Which System is Broken: American Public Schools or the U.S. Congress?

It has been in vogue for at least a decade, maybe longer, to question American teacher’s abilities to educate its youth.  According to some politicians, America has had a series of Sputnik moments, starting in 1957 with the launch of the world’s first satellite, to most recently our annual penchant to ogle over the test score results that happen in Shanghai, Finland or Korea.  Think tank “scholars” use these test results to keep telling us that the sky is falling in the education of American youth.  Doomsday is straight ahead.

Many of these think tank’s believe that the American school system is broken and needs to be reformed.  The NCLB act, the signature education reform initiative of the Bush administration has created a system of education that pits teachers and unions against politicians, U.S. and state department’s of education, and well funded corporations and private foundations.  The deal is that if we could just get rid of the “bad” teachers, our students would learn so much more.  By using high-stakes tests in a few subject areas, and then statistically manipulating the achievement test data from one year to the next, we can determine the value-added affect of each teacher, and use this to weed out the “bad” teachers, and reward the good ones.

The problem is that the statistical use of the value added measure is unreliable, and very inconsistent even with the same teacher.  How could we possibly let the politicians, and bureaucrats get away with this when there is little to no research to support their reform efforts.  As I have written elsewhere, high-stakes test should be banned, and the decision making put back into the hands of those of who know students best: teachers and principals in the schools of America.

Now, back to the headline: Which system is broken: American public schools or the U.S. Congress.

I personally don’t think either is broken.  But, the American public school system has a lot more going for it than Congress.

For example, in a very recent Gallup survey of American citizen’s confidence in various entities in its country, 72% of American’s had either a great deal or quite a lot of confidence in American public schools.

They had 12% confidence in the Congress.

If politicians and other bureaucrats think that the American system of education is broken, what do they think of the system they are working in?

Every time international test score from PISA or TIMSS are released, American students score near the middle, and politicians and think tank experts use this data to show how far behind the U.S. is compared to other countries, especially in mathematics and science.  I say this is preposterous, and so does Yong Zhao, Presidential Chair and Associate Dean for Global Education, University of Oregon.  He analyzes American education in the context of comparing American education to the education in other countries, especially China in his book Catching Up or Leading the Way: American Education in the Age of Globalization.  He suggests that reform proponents, business executives and politicians have misjudged American education, and have convinced themselves that The Grass is Greener in other countries.

If science and mathematics teaching and learning is inferior to learning in so many other countries, how do we explain, as Dr. Zhao wrote, this from President Obama in a State of the Union speech:

America still has the largest, most prosperous economy in the world. No workers — no workers are more productive than ours.  No country has more successful companies, or grants more patents to inventors and entrepreneurs.  We’re the home to the world’s best colleges and universities, where more students come to study than any place on Earth.

What do you think about American public school education compared to the work that is done in the U.S. Congress?  Do you have more confidence in teachers, or politicians?  What is the basis for your choice?  Tell us what you think.

 

Share on TwitterSave on DeliciousShare via email

Reform From Teachers’ Points of View

In today’s culture of reform, it is governors, corporate leaders, politicians, and a few organizations founded and funded by the previous mentioned groups–people who know little of teaching and learning–that are determining the direction of reform. And that reform is one of standardization, holding schools and teachers accountable by testing the “heck” out of kids using tests that according to these outside experts, measure what students are supposed to learn. If they don’t learn it, its the teachers fault.

Today I read two articles that highlight the importance of learning about educational reform from people who know best: teachers and educators.

The first article was written by Patrick Welsh, an English teacher at T.C. Williams High School, in Alexandria, Virginia.  The article, entitled Schools can’t manage poverty, was published in USA Today, and was written after Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan gave the keynote speech to more than 1,200 educators in the Alexandria Public Schools.  The author expresses the view that is held by many practicing teachers, and that it is unreasonable to use the No Child Left Behind mandate that schools will be labeled failures, and teachers fired if they don’t meet Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP).  As Mr. Welsh pointed out, the assessment of schools and teachers can’t not be done without factoring in the social issues that affect student learning such as family, income and class.

Welsh used an analogy comparing successful or failing schools with Arne Duncan’s 1986-1987 Harvard basketball team, which had a 7 – 16 record.  Here is what Mr. Welsh said:

We teachers were told that Duncan would take questions after his speech. Being an English teacher, I prepared a little analogy to ask him about the rationale for labeling schools on the basis of Adequate Yearly Progress. Duncan’s biographies often mention that he was co-captain of the Harvard basketball team during the 1986-87 season, his senior year. I reminded him that that team won only seven games and lost 17. Such a record, I told Duncan, was the mark of a “persistently low achieving” team, which made no “annual yearly progress.” I meant the analogy to be humorous, but teachers sitting near Duncan said he didn’t seem to take it that way.

