Tag Archive for 'education reform'

Learning the Right Lessons

Published by Robert Pondiscio on December 19, 2008 in Education News. 0 Comments

Finland, widely seen as the top-performing school system in the world, has merit pay and teachers unions and tenure.  It has school choice and a national curriculum.  “American education reformers across the political spectrum have lauded the Finns’ investments in parental leave, early childhood education, and national curriculum standards,” writes Dana Goldstein at the American Prospect. ”Education liberals point to the value the Finnish system places on teacher autonomy, while conservatives and libertarians laud Finland’s ability to coax excellent achievement out of students despite large class sizes and relatively few hours in the classroom.”

A close look at Finland “does more to quiet than to fan the flames” of U.S. education reform debates, Goldstein concludes.

The point of studying other nations’ school systems is not to find the silver bullet but to realize that there isn’t one. In the United States, the education debate has been framed as a zero-sum game. We’ve been told again and again that we need to make hard choices between labor protections and doing what is best for children. But a good education system can include merit pay, as well as strong unions and tenure. It can have relatively short school days and large classes but also national curriculum guidelines. Teachers can have autonomy in lesson planning while simultaneously being held to high professional standards. Universal day care and pre-school on one end of the education spectrum can be matched by a commitment to vocational preparedness on the other.

If the United States committed to taking education as seriously as the Finns do, Goldstein concludes, “the universe of possibilities would open up wider than most of us can imagine. That is a long-range project but one whose goal should remain in the back of education reformers’ minds, even as they fight out the day-to-day political battles sure to come.”

Reform Realism

Published by Robert Pondiscio on December 18, 2008 in Educational Policy, No category, Opinion and accountability. 5 Comments

In the year that this blog has been observing and commenting on the passing education scene, we have often favored the sensible center–understanding the need and urgency behind genuine education reform, but clear-eyed about the unintended consequences and deleterious effects of various accountability efforts and reform schemes.  Thus it’s heartening to see one of the 800-pound gorillas in ed reform, the Fordham Foundation, issuing an open letter to the incoming administration advocating “reform realism” — a “vigorous but realistic” federal role in education. 

In a refreshing step away from the tendentious “reformers vs. status quo” argument that has characterized much education debate of late, Fordham sees three camps, not two.  1)  “System Defenders” who believe that public education is fundamentally sound but needs additional resources in order to be more effective; 2) ”The Army of the Potomac” which Fordham argues has “generally sound instincts about reform” but suffers from its “boundless faith in Washington’s ability to accomplish significant positive change in K-12 education”; and 3) “Local Controllers” who want the Feds to ”butt out of K-12 education-but to keep sending money to states and districts.”

Fordham is calling for a fourth approach, dubbed ”Reform Realism,” which favors, among other things common standards and tests, high-quality data and solid research, and protecting the civil rights of individual students and educators.   Advocating a “first do no harm” approach to ed reform, “Reform Realism” also favors eliminating federal oversight of state testing and reporting systems, and mandated school sanctions, as well as loosening rules on teacher credentials. 

As Reform Realists, we favor a vigorous but realistic federal role that respects what is best done from Washington and for the entire nation while dismissing federal programs, policies and practices that have not and cannot succeed,” said Fordham president Chester E. Finn, Jr. “We hope others will join our small but feisty band.”

There’s a lot to like here, even if the open letter is not perfect.  For example describing one camp as “System Defenders” is needlessly antagonistic. It’s a nuance-averse take that does a disservice to many (not just unions, but frontline teachers) who can and do play an important and productive role in school reform.  Likewise, I wonder if it’s fair or accurate to describe the “Army of the Potomac” as occupying the political center, as Petrilli does in a video on Fordham’s blog.  What unites these groups, I think, is a laserlike (if sometimes too rigid) focus on accountability and measurable results, which both defies and transcends political labels. 

