of teaching by letting struggling teachers focus on delivery, engagement, differentiation, etc. – the “how to teach” rather than the “what to teach.”

It’s faster, easier, cheaper and far more practical to give every teacher a good curriculum than give every kid a good teacher–and again, it’s NOT a question of either/or–plus a solid curriculum may improve the efficacy of mediocre teachers.   The bottom line is that improving curriculum can be done today; without it, improving teacher quality will likely remain a distant, ill-defined and therefore unachievable goal.

You can’t uncouple effective instruction from the content of the instruction, a point that is typically overlooked in teacher quality talk (What exactly do you think effective teachers do all day?).   Personally, I’d be a lot more excited about the move to improve teacher quality if its advocates showed they understood the crucial role of curriculum and pedagogy in making teachers effective and promoting true student achievement.

Assumptive Teaching

February 9th, 2010

Karin Chenoweth visited two large, suburban high schools recently, both serving significant numbers of middle-class and working-class African-American families.  Chenoweth, the author of How It’s Being Done: Urgent Lessons from Unexpected Schools, explains that at both schools, there’s been a lot of assumptive teaching” going on.  That means

…teachers assume a great deal of background knowledge among their students and have not done the essential work of determining what their students really know, what more they need to learn, and then figuring out how to teach them. 

At one of the schools, teachers and administrators “know that their long tradition of teachers teaching in isolation with no accountability for the success of their students is part of what nurtures that “assumptive teaching,” Chenoweth writes at Britannica Blog.  The second school, however, seems less willing to change its ways. 

Some of them visibly recoiled when I said that highly successful schools with significant percentages of minority and low-income students achieve success by collaborating on careful plans of instruction mapped to state or college-preparatory standards, complete with common formative assessments and data systems so they can track how well each of their students is doing and ensure that each of them gets the help they need.

Chenoweth, one of our best and most knowledgeable chroniclers of classroom practice, clearly looks askance at ”assumptive teaching.” But it’s worth asking if the lack of a coherent curriculum isn’t the thing that should go instead.   With no common body of shared knowledge in elementary and middle school, high school teachers can’t reliably know what content and skills students arrive with.  Thus every student is a blank slate and must be constantly assessessed and reassessed to determine what they know.  Student mobility further complicates matters.  The teacher can take nothing for granted.

Indeed, student mobility may be the best argument for a common curriculum in elementary and middle school.  The deleterious effects of moving on student achievement is well-documented, and highly mobile, low-SES students suffer disproportionately.  If there were some reliable commonality of content from grade to grade and school to school, at least within districts, students might spend less time catching up and more time learning. 

The same is true for assumptive teaching.  Time spent amassing an inventory of student skills and background knowledge is time not spent learning new things.   “Meet the children where they are” is a standard teaching homily.   Isn’t is merely making a virtue of necessity?  In the absence of a common curriculum, standards and assessments we have to meet them where they are.  We have no idea where they have been. 

 

100 Years of Solipsism

February 8th, 2010

There is a significant shortcoming in Susan Engel’s much-discussed and widely lauded vision of what children should do in school all day, writes Dan Willingham at the Washington Post’s Answer Sheet blog, and it’s that content is never mentioned.  “It’s all about process—reading is a skill, science is all about observing and finding patterns, and so on,” he writes.

“Skills and knowledge are actually not separable, and it’s a mistake to base a curriculum solely on skills. The response, I expect, would be that the content will come along naturally, as part of the authentic activities. But it hasn’t in the past. 

Citing Diane Ravitch’s Left Back, Willingham points out that Engel’s ideas are not fresh and new, nor are they based on “modern developmental science” as she claims.   And they’re not necessarily bad ideas.  However, they are nearly impossible to implement effectively.

Progressive curricula are characterized by “authenticity.” Authenticity means that the underlying principles that the child is supposed to learn are seldom overt. To learn about ecosystems, the child might grow tomatoes. It is simply harder to ensure that the child is thinking about ecosystems and not about tomato sandwiches, or that worms are gross, or that his shoes are muddy. It can be done, assuredly, and it’s wonderful when it is, but it presents real challenges.

