I write about education. I read a lot about education. And every now and then I read a piece that is so original, so smart, and so incisive that all I can say is, “Damn. I wish I’d written that.”
This is not one of them.
Recent Posts
The Common Core Needs a Common CurriculumThis Is What Equal Opportunity Looks Like
TTBOMK, Paying Attention Is MIA. NISM?
Are We Really Waiting for Superman?
Mission Impossible: Teaching for Justice without the Canon
Social Media
Archives
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| « Apr | ||||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | ||
Authors
Alice WigginsCore Knowledge
Dan Willingham
E. D. Hirsch
Guest Blogger
Linda Bevilacqua
Lisa Hansel
Robert Pondiscio
The Core Knowledge Blog
More Bang for the Book
by Robert PondiscioMay 21st, 2010
Merely having books in the home seems to have more impact on a child’s educational attainment than the education level of the parents, the country’s GDP, the father’s occupation or the political system of the country, according to a new study from the University of Nevada, Reno published in Research in Social Stratification and Mobility.
“For years, educators have thought the strongest predictor of attaining high levels of education was having parents who were highly educated. But, strikingly, this massive study showed that the difference between being raised in a bookless home compared to being raised in a home with a 500-book library has as great an effect on the level of education a child will attain as having parents who are barely literate (3 years of education) compared to having parents who have a university education (15 or 16 years of education). Both factors, having a 500-book library or having university-educated parents, propel a child 3.2 years further in education, on average.”
The study suggests that “getting some books into their homes is an inexpensive way that we can help children succeed,” says Mariah Evans, the study’s principal author. Having as few as 20 books in the home has a significant impact and “the more books you add, the greater the benefit….You get a lot of ‘bang for your book,” she notes
Helping Low-Income Parents Help Their Kids
by Robert PondiscioDecember 23rd, 2009
Under Title I, schools serving the children of low-income families are required to spend 1% of those funds engaging parents in their childrens’ education. But there is little oversight on how schools spend that money–and little sense if the efforts are raising achievement, according to Dale Russakoff of the Foundation for Child Development.
Writing in the Los Angeles Times, Russakoff quotes an expert who notes schools “have so much they consider more important that they’ve gotten good at knowing how to minimally meet the requirements.” The usual parental involvement strategies, including parent nights and notes home in backpacks might work in middle class schools, but are not effective with low-income parents or parents who don’t speak English, he notes.
“It’s a dilemma we all face in the area of parental involvement,” Rosie Kelly, a U.S. Department of Education official involved in monitoring state Title I programs, observes. “Our monitoring is for compliance. You’re talking about a quality issue.” Research efforts have likewise yielded little of value, Russakoff notes, frequently failing to take families social class into account. This is not to suggest, however, that there are not promising strategies to explore.
Joyce Epstein, a sociologist who directs the Center on School, Family and Community Partnerships at Johns Hopkins University, has helped low-income schools raise student achievement by involving both parents and local institutions in learning. “You don’t have to give parents a college education,” Epstein said. “You just have to give them a strategy for having an interesting conversation with their third-grader about a book they’re reading even if the parents haven’t read the book.”
New York City schools hold workshops early in the morning and on weekends, when parents who work multiple jobs are free. “There are many such strategies that the government could subject to rigorous examination and guide districts on how to implement those that bring results,” Russakoff writes. “Rather than chanting the familiar mantra that parental involvement helps students, it is time to tackle the reasons the current approach isn’t working for everyone and seize this opportunity to lower the tall barriers to achievement facing low-income children,” he concludes.
PreK: Access for All? Or For All At-Risk Children?
by Alice WigginsApril 24th, 2009
A Washington Post reader last October asked education columnist Jay Mathews to “start a discussion on the advantages (real and imagined) of pre-kindergarten.” The writer cited evidence that the effects of pre-k wear off and expressed concerns attempting to serve middle-class and at-risk kids with the same program might be “a sure recipe for a new middle-class benefit that shortchanges the poor.”