I went on to say that I assumed Duncan and his teammates did the best they could with the talent they had, and that no matter what improvements they tried to make, it would be foolish to think their team could ever reach the highest benchmark in college basketball — the Final Four. Like his basketball team, I said, many schools are doing the best they can with the students they have, and it is unfair to label such schools as failing.

The other article was written by Alfie Kohn, and was entitled What Passes for School Reform: “Value-Added” Teacher Evaluations and Other Absurdities.  Kohn is one of the most vocal critics of school reform as conceived by the Standards Movement and the No Child Left Behind Act.  Kohn raises some important questions, and indeed suggests that instead of accepting standardized tests as a means of measuring student achievement and being used to assess teacher performance, we ask questions might result in a conversation about reform, e.g. Does this model provide valid and reliable information about teachers (and schools)?  Does learning really lend itself to any kind of “value-added” approach? Do standardized tests assess what matters most about teaching and learning?

As Kohn points out, there is little conversation about these questions, and it might be because:

Unfortunately, the people who know the most about the subject tend to work in the field of education, which means their protests can be dismissed. Educational theorists and researchers are just “educationists” with axes to grind, hopelessly out of touch with real classrooms. And the people who spend their days in real classrooms, teaching our children — well, they’re just afraid of being held accountable, aren’t they? (Actually, proponents of corporate-style school reform find it tricky to attack teachers, per se, so they train their fire instead on the unions that represent them.) Once the people who do the educating have been excluded from a conversation about how to fix education, we end up hearing mostly from politicians, corporate executives, and journalists.

These are two articles that I recommend to you.

Share on TwitterSave on DeliciousShare via email

Celebrating Individuality?

Yesterday I republished a post I wrote in October about the Race to the Top Fund, which is a $4.3 billion effort by the U.S. Department of Education to grant to winning States millions of dollars to increase student achievement, use student achievement data to evaluate teachers and administrators, emphasize STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, & Mathematics), expand testing and evaluation systems, and coordinate (articulate) curriculum. The Race to the Top is a continuation of the No Child Left Behind Act in which the Federal Government “regulates” schooling by linking student achievement to teacher effectiveness, and yes, economic growth.

In his ground breaking book (Catching Up or Leading the Way), Dr. Yong Zhao, Distinguished Professor of Education, Michigan State University, questions and wonders why American education is moving in a direction to implement what China has been working hard to get rid of, and that is a test-driven, standardized educational system.  In fact, in his book, Dr. Zhao describes a movement in China which seeks to transform its education system to match its innovation-driven knowledge society.  He suggests that in China, the government has made a “conscious, global search” for models of education that will produce innovative talents.  And indeed, the Chinese see the American education “model” as a “reasonable candidate” for an innovative educational system.

To give you a flavor of the kind of thinking that Dr. Zhao brings to the issue of educational reform in the U.S.A., here are some comments that he made recently to an ASCD audience.

And what are we doing here in the U.S.?  As Zhao points out, we have been trying hard (for many years, by the way) to implement educational “reforms” that China has been trying to get rid of.  Perhaps the biggest Federal program that has moved American education along this path is the No Child Left Behind Act which mandates achievement testing, high-stakes assessments, state-mandated standards and curriculum.  An now with the Race to the Top fund, it looks inevitable that we will have “common standards” in math and reading, and that teachers and students in every school and district will be held accountable to these same standards.

This system of education is one that is authoritarian in nature, and one that pushes to edges of education the notion that individuality and diversity are important in the education of children and youth.  The celebration of the individual is slowing losing out to the increased demand for a central and standardized educational system.

We should question this.  There are more than 15,000 school districts in the USA, and here we have the U.S. Secretary of Education, Governors, State Education officers, and business leaders leading the charge to move us toward a more authoritarian and centralized educational system when what is needed is an educational environment that fosters innovation and creativity.

I’ll be writing more about this topic in the days ahead.  In the meantime, I suggest you take a look at Dr. Zhao’s book.

Share on TwitterSave on DeliciousShare via email

Race to the Top—Application Due, January 19!

I am republishing a post that I made in October in which I discussed the U.S. Department of Education program, The Race to the Top Fund.  Each state can choose to submit ONE application, and that application is due in Washington on January 19, 2010.  You can go to the previous link and read the current information about the Fund.  You will learn that “winners” will be announced in April, 2010, and that those not winning will receive feedback, presumably so that they can resubmit with other states for Phase II money on June 1, 2010.

HERE IS WHAT I WROTE ABOUT THE RACE TO THE TOP IN OCTOBER.  I’ll be talking more about this later this week and next, why the course being chosen is questionable, and may be moving us in the wrong direction.

The U.S. Department of Education received about $100 billion ($100,000,000,000) from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.  It’s an enormous amount of money that is going to given to the States.  $4.35 billion of this amount has been earmarked as The Race to the Top fund, and it is that part of Department’s program that I will focus on here.

If the money were distributed equally across the country, it would amount to a little more than $13.33 per citizen.  It would mean that the state of California would get slightly more than 10% of the money, or $489,333,333 (I consulted a website that provided population figures for all the states and multiplied by $13.33).  Wyoming would receive the least coming in at slightly more than $7 million.   But, of course, the money will not be distributed in this way; each state that chooses to go for the money, must submit a proposal (first round this December; second round next Spring), and they must, in the proposal, agree to the critieria that the U.S. Department of Education has established.

Although the Request for Proposals (RFP) for the Race is still not available to the States (It’s now available of course, and you can see it on this page), the Department published details of the Race Fund in the Federal Register (Notice of Proposed Priorities).  I read it, and have summarized the priorities that will in effect couch how the various States prepare their proposals. By the way, the proposal must be submitted by the Governer of the State, and signed off by the Governor, the State’s chief school officer, and the president of the State board of education.

Tongue-in-Cheek Suggestions for a Race to the Top Proposal:

Dr. Yong Zhao, University Distinguished Professor of Education at Michigan State University,  published a list of six ideas that States might include in their proposal to ensure funding.  If you read the article, you will see some of the fallacy in the Fund’s purpose of standardizing education, and creating one-size-fits-all approach.  You can see the article “Over the Top” here.

The Race to the Top–The Real Deal

Of the long list of criteria, only two are absolute musts for a state proposal:

  • States must have been approved by the Education Department for stabilization funds from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (most already have been)
  • states must not have any laws in place barring the use of student-achievement data for evaluating teachers and principals.

The fundamental aim of the Race to the Top Fund is to ensure that states that receive funds take a systematic approach to educational reform.  Specifically, as stated in the Federal Register (July 29, 2009), to receive funding, the applicant state must meet this priority:

The State’s application must describe how the State and participating LEAs intend to use Race to the Top and other funds to implement comprehensive and coherent policies and practices in the four education reform areas, and how these are designed to increase student achievement, reduce the achievement gap across student subgroups (Priority 1).

Other priorities will be considered as proposals are evaluated.  But according to the Department’s documents, only the first priority (described above) will be required.  The others which follow will enable the various states to develop proposals unique to their goals for reform.  Here they are:

  • Priority 2: Emphasis on science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM).  This should include the offering of rigorous (emphasis mine) course of study in STEM; collaboration among experts in museums, universities, research centers, and other STEM-related partners.
  • Priority 3. Expansion and adaptation of Statewide longitudinal data systems.   The Department asks how the State plans to expand statewide longitudinal data systems to include or integrate data from special education programs, limited English proficiency programs, early childhood programs, human resources, finance, health, postsecondary, and other relevant areas, with the purpose of allowing important questions related to policy or practice to be asked and answered.
  • Priority 4. Coordination and vertical alignment.  In essence, this priority is to ensure that students exiting one level are prepared for success, without remediation, in the next.
  • Priority 5. School-level conditions for reform and innovation.  This priority is designed to encourage flexibility and innovation in selecting staff, implementing new daily schedules, awarding course credit to students on student performance, & providing comprehensive services to high-need students.

You will find a good summary in Education Week of how the Race to the Top will stress the use of test data to determine the effectiveness of any proposal or program at the State and LEA level.   In fact, there is a separate competition for $350 million of the Race Fund money to stimulate a movement to develop “common student assessments.”  As I mentioned in another post, these “common students assessments” will be linked to the development of “common-standards.”  Forty-eight states have signed on to this movement.

Clearly, there is a lot of money available for education.  But as you look closely at the details, it is evident that national tests, based on a set of common academic standards, will be used to establish the bar used to measure any program or project, and will be used to tie student achievement to teacher and school performance.   Trying to link student achievement to teacher effectiveness and salary has always raised a red flag for me.  I wrote about this in an earlier post (Is student achievement the measure of teacher effectiveness) in March, and called into question how student achievement data can be used as the measure of teacher effectiveness. Somehow, is should only be a part of the evaluation process.  Surely, there is more to school learning than achievement test results.

Nevertheless, the Race to the Top is here, and will be implemented.  What are some of your opinions about the Race Fund?  What race are we talking about here?  Is this a reformulation of No Child Left Behind?  Instead of not leaving anyone behind, we’ll all race forward?  What do you think?

Share on TwitterSave on DeliciousShare via email

Is student science achievement the measure of teacher effectiveness?

The short, and the long answer to this is no.

Of course I framed the question using the phrase “the measure of teacher effectiveness.”  Why do I bring this topic up for discussion on this blog.  In America there is a lot of talk about educational reform, especially from President Obama and the new Secretary of Education Arne Duncan (read Duncan’s comments given at the NSTA Conference).  There is not only interest, but there is a lot of Federal money being directed toward the nation’s schools, and a good deal of the funding will be to focus on educational reform.

The U.S. Department of Education’s vision of educational reform is embedded in the No Child Left Behind Act, which has created an environment in which student test scores are used to measure teacher and school effectiveness.  It seems perfectly reasonable to link how well students do on tests to the effectiveness of teachers and schools.  But is really?

Many pundits (and many educators) like to infer that teaching and learning are are like any business, which that business is manufacturing and selling automobiles, selling antiques, making refrigerators, manufacturing matresses, selling paper clips, and I should add, selling securities such as stocks and mortgages. The basic idea is of course to reward the high performers (those with high sales records, or improvement from the last quarter)  in these businesses with high pay, or some other measure of reward.  In fact in today’s Atlanta Journal, Mr. Dean Alford, a former Georgia House member, vice chair of the State Board of the Technical College System of Georgia, and a business owner, believes that “paying teachers who show improved student achievement” will attract more dynamic individuals into teaching.  It really galls me when I read a statement such as this.

These individuals really believe that there is a cause and effect relationship between teacher behavior (or teaching skill, if you wish), and how many questions students answer correctly on an end-of-the-year high stakes test.  Further they believe that you can use test score change (improvement, hopefully) as a way to calculate teacher pay.  It is very difficult to carry on a conversation with individuals like Alford because they honestly believe the work of a teacher in a classroom is very much like the work of the person trying to sell you a car, or a paperclip.  These individuals are trapped in a 19th Century model of work, and learning.  Most companies have multifaceted performance evaluations, and tend not to rely on one variable to make a decision on the worth of an individual to a company.  This has to be true, otherwise how do you justify the enormous bonuses being given to AIG executives in departments that caused the company to tank.

Given this angst, I do want to say that there is research evidence to support the idea that effective teaching results in increased science achievement for all students.  Johnson, Kahle, and Fargo in a study published in Science Education, report that effective teachers positively impact student learning.  In fact, you will find a lot of supporting research in the journal Science Education related to teacher effectiveness.  Follow this link, and you will find 152 studies that deal in some way with teacher effectiveness in science.

However, science achievement is not the measure of teacher effectiveness.  There are wide variations in the way in which effective and outstanding teachers perform.  To use a test score to validate teacher effectiveness is not only short-sighted, but not supportable in terms of research design.  In order to tie student achievement to teacher performance we would need to be able to support the hypothesis experimentally that gains in students achievement are the result of teacher performance.  This is an unreasonable request in that it would require assigning random groups of students to teachers, and then pre- and post-testing with experimental and control groups.  Indeed, most studies attempting to tie student achievement and teacher performance use “quasi-experiental designs,” and in these studies there a many variables that could contribute to the “acheivement gains.”

The environment that will foster student learning is a humanistic learning environment.  Its environment that encouages teachers to be creative and inventive in working with students, and designs a workspace in which risks can be taken.  Students need to be challenged, but more importantly need to involved in making decisions about their own education.  We know that learning science is NOT akin to passing out bricks, and then measuring how many bricks were attained be students in our classes.  Humans construct knowlege, and learning environments that are contextual, relevant, and of value provide the setting for meaningful learning.

We need to support the notion that teaching is an art, and can not be reduced to a student achievement test score.

Share on TwitterSave on DeliciousShare via email