Indeed, my only misgiving about Fordham’s smart and welcome contribution is framing it terms of left, center and right.  As Alfie Kohn’s recent piece in The Nation unwittingly demonstrated, it’s not that simple. Efforts to assign particular reform elements to political parties hinder progress. There are Democrats who favor charters, vouchers and muscular accountability, for example.  There are conservatives who welcome national standards.  There is a broad tradition in American politics that says in times of crisis, partisanship stops at the water’s edge.  Perhaps the time has come to ask – even demand –partisanship to stop at the schoolhouse door.

The Spillage of Muddy Language

Published by Diana Senechal on December 14, 2008 in Opinion. 5 Comments

“Twelve voices were shouting in anger, and they were all alike. No question, now, what had happened to the faces of the pigs. The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”

–George Orwell, Animal Farm

I think of Animal Farm when I hear the terms “conservative,” “progressive,” “reformer,” and “establishment” tossed back and forth between one group and another. Lo and behold, they mean everything and nothing. Between David Brooks’ recent column in the New York Times and Alfie Kohn’s commentary in The Nation, we’ve got quite a bit of muck to filter.  Brooks crudely contrasts “reformers” with “establishment”; Kohn, supposedly questioning such categories, uses false categories of his own.  He argues that the “reformers” are allied with “conservatives,” then, instead of defining either term, proceeds to defend his argument in language that is equally imprecise.

Each of Kohn’s statements is internally confused and based on muddy language and reasoning.  I’ll take his statements one by one.

1. There is no evidence that alternative forms of assessment are more “authentic.” To the contrary, they can be every bit as contrived as standardized tests, if not more so. While I recognize the need for a combination of assessments, I dispute the assertion that one is more “authentic” than another.

2. “Top-down” mandates are not inherently bad. It all depends on what is being mandated. A mandated curriculum such as Core Knowledge, which specifies what should be taught but not how, can help ensure a solid education for students without limiting the teachers’ craft or the students’ creativity. By contrast, a mandated pedagogical model like Balanced Literacy can cramp both the process and the content. Yet any policy needs to be implemented thoughtfully in order to work. It should allow for the intelligence of teachers and students.

3. What is “rote” learning? I learn a poem’s meaning as I memorize it; I start to understand its structure, meaning, rhythm, and tones. My mind plays with it. It comes to me in different parts, from different angles. Memorization (of poems, language, and math facts) allows for deep learning. Yet I rarely see schools requiring students to memorize anything (except perhaps their “learning goals”). This is a shame.

4. About the “behaviorist” model: much of education is based on behaviorist assumptions. Kohn needs to distinguish between behaviorism (which has some degree of truth) and a “model” that places it at the center. Also, the use of cash rewards has problems beyond “behaviorism” itself; it sends children the message that they need not do anything for which they are not paid.

5. “a corporate sensibility and an economic rationale for schooling”–too vague and lumpy. I recommend that he separate “corporate sensibility” from “economic rationale.” They are not one and the same. And there is a world of difference between employing some degree of “economic rationale” and adopting a “business model.”

6. Charter schools–again, there’s a world of difference between having a few charter schools (or alternative public schools) and moving toward a charter school “model.” He should acknowledge the difference. Also, he needs to explain the difference between nonprofit and for-profit charters. The question of profit in education is troubling and complex and goes far beyond charters themselves (to test-making, textbooks, pedagogical programs, etc.).

With muddy language in each of his points, it’s no wonder that he makes the equally muddy association between these principles and conservatism. But what is conservatism? There are different strands. As Diane Ravitch points out on Politico,

“There is an enduring message of conservatism that makes sense for our times: fiscal conservatism, respect for the Constitution, preservation of our values and our culture, protection of individual rights and freedoms, concern for national security. This version of conservatism has enduring appeal for a large swath of the population It is not the same as the cramped, narrow, biased expression of contempt for people who are different (e.g., homosexuals); it is not the same as me-first economic policies; nor is it the same as being hard-hearted towards those with less.”