In response, Sara Mead of the New America Foundation laid out a case for universal pre-k (UPK) largely based on research demonstrating that all children, not just low-SES kids, would benefit. “It’s true,” she wrote, “that the high-quality, randomized controlled trials that demonstrated long-term benefits to participation in high-quality pre-k programs focused on low-income students.”
But data from more recent evaluations of pre-k programs suggests that these programs also have benefits for middle-class children. For example, a Georgetown University study that looked at children in Oklahoma’s universal pre-k program found that all groups of students participating in the program, including middle class kids, made learning gains as a result, compared to students who didn’t. But the greatest gains were for low-income and otherwise at-risk students. Other studies looking at state pre-k programs have found similar results.
Mathews’ correspondent observed that the middle class has to be included to build the political momentum to get a program passed. Mead cited research that shows a lot of working- and middle-class families can’t afford pre-k either. And she’s especially persuasive when she notes “the simple fact that we don’t restrict children’s access to K-12 education based on their parents’ incomes.”
In the end, the question of universal pre-k vs low-income pre-k is a political question. But the benefit of preschool for low-SES children can no longer be seriously disputed. There is no doubt that access to high-quality preschool programs helps. But the key phrase in that sentence is not access, but high-quality. Universal access to low-quality preschool would be a high-cost, low-value proposition. Data from the National Association for the Education of Young Children shows most programs in the United States are rated mediocre, and fewer than 10% meet national accreditation standards:
Across the nation child care fees average $4,000 to $10,000 per year, exceeding the cost of public universities in most states. Yet, nationally only 1 in 7 children who are financially eligible for child care subsidies is being served, and only 41% of 3 and 4 year old children living in poverty are enrolled in preschool, compared to 58% of those whose families have higher incomes.
Cracking the nut of ensuring high-quality is a work in progress. What we do know is that it is dependent on what teachers do in the classroom, not just what they have in the classroom.
In the end, I’m agnostic on universal PreK. It certainly would do no harm, and much good. But we must find a way to guarantee every low-income child a place in a high-quality preschool. If we’re serious about closing the achievement gap, it’s not going to happen without a robust program that captures all of our most vulnerable, at-risk children.
Improving Preschool Education: Clear and Specific Standards
by Alice WigginsApril 20th, 2009
Explicitly defining what very young children should know and be able to do is a very touchy issue. An Australian education group recently suggested that preschoolers should be made aware of different jobs and careers. Sounds reasonable but the idea from Principals Australia was roundly lampooned in the local media as “career counseling” for toddlers. The belief the preschool should be all free play and socialization still runs very deep. However, the National Research Council report called Eager to Learn: Educating our Preschoolers notes these opportunities for learning:
Good teachers acknowledge and encourage children’s efforts, model and demonstrate, create challenges and support children in extending their capabilities, and provide specific directions or instruction. All of these teaching strategies can be used in the context of play and structured activities. Effective teachers also organize the classroom environment and plan ways to pursue educational goals for each child as opportunities arise in child-initiated activities and in activities planned and initiated by the teacher.
This week, I’ll describe five specific ideas to improve preschool education in the U.S. The first is the establishment of clear and specific early childhood learning standards. There are several practical benefits to explicitly specifying what children should know and be able to do. Research clearly documents the positive benefits of a preschool education guided by standards for all children, regardless of socioeconomic level and family background.
It also safeguards all children against the likelihood of lower expectations and watered-down curricula. Early childhood education is not immune from the accountability pressures that now characterize K-12 education in the U.S. Clear and explicit early childhood standards make sense not just as a mere accountability measure, but as an early intervention to address the achievement gap. With a significant investment in preschool education anticipated under the Obama administration, specific standards are a way to ensure that early childhood care and education programs are actually delivering on their promise–to ensure children arrive in elementary school ready to learn. Nowhere is this more important than for low-SES children.