“Done right, progressive methods are terrific. All the benefits — student engagement, understanding that is more closely tied to out-of-school contexts — do accrue. Done wrong, progressive methods turn in to fluff, into kids horsing around a greenhouse,” he concludes.

Over at Teacher in a Strange Land, the redoubtable Nancy Flanagan comes to Engel’s defense.  Sort of.  Flanagan shows she understands the complexity of successful project-based learning.  If Engel gets it, her piece gives no clue.  Rather she leaves the distinct impression that everything worth knowing can be arrived at by diligent inquiry, which is a tall order–especially for young children. 

Me?  I’m grateful for the Pythagorean Theorem.  And even more grateful that someone explained it to me rather than leaving it to me to discover on my own.

Suing Over Curriculum

February 5th, 2010

A judge in Washington State has rejected Seattle’s high school math curriculum and ordered schools to consider alternatives.  A district-wide curriculum called “Discovering Math” was adoped last year.  But two parents and a University of Washington professor went to court  to overturn the School Board’s decision.  Remarkably, they won.  The court ruled “there is insufficient evidence for any reasonable member to approve selection of the Discovering series.”

The Seattle Post-Intelligencer expects the district to appeal the ruling.  Martha McLaren, one of the plaintiffs, issued a statement praising the decision.“

This is a sweet victory for the parents and students of Seattle Public Schools. It announces to Seattle that in this instance, the School District’s practice of ignoring evidence, in favor of preconceived decisions, is arbitrary and capricious, and contrary to law. The judge’s finding may, hopefully, be a step towards improving high school math education through replacing confusing textbooks with coherent ones. However, students at all levels, not just in high school, badly need clear, understandable materials. In addition, it is essential that teachers, especially elementary teachers, understand fundamental math much more deeply than is now the norm.

The local website Where’s The Math Bellingham says this means is that school districts are legally accountable to the local community and citizens.

While the district court judge did not rule on the curriculum itself, she made it clear that decisions should be based on evidence and analysis. It’s an expensive lesson for school districts to learn, but an important one they will now have to remember.

Maybe not, says the Seattle Times, which notes the ruling “doesn’t order the district to stop; in fact, there’s nothing in it that bars the district from hanging onto the curriculum after its review.”  Crosscut.com blogger Dick Lilly wonders how school curriculum ended up in court to begin with.   The answer, he says, tells us a lot about the problems of public schools:

Put simply: We don’t know what to teach. The result over the past 40 years has been a weakening of common curriculum to the point where transferring from one school to another — even just within the Seattle School District — almost certainly means a kid will end up in a class studying something entirely different from the class she left. And who transfers the most? Poor kids, so this is a contributor to the achievement gap.

“Mostly, we’ve left decisions about course content to individual schools and even to individual teachers,” Lilly concludes. 

Consider me deeply sympathetic with the plaintiffs concerns about the curriculum.  And equally concerned about the potential for seeing every decision made by a school system brought before a judge.

When Foodies Attack

January 20th, 2010

Seldom have I seen an education piece in a national magazine spark such outrage.  “Wrongheaded, belligerent, and fueled by animus” fumes one blogger. “Snob-bashing populism,” cries another.  And here’s a third, “baffled by the utter stupidity of this snotty Atlantic article.”  No, this is not a reference to the latest bit of Teach For America puffery in the Atlantic, but Caitlin Flanagan’s article “Cultivating Failure” in the same issue, which dares to suggest Alice Waters’ Edible Schoolyard movement is “robbing an increasing number of American schoolchildren of hours they might other wise have spent reading important books or learning higher math.”