Such conservatism has much in common with certain kinds of progressivism. Instead of using jargon and false logic to pit “conservatives” against “progressives” (or “reformers” against “establishment”), we could use careful language and logic to find common ground and draw up a good policy or two.

Diana Senechal teaches theatre and ESL at P.S. 108, an official Core Knowledge school in New York City.  She has a Ph.D. in Slavic Languages and Literatures from Yale. Her translations of the Lithuanian poetry of Tomas Venclova appeared this fall in a new volume, The Junction.

Eich bin ein Reformer II

Published by Robert Pondiscio on December 12, 2008 in Assessment and Testing, Educational Policy and accountability. 17 Comments

“Beware school reformers,” Alfie Kohn warns darkly in The Nation.  In the world according to Mr. Kohn there are “educational progressives,” and then there are reformers who are ”disconcertingly allied with conservatives.”  To be a school reformer, Kohn writes with no apparent fear of contradiction, is to support:

  • a heavy reliance on fill-in-the-bubble standardized tests to evaluate students and schools, generally in place of more authentic forms of assessment;
  • the imposition of prescriptive, top-down teaching standards and curriculum mandates;
  • a disproportionate emphasis on rote learning–memorizing facts and practicing skills–particularly for poor kids;
  • a behaviorist model of motivation in which rewards (notably money) and punishments are used on teachers and students to compel compliance or raise test scores;
  • a corporate sensibility and an economic rationale for schooling, the point being to prepare children to “compete” as future employees; and
  • charter schools, many run by for-profit companies.

“Notice that these features are already pervasive, writes Kohn, which means “reform” actually signals more of the same.”

(Deep, cleansing breath)  It’s hard to know how to begin unwinding all that is argumentative, tendentious and just plain wrong about this uniquely unhelpful little screed, insisting as Kohn does, that there is a political litmus test for favoring certain ideas in education.  E.D. Hirsch could write a book about the inability of educators to differentiate progressive ends from progressive means (Wait. He’s already written at least three such books) and Kohn falls right into the same old pattern.

All but the most diehard accountability hawks seem to have accepted the idea that there’s more to student achievement than can be demonstrated by merely bubbling in a reading test once a year.  By my count, about 4% of the nation’s 100,000 public schools are charters.  That’s Kohn’s defintion of “pervasive?”  And prescriptive, top-down teaching standards?  Where, pray tell?  Mostly we have a collection of empty “performance” (not content) standards that are so loose and impressionistic that virtually any lesson on any subject can be said to meet some standard. 

And then there’s that most dogeared of pages in the familiar Alfie Kohn hymnal: ”disproportionate emphasis on rote learning–memorizing facts and practicing skills.”  It’s charge he habitually and dishonestly throws at Core Knowledge schools.  In what dark satanic mill is all this rote memorization happening?  Show me.  Given how “pervasive” it is, it shouldn’t be hard. 

Matthew Ygelsias also goes after Mr. Kohn, calling the case for national standards pretty clear:

It’s silly for the federal government to invest a significant amount of money in something without articulating any kind of uniform national goals the money is supposed to be supporting. Beyond that, it’s incredibly harmful to children that when they move — a circumstance that disproportionately impacts poor children — there’s no curricular alignment between what they were learning previously and what they’re being taught now.

Update:  The wise and wonderful Nancy Flanagan, while not commenting on Kohn’s piece, says it all over at Teacher in a Strange Land.  “The worst possible way to approach any productive reform is to set up adversarial camps, and pit them against each other,” she observes. ”Win or lose. Leaving the winner with a constituency that’s half triumphant and half averse.”

Michelle Rhee Is Scaring Me

Published by Robert Pondiscio on December 1, 2008 in Education News, No category and Opinion. 59 Comments

I have never met Michelle Rhee.  Like many people in education, I’ve seen her speak on panels and at conferences, and I’ve read about her extensively.  And let me say clearly, immediately and unambiguously that I support most of what she stands for.  Furthermore, I am in absolute agreement that a profound lack of patience is the only reasonable response to a failed and sclerotic urban school system.  I get it. 