Standards come in two basic flavors: specific and squishy. Or if you prefer, content and process. This is true in K-12 standards, and it’s also true of preschool standards. A typical state standard might state that preschoolers should be able to “apply knowledge of whole numbers.” Fine, but what does that look like? The Core Knowledge Preschool Sequence clearly states that preschoolers should be able to recite the number sequence from one to ten; demonstrate one-to-one correspondence with concrete objects (laying out a plate for every member of the family at mealtime, for example); construct a collection of objects so that it has the same number of objects as another group; count groups of objects with up to 6 objects per group; given an oral number, create a group with the correct number of objects, up to 6. Before a child comes to kindergarten he or she should also be able to name and write numerals up to six, arrange and write them in order, and be able to tell which is greater or less.
By knowing more specifically what the goals and skills are, teachers can plan activities to meet those goals (think about the difficulty in planning activities to meet squishy goals). Additionally, teachers are better able to assess where children are with a skill or goal if it is specifically defined. How can I assess whether a child can apply knowledge of whole numbers? I can easily assess if children can count to six, write numbers, or arrange them in order.
National Standards Critical to Low-SES Schools
by Robert PondiscioFebruary 17th, 2009
At Eduwonk, Andy Rotherham damns Randi Weingarten’s call for national standards with faint praise, noting he’s not against the idea, but calling it a distraction from the core problem the country faces today:
A system of public education that dramatically and dangerously under-serves low-income students and students of color. And it doesn’t under-serve them by a matter of degree but substantially. That’s much more a political problem than a substantive one and while better standards and more fine-grained measurement are important, their absence is not why we are where we are today and we should not lose sight of that.
I respectfully disagree with Andy. The lack of a coherent curriculum is one of the principal ways in which underperforming low-income schools fail their students substantially. Given what we know about the connection between content knowledge and reading comprehension, those who are concerned with low-SES schools should be the ones shouting the loudest for national standards. Factor in the extraordinarily high mobility rates among low-income students of color and national content standards become an essential prerequisite for closing the achievement gap.
Standards are not a panacea. Process standards are notoriously vague and difficult to assess and are little more than aspirational statements (“All students will write in clear, concise, organized language that varies in content and form for different audiences and purposes,” for example, is not the most helpful standard when planning lessons.) But strong national content standards tied to reading assessments to ensure the content is actually taught would be the quickest way to avoid gaps and repetitions in the critical elementary school years and boost achievement over time. National curriculum standards would also free novice teachers, who are overrepresented in low-SES schools, an opportunity to focus on how to teach instead of what to teach.
A Gesture Gap?
by Robert PondiscioFebruary 13th, 2009
Research has long supported the idea that families with higher incomes and education levels talk more with their children and speak to them in complex sentences. A new study by psychologists at the University of Chicago indicates toddlers who use more physical gestures also have more developed vocabularies by the time they reach school age.
“We actually found extra gesturing in these high socio-economic status [SES] families,” Susan Goldin-Meadow, co-author on the study, tells the BBC. “Gesture and speech go hand-in-hand.”
The researchers studied 50 families from diverse economic backgrounds. They recorded video of children with their parent, or primary caregiver, for 90-minute sessions, during ordinary home activities. Fourteen-month-old children from high-income, well-educated families used gesture to convey an average of 24 different meanings during the 90-minute session. Meanwhile, children from lower-income families conveyed only 13.
Their study, in the journal Science, suggests gestures could play an indirect role in word learning by eliciting speech from parents. “For example, in response to her child’s point at the doll, mother might say, ‘Yes, that’s a doll,’ thus providing a word for the object that is the focus of the child’s attention,” they wrote.