Flanagan’s piece is a good old-fashioned takedown, and she opens with an imagined scene of a poor Mexican man, who makes a dangerous and illegal journey to Berkeley, California in the hope of getting his children a great education, only to find his son is picking lettuce at middle school.  “The cruel trick has been pulled on this benighted child by an agglomeration of foodies and educational reformers who are propelled by a vacuous if well-meaning ideology” driven by Waters, whose goal, Flangan writes, is to turn children into “eco-gastronomes”:

Waters’s enormous celebrity, combined with her decision in the 1990s to expand her horizons into the field of public-school education, has helped thrust thousands of schoolchildren into the grip of a giant experiment, one that is predicated on a set of assumptions that are largely unproved, even unexamined. That no one is calling foul on this is only one manifestation of the way the new Food Hysteria has come to dominate and diminish our shared cultural life, and to make an educational reformer out of someone whose brilliant cookery and laudable goals may not be the best qualifications for designing academic curricula for the public schools.

Flanagan’s article is a good read, by turns informative and deliciously bitchy (Edible Schoolyards is “contemporary progressivism, a kind of win-win, ‘let them eat tarte tatin’ approach to the world”).  Her bottom line is that she cannot find “a single study that suggests classroom gardens help students meet the state standards for English and math.”  With Edible Schoolyards, she writes, “the idea of a school as a venue in which to advance a social agenda has reached rock bottom.”

This kind of misuse of instructional time began in the Progressive Era, and it has been employed to cheat kids out of thousands of crucial learning hours over the years, so that they might be indoctrinated in whatever the fashionable idea of the moment or the school district might be. One year it’s hygiene and another it’s anti-Communism; in one city it’s safe-sex “outer-course,” and in another it’s abstinence-only education….But with these gardens—and their implication that one of the few important things we as a culture have to teach the next generation is what and how to eat—we’re mocking one of our most ennobling American ideals. Our children don’t get an education because they’re lucky, or because we’ve generously decided to give them one as a special gift. Our children get an education—or should get an education—because they have a right to one.

Fans of the program, including the foodies cited above, are firing back with energy and vitriol.  Writing at Salon, Andrew Leonard says Flanagan’s beef is “so large that you could drive a herd of grass-fed cows right through it.  If that time is so precious, then why not do away with art and music and physical education classes too?!”

“In Berkeley, and increasingly elsewhere, we also take seriously the idea that understanding what we eat is an essential ingredient in understanding how to live well, healthily and sustainably, in this world, and that it may be just as important, or more, to the prosperous functioning of society as is the ability to play the flute, paint a picture, run the mile or use the Pythagorean theorem. Flanagan rejects that value system, using the poor performance of California schools as a smoke screen for cultural warfare. Her problem with public school gardens is not their effect on test scores, which she can’t measure anyway, but her cultural animosity against the Alice Waters of the world, the foodies, the organic gardeners and locavores and crusaders against factory farms and monoculture agribusinesses.

Flanagan’s evisceration concludes: “Until our kids have a decent chance at mastering the essential skills and knowledge that they will need to graduate from high school, we should devote every resource and every moment of their academic day to helping them realize that life-changing goal.”

Mary Kay 2, Columbus 1

January 14th, 2010

The Texas State Board of Education is taking testimony in advance of voting on new social studies curriculum standards.  “But, as usual in votes before the conservative-led board, the wide-reaching guidelines are full of potential ideological flashpoints,” the Wall Street Journal notes.

Early quibbles over how much prominence to give civil rights leaders such as Cesar Chavez and Thurgood Marshall, and the inclusion of Christmas seem to have been smoothed over. Board Chairman Gail Lowe said at the start of the hearing that Chavez and Christmas will not be removed from the standards….In early testimony, the board was urged to include more examples of influential Mexican Americans in the nation’s history and to further acknowledge Sikhism as a major world religion.

Jonathan Saenz, a lobbyist for the conservative Free Market Foundation came to the hearings seeking greater acknowledgement  of the “strong Christian faith” of Martin Luther King and other historical figures in the standards.  “He’ll also ask the board to reconsider mentioning makeup entrepreneur Mary Kay Ash of Addison, Texas, more often than Christopher Columbus in the curriculum standard,” the Journal notes. “At present Ms. Ash is mentioned twice; Columbus once.”