Michelle Rhee is starting to make me nervous.  I don’t mean giddy-excited nervous, but wincing, “uh-oh” nervous.  With her appearance on the cover of Time Magazine this week, she’s now officially the face of education reform in the U.S.

That face is wearing a scowl.  America, say goodbye to Wendy “One Day, All Children” Kopp.  Meet Michelle “I don’t give a crap” Rhee.  Education reformers, say hello to your new cover girl:

In many private encounters with officials, bureaucrats and even fundraisers–who have committed millions of dollars to help her reform the schools–she doesn’t smile or nod or do any of the things most people do to put others at ease. She reads her BlackBerry when people talk to her. I have seen her walk out of small meetings held for her benefit without a word of explanation. She says things most superintendents would not. “The thing that kills me about education is that it’s so touchy-feely,” she tells me one afternoon in her office. Then she raises her chin and does what I come to recognize as her standard imitation of people she doesn’t respect. Sometimes she uses this voice to imitate teachers; other times, politicians or parents. Never students. “People say, ‘Well, you know, test scores don’t take into account creativity and the love of learning,’” she says with a drippy, grating voice, lowering her eyelids halfway. Then she snaps back to herself. “I’m like, ‘You know what? I don’t give a crap.’ Don’t get me wrong. Creativity is good and whatever. But if the children don’t know how to read, I don’t care how creative you are. You’re not doing your job.”

Saying ”the thing that kills me about education is that it’s so touchy-feely” is kind of like saying, ”The thing that kills me about accountancy is that it’s so detail-oriented.”  I’m as data-driven as the next guy, but education is now and always will be — must be — a people-driven enterprise.  People are the product.  The desire to successfully develop the capabilities of others is what gets teachers out of bed in the morning.   

Even people who work for her seem to agree.  By coincidence, the Washington Post’s Jay Mathews has a piece in today’s paper about Brian Betts, Rhee’s hand-picked principal of Shaw Middle School at Garnet-Patterson.  And Jay has him sounding downright touchy-feely. 

Students and parents told Betts that many teachers they knew at Shaw and Garnet-Patterson didn’t care about them. “Nothing that I have ever seen trumps personal relationships at this level,” Betts said. “The kids in this building who can be absolutely horrible in one person’s class can be angelic in another because they have formed a relationship with that teacher.”

Full disclosure:  I worked at Time Magazine long enough to know that a taste for “thesis journalism” is practically stamped on newsmagazines’ genetic code.  Maybe that’s what’s happening here.  The reporter decides the direction she’s taking the story, and piles on the quotes and anecdotes to paint the picture of Michelle Rhee, hard-charging, no excuses type.  See Rhee scowling at a teacher; see Rhee walking out of a meeting punching text into her Blackberry without so much as a “good day.”  She’s on a mission, dammit, and niceties aren’t on the agenda!  Even the cover — especially the cover — See Michelle Rhee with a broom!  She’s the new broom!

Here’s what worries me: accurate or inaccurate, fair or unfair, the increasingly confrontational, impatient, blunt, even rude public persona that’s affixing itself to the Washington, DC schools chancellor runs the risk of getting in the way of what Michelle Rhee wants to accomplish.   I’ll put it bluntly: piss off enough people whose help is essential to your success, and your failure becomes inevitable, a consummation devoutly to be wished.  Then for years to come, the answer to the reforms anyone proposes becomes, “Oh yes, we tried that in Washington under Michelle Rhee and you remember how that worked out.” If she fails, Michelle Rhee’s failure will not be hers alone.  At worst, she runs the risk of damaging the ed reform “brand” for a generation. 