(photos by veader and ellecer on Flickr)
The Obama Effect Sounds Good, However…
by Robert PondiscioJanuary 30th, 2009
The “Obama Effect” sounds good in theory, but it’s going to take a lot more than inspiration to close the achievement gap, says Richard Whitmire. Writing on U.S. News’ blog, the edublogger and president of the National Education Writers Association notes that he’d like nothing more than to jump on the Obama Effect bandwagon.
But as a veteran education reporter who spends a lot of time in classrooms, I see events that indicate the Obama education halo could tarnish early. And if that happens, the letdown will be a lot less fun than the buildup. Inspiration is great, but inspiration needs pathways to success. What I see developing for lower income and minority students are pathways closing up.
Whitmire lists some of the factors needed to make the Obama Effect more than a short-term, feel-good story: enhanced college access, dramatically improved high schools, higher teacher quality and way higher literacy rates. “I want to apologize for being the picnic skunk. Really, I want to believe,” Whitmire concludes. “In the real world, inspirations need well-lit pathways. And I’m just not seeing those pathways opening up for the Obama effect children. I wish I saw this differently, really I do.”
No apologies needed, Richard. If it sounds too good to be true…
Turnaround Without Turmoil, Part II
by Robert PondiscioJanuary 12th, 2009
Washington Post columnist Marc Fisher set tongues in motion last week with his piece about Broad Acres Elementary School in Silver Spring, Maryland, a high-poverty school, which has reversed its performance in the last few years by raising expectations and cooperating with its teachers union. In a promised follow up column, Fisher looks in on Truesdell Educational Center, a Washington, DC school demographically similar to Broad Acres. “Could a similar turnaround happen in a D.C. school,” Fisher asks, “and does Rhee’s more confrontational approach make that kind of change more or less likely?”
As at Broad Acres, Truesdell principal Brearn Wright believes half the battle is persuading teachers that kids from dysfunctional backgrounds must be held to high standards, Fisher notes. “He screened inspirational scenes from the movie ‘Miracle,’ about the 1980 U.S. Olympic ice hockey team. But when Wright asked teachers to mark down what percentage of Truesdell kids should be making the proficient grade in reading, only a few dared to write 100. Most wrote numbers such as 55, 65, 68 or 69,” Fisher reports.
In the classrooms, in stark contrast to many D.C. schools, students seem engaged and eager to progress. The atmosphere is still colder and more militaristic than in more successful schools; a teacher wins quiet by announcing, “Work harder,” to which the children respond, in Pavlovian fashion, “Get smarter.” But there are creative projects in nearly every room. In the third-floor hallway, two fifth-grade boys take notes on a clipboard; they are finding fractions — a door half-open, a coffee cup four-fifths empty, and so on.
“Test scores aren’t in yet, and no one expects miracles,” Fisher concludes. ”‘We’re not there,’ Wright says, ‘but we’re getting there. Kids are learning.’ At Truesdell, in part because of the chancellor’s confrontational ways and in part in spite of them, it feels like a revolution is brewing.”
Fisher’s original column drew both praise and scorn around the blogs, and started an interesting thread of discussion on the optimal unit of currency — the school or the district — in reversing low achievement. “Single schools like Broad Acres really can be saved,” commented 30-year veteran teacher-blogger Nancy Flanagan, “because tools like professional development, better curriculum, more time and community-building commitment actually can work at that level, where people area not anonymous cogs and individual kids’ progress can be carefully tracked.”
My own sense is that enthusiasm for change (which equals fidelity of implementation) is enormously important. Lack of staff buy-in for any program, curriculum or flavor of reform is almost certainly its death knell, which is why leadership is so important. I hope Fisher revisits these schools and reports back from time to time.
Educational Excellence and Equity for All Children
© The Core Knowledge Foundation | 801 E. High Street | Charlottesville, VA 22902
Phone: (434) 977-7550 | (800) 238-3233 | Fax: (434) 977-0021
Phone: (434) 977-7550 | (800) 238-3233 | Fax: (434) 977-0021
Website design & programming by 