(H/T: Matthew Levey)

Reading Research: Looking Where the Light is Better

January 12th, 2010

There’s an old joke about a drunk looking his wallet under a streetlight instead of in the dark alley where he dropped it?  Why?  “Because the light’s better here.”  

I thought of that joke when reading Dan Willingham’s latest over at the Washington Post’s Answer Sheet blog.  Willingham has written extensively about the importance of background knowledge to reading comprehension and the limited benefit of reading strategies instruction.  Dan’s observation, “teaching content IS teaching reading” has become my personal mantra.  But if it’s true, then why the continued focus on reading strategy instruction in teacher training and professional development?

Anti-intellectualism?  No.  Dan’s thesis is both simple and surprising: it’s a function of how academic research is carried out.  For starters, educational research is “a more conservative enterprise than you might think” and there are structural incentives rewarding short-term research in which measurable effects are easy to isolate.”

Consider what it takes to do research on strategy instruction versus knowledge instruction. Teaching children reading strategies is quick. A research project might call for 10 or 20 lessons in total, each lasting 30 minutes or less. One can imagine getting a school administrator’s permission to do such a study in his or her district.  But the hypothesis for knowledge instruction is that it takes years to make a broad impact on students’ knowledge.

Measuring the effects of background knowledge would require a whole new curriculum across grades  for validity.  “A researcher will not (and should not) persuade a school administrator to change curricula just for the sake of a research project,” Dan writes.

The comparative ease of doing reading strategies research combined with the inherent conservatism of the research process means that most reading research is strategy research, and that there is a dearth of research on the impact of a knowledge-rich curriculum on reading. Researchers usually find that strategy instruction leads to big effects, but they are not looking at it long-term.”

In short, researchers are looking where the light is better, not where the answers are.

Whistleblowers Delight

January 5th, 2010

Did anyone else get that remarkable email from the organizers of the Broader, Bolder Approach to Education yesterday?  The subject line read “BBA Needs Your Help.”  If you just hit delete, you missed a fascinating email.  BBA, which argues that test-driven accountability narrows the curriculum and creates test obsession in schools is asking teachers to submit examples of schools (presumably their own) that have suffered under strict accountability measures:

In a recent meeting, we advised Department of Education staff that their policy of identifying the lowest-performing 5% of schools in each state, in order to target these schools for massive intervention and “turnaround,” was bound to have adverse consequences if these schools were identified primarily by such test scores. We said that many schools that should be considered among the lowest performing schools would be missed if they artificially boosted their test scores at the expense of a balanced curriculum, by excessive test preparation activities and other gaming. And other schools that pursued a more balanced curriculum and attended to children’s long run achievement might falsely be identified as among the lowest-performing schools because they refused to engage in activities that artificially boosted test scores.

The letter, which doesn’t seem to appear on BBA’s website, notes DOE staff ”were not persuaded,” and asked the group to provide “examples of low-performing schools whose test scores have been artificially inflated by excessive test preparation and gaming, and better schools with very low scores but that were delivering a higher quality of instruction.”  The email, which carries the signatures of BBA organizers Helen Ladd, Pedro Noguera, and Tom Payzant, then asks recipients to identify such schools by name. 

Please include the name of the school, the name(s) of your source(s) of information, and other identifying information in your description. We will not initially provide all of this identifying information in the material we supply to the Department, but we have to be prepared to back up our claims by naming names if necessary.

It’s a bold move by BBA, although they might also consider sending along a copy of Linda Perlstein’s Tested.  I suspect they will find no shortage of schools that have muscled up on test prep and played games to boost test scores.  Whether teachers at those schools are willing to publicly say so is another matter. 

BBA is on shakier ground, I believe, in looking for good schools whose efforts don’t show up on test scores.  If a school is delivering a rigorous, well-rounded curriculum and “attending to children’s long run achievement” that should show up on test scores, assuming the effort is long-running, ongoing and well-implemented.