The bottom line:  Most people want to see Michelle Rhee succeed.  But some would like nothing more than to see her go down in flames.  It’s important not to upset that balance and add boxcar numbers of people (you know, people and whatever) to the those who are already sharpening long knives.  That’s not being touchy-feely.  It’s being pragmatic.  A lot of other people’s dreams, plans and hard work are riding with Michelle Rhee on that broom.  And it’s a long way down.

Election Winners and Losers

Published by Robert Pondiscio on November 26, 2008 in Educational Policy. 2 Comments

If you favor school choice and charters, then Kentucky, Oklahoma and Tennessee get the highest marks for “improvements shown” based on the results of this month’s state and federal elections, according to the Washington, DC-based Center for Education Reform.  In Ohio and Wisconsin, things have taken the biggest turn for the worse, based on a state-by-state analysis on CER’s website. 

While it’s still too early to assess completely how recent election results will affect the rise (or fall) of a broad array of school choice programs,” notes CER founder and president Jeanne Allen. “A few states did have significant changes that might provide a glimpse of what is to come.”

In Kentucky, one of ten states without a charter school law, “a bi-partisan coalition of reformers with strong support from minority communities stands ready to propose educational choice,” says Allen.  Oklahoma, meanwhile, has a “weak and ineffective charter law” that has actually been under attack.  “But with the legislature now squarely in the hands of reform-friendly Republicans and a new superintendent race in two years, which may be won by the parent activist who first brought charters to the Sooner State, we anticipate much activity to grow opportunity for kids,” she writes. 

Finally, we are so thrilled that the planets seem to have aligned in Tennessee where the leadership knows and appreciates the need for in-depth changes to that state’s charter law, stymied by onerous requirements that prevent most kids from being able to avail themselves of better schools outside of a few pockets of hope.

In Ohio and Wisconsin, on the other hand, CER thinks shifts to Democratic rule in state Houses of Representatives “will send the champions of choice in these two states into the minority.  These two states have Governors who have pushed to obliterate the path-breaking choices that children in those states enjoy – and are the only two that offer both charters and more ecumenical choices through vouchers.”

On Curriculum: The Silence of the Dems

Published by Robert Pondiscio on November 14, 2008 in No category. 10 Comments

Elizabeth Green of Gotham Schools has laid her hands on a 34-page transition memo written by Democrats for Education Reform, and puts it online for all to see.  She leads with DFER’s touting Teach for America founder Wendy Kopp or Chicago schools boss Arne Duncan for Secretary of Education over NYC’s Joel Klein (the memo is pretty clear, however, that in DFER’s ideal world, Klein or Washington’s Michelle Rhee would get the job).  

Here’s what you won’t read in the DFER memo: anything about curriculum.  The word appears only once in 34 pages, and that’s in someone’s job title.  The memo to the President-elect lays out dozens of staffing recommendations and a legislative strategy that addresses accountability, teacher quality, and a 20% increase in Title I funding.  DFER even suggests the Obama Administration ”steer clear of getting involved in any aspect of the reauthorization of No Child Left Behind until it has firmly gotten its footing.”   On what kids should actually be learning?  Cue the crickets.  Chirp. 

This is not to single out DFER.  Ed reform groups across the board have much to say about funding, structures, choice, charters, incentives and myriad other topics yet virtually nothing about what children are actually taught inside the classroom.  There are clear connections to be made between curriculum and reading achievement, but with 15% to 18% of school age children moving in a given year, student mobility alone is reason enough to support a uniform national curriculum.  Without it, we institutionalize the gaps and repetitions that occur as student’s move from class to class, school to school or town to town.  In particular, low-income children, who move far more often, are profoundly impacted by this. 

To her credit, Kati Haycock touched briefly on the issue in her address at the start of the Education Trust National Conference in Washington yesterday, asking educators to consider not just common standards but ”common curriculum, some common lessons and assignments, and a carefully sequenced development of skills, knowledge and vocabulary.”

At least someone’s talking about it.  Anybody listening?

