<$BlogRSDUrl$>

My personal musings about anything that gets on my radar screen--heavily dominated by politics.

2008-05-05

Surprise Agreement 

I don't often find myself on the same side of an issue as the Denver Post editorial board, but today I do. So I thought I'd point out their, . . .er . . . wisdom.

Rather than change the measurement system, why don't we change the education system?
Supporters of the bill will say they're doing exactly that by aligning standards from kindergarten through college.

It's an important and laudable goal, but it's not the monumental overhaul that's needed. . . .

Unfortunately, any plan that invovles more than bureaucratic nibbling around the edges is doomed for failure because it gouges too many sacred cows. Instead of considering ideas like year-round schooling, longer days, vouchers for low-income students and more school-level flexibility and autonomy, lawmakers and education officials merely tinker.

Ditto that, folks.

You KNOW an idea is lacking something when even the Post notices it.

Labels:

Posted by: Michael / 5/05/2008 12:47:00 AM

2007-10-09

Education Reform That Matters, part III 

Systemic Accountability

Over the last couple nights, I've explored--in the context of Denver Public School's reform movement--the potential effects of spending more money and of simply increasing requirements.

And dismissed both.

So what, you might ask, would make for effective reform?

I think it has to start with a fundamental look at the whole system. I think society as a whole must examine the public schools and decide exactly what the priority scheme of the public schools should be.

For instance, schools spend a lot of time and energy, not to mention resources (read: money) on giving students with severe learning and developmental disabilities an education in an integrated setting. Why do they do this? Because the powers that be have decided that there is an inescapable value in exposing "normal" students to those with disabilities, and vice-versa. Does this contribute to the development of cognitive skills in either the disabled or the normal student? Doubtful.

Is the value of that experience worth the price of diminishing the skills-development of students? Perhaps.

Is this an experience that should be a priority for schools? And, if yes, then what efforts should we go to to guarantee that every student at every school gets this opportunity? Should special education students be manditorily bussed from a school with a large population to another with fewer "opportunities"?

But, before we get too bogged down in a specific discussion of special education, let's just use that as a springboard to a broader discussion: what really matters in education?

I think it's absolutely crucial that schools do a better job prioritizing what really matters in the curriculum. And, I think, schools are starting to do a much better job of that. Why? because they are now having to take tests which hold them accountable for a certain amount of information.

But are we still asking for too much breadth and too little depth? Why, if we are asking for a specific demonstration of a skill set, are employers still complaining about the ineptness of recent graduates and colleges having to spend more and more resources on remedial courses?

Clearly, the answer is that we are asking for a faulty skill set.

The powers that be, the educational testing centers and what-not, need to be put in a diminished role with regard to designing these tests. Instead, university professors (not named Churchill) and community members need to be added to the mix, and we need to come up with a coherent idea of what is important for students to know.

For instance, what's more important to know: how many American Indians were massacred in the 1860s and 70s, or what steps were taken to reconcile the South back to the North, or what diplomatic arrangements had to be made with the international community to restart the American economy and etc . . . You get the point: most high school students could tell you a great deal about how "we" abused the indians (which, by the way, we really did) but may not be able to even get the Civil War into the correct 1/2 century.

So the first reform that should happen is the development of a coherent set of skills and knowledge that is deemed essential to the success of students after graduation from high school. This set will probably be smaller than we might think, but the expectations for mastery should be VASTLY higher than they are at current. We should abandon any evaluation that might lead to a "partially proficient" sort of rating, and go with simple binary: either you know it, or you don't.

And, by the way, since the whole point is to reach and unleash the potential of every student, that DOES NOT mean that we eliminate the arts and athletics and other such "extras;" actually, we should make certain that artists and athletes are included in the mix of deciding curriculum and testing criteria. Since Howard Gardner has identified at least ten types of intelligence, we should make sure that at least five or six are represented. I know some Core Knowledge proponents might disagree, but I believe that success beyond the school years does involve at least a minimum of cultural literacy.

So, once we've decided what they should know, how do you go about producing results with the students? That topic . . .tomorrow.

Labels:

Posted by: Michael / 10/09/2007 12:51:00 AM

2007-10-05

Education Reforms that Matter, part I 

Ben brings our attention today to a wonderful article by Vince Carroll regarding the liberals' favorite mantra (that Colorado ranks 49th in education spending).

Colorado does not rank near the bottom of all 50 states in its per capita support of K-12 education. Not close. This canard has been repeated so often over the years that it has been transformed into an article of faith among many education-spending advocates.

Even the liberal Colorado Fiscal Policy Institute acknowledges that the state doesn’t rank nearly so low in straight-up comparisons of dollars spent. “Using data from U.S. Census’ Public Education Finances Report,” the institute concluded in a June report, “ . . . Colorado ranked 34th in per capita spending” for fiscal year 2003-’04.

Meanwhile, Governing magazine’s sourcebook (sourcebook.governing.com), a nonpartisan compiler of data, ranks the state 25th in per capita spending on K-12 education for 2005 (the latest available year).

Does this ranking give me a prticular tinge of pride? No--being near the middle is not really something to write home about.

On the other hand, spending in this range, with results in this range (8th grade math tied for 12th highest) or this range (8th grade reading tied for 15th highest) seems to indicate we're getting a great return on our investment.

So, when we're talking about reforms that may actually matter (as I will over the next several days), let us immediately dispense with the old canard that we merely need to spend more money on the issue. Simply putting more resources at the disposal of our schools will not be enough to unlock the unfulfilled potential in our students.

Such a thing can only happen if we start thinking of a different system altogether, rather than simply making a bigger system.

Labels:

Posted by: Michael / 10/05/2007 01:25:00 AM

2007-09-19

Sometimes, We're So Stupid I Could Just Scream 

From this week's Time Magazine:

To help increase opportunities for students from all socioeconomic backgrounds, Miami- Dade County public schools last year began testing all 23,000 first-graders using a culture-neutral, language-free assessment that requires no reading, writing or speaking.

Umm . . . . WHAT? How, exactly, then, do we assess these kids? Is it based on patterns of eye blinks? Perhaps we base our judgments on whether their clothes match?

And, I mean, really . . .isn't it culturally insensitive to the Irish and the Italians that the assessment doesn't include speaking?

But, seriously, this may be both the stupidest and funniest thing I've read in several months. It's only improved on by the next line:

The result? The number of first-graders screened for gifted placement shot up from some 100 the previous year to nearly 3,000.

MON DIEU!! Really? You had to admit more students to the program when you got done non-testing them? Imagine my surprise.

Giftedness is a wonderful thing, but it is not--and SHOULD not--be the be-all, end-all of educational success. By watering down (and by any objective assessment, to say that 12.5% of your population is "gifted" qualifies as watering down) the requirements to enter those educational classes, we are both diminishing the value of those classes and setting many, many students up for delusions and disappointments. As was said so accurately in The Incredibles, "when everybody is special, NOBODY is special."

Says deputy superintendent Antoinette Dunbar of the decision to start testing every first-grader for giftedness: "Sometimes we overlook the very obvious."

Indeed.

Labels:

Posted by: Michael / 9/19/2007 03:24:00 PM

2007-05-11

Because I Like Pointing Out the Counter-Intuitive

A story is evolving out of Ft. Collins about a question on a math test at Rocky Mountain High School. The question is this:

Question 3: Politics in Florida
In 1988, there were 6.047 million people registered to vote in Florida. Of these, a certain number were registered democrats, some were registered republicans, and others were registered as independent. The number of democrats was 0.908 million more than the number of liars – I mean republicans [emphasis supplied]. The number of republicans was 1.935 million more than the number of independents. Using mathematics from Chapter 1, find the number of registered voters for each party, in millions.

Now, of course this is offensive and out-of-line; sadly, it is NOT all that surprising; and, in a surprise move, I'm actually willing to give the teacher a little bit of rope: there are occasions, as a teacher, when you develop such a rapport with a class of students that you can use humor that an observer to your class might not understand (for example, if this Democrat teacher had had an ongoing public conversation--in good humor--with a Republican student in the room, this could be nothing more than an isolated needle at one student, which MAY have caused a few knowing chuckles in the room.). Whether that translates into the appropriateness of this question for more than one class remains to be seen, but let's not get too hung up on that issue.

For the moment.

Further down in this post at Face The State, you will see a list of the staff members in the math department at Rocky Mountain H.S., with their party affiliations. Here's how they shake out:

2 registered Democrats
2 registered Republicans
2 not registered at all
5 registered unaffiliated

For the sake of argument, let's say that those "unaffiliateds" actually break 4-1 for Democrats, based on actual voting patterns. That leaves you with a group of teachers that is roughly 6-3 Democrats to Republicans.

Got that? This department, which I would suggest is actually fairly representative, splits 2-1 for the Democrats.

When was the last time you heard of a teachers union only endorsing Democrats by a margin of 2-1? Or giving Republican candidates half of what they give Democrats? Or organizing neighborhood walks for half as many Republicans as Democrats?

The fact is, ladies and gentlemen, that, contrary to popular belief, teachers are not all Democrats. It has been my experience, having worked in 23 schools in my career (yes, I have an odd job description), that there are vastly more Republicans in the education profession than the general public believes there are, or than get represented by their unions' activities. The very nature of the profession (change the world, poor renumeration in return for security, etc . . .) tends to draw the Lefties, but not exclusively. There are many of us that simply concluded at some point in our youth that there is no more important job in the world than trying to get the next generation to learn the skills and habits that will make them self-sufficient and productive members of society.

The point is, and I have said it before, that when you talk in dismissive terms of "education", please try, somehow, to draw a distinction between teachers' unions--the heart and soul of Big Education--and teachers themselves. The former is one of the greatest impediments to properly educating our children; the latter are (largely) smart