Building Walls to End Open Space Schools

Published by Robert Pondiscio on November 2, 2008 in Education Practice. 1 Comment

Something there is that does not love a wall.  But don’t tell that to teachers stuck in 70s-era, “open space” schools.  The Baltimore Sun reports dozens of such schools in Maryland want to retrofit their buildings with walls to create classrooms.

The open-space school model, a British import, was embraced in the United States amid shifting social, cultural and political dynamics – the civil rights movement, the rise of feminism and anti-war protests – of the 1960s and ’70s, according to Larry Cuban, professor emeritus of education at Stanford University. Americans were increasingly questioning notions of societal norms, including traditional thoughts on classroom and school organization and teaching methods, earning the model acclaim, he said.

“If you have those walls up,” one principal tells the paper, “you can have a dynamic conversation, and you don’t have to worry about the class next door.  You can dance. Teaching is an art. It has to be engaging.”

“Stop Demoralizing Teachers”

Published by Robert Pondiscio on October 28, 2008 in Opinion. 0 Comments

Why does the answer to improving student achievement always seem to come down to lengthening the school day and adding more professional development, asks Philadelphia schoolteacher Christopher Paslay.  “I’ve been teaching in Philadelphia for 12 years, and I still don’t agree with this philosophy,” he writes in an op-ed in the Philadelphia Inquirer.  “More isn’t always better.”

There are three parts of the education equation: teachers, students and parents. All three of these must be up and running at a minimum level for education to take place. Just as a car needs a working battery and transmission to operate properly, so a school system needs the support and cooperation of parents and students as well as teachers. If parents and students don’t get actively involved, how will extending the school day improve academic achievement? If education isn’t made a priority in children’s homes, what will requiring more professional development for teachers accomplish?

Accountability absolutists will dismiss Paslay’s take as an exercise in excuse-making, but his point that teachers are “only one part of a complex instructional ecosystem” will ring true to teachers.   Paslay’s Rx includes reducing class sizes in poorly performing schools, tuition reimbursement for teachers who agree to teach in failing schools, and most pointedly, “stop demoralizing teachers by making us the eternal scapegoats. In other words, hold parents and the community accountable, too.”

Do more of the sort of thing former Mayor John Street and former Police Commissioner Sylvester Johnson did in 2006, when they gave summonses to 6,000 parents of truant schoolchildren, bringing them to Temple’s Liacouras Center to talk about the importance of getting their sons and daughters to school.

Father (and Mother) Knows Best

Published by Robert Pondiscio on September 9, 2008 in Parents. 1 Comment

If you really want to reform education, Messrs. McCain and Obama, forget the unions, policy wonks and the business community, and heed the words of those who have skin in the game: parents.  Elizabeth Green of the New York Sun has a piece about a new group trying to inject parents’ point of view on ed reform into the campaign.

Leading the charge are two groups, Chicago-based Parents United for Responsible Education (PURE), and New York’s Class Size Matters.  “There’s a complete disconnect between what we’re being told by the politicians and the businesspeople about what we should want schools to do, and what parents want schools to do,” PURE’s executive director, Julie Woestehoff, tells the Sun. ”But frankly what parents want schools to do is better for their children. They know best.”

Naturally, there’s a manifesto in which PURE offers its own ed reform ideas. Titled “Common Sense Educational Reforms,” it differs sharply from both the “Broader Bolder” group’s and the Education Equality Project, led by Joel Klein and Al Sharpton.  The parents’ wish list includes increased parental involvement, lower class sizes, and a “rich, well-rounded curriculum.” 

Sounds good so far.  I’m all for giving parents the biggest, loudest megaphone on education issues.  They are, after all, the consumer.  On the other hand, the manifesto sounds suspiciously non-parental in its demand for kids to have ”project-based learning in a curriculum connected to their own lives and culture, with progress evaluated by high-quality, appropriate assessment tools that are primarily classroom-based.”  The group is also decidedly anti-charter schools, which will be a hard sell to parents whose kids have been spared from a life of educational neglect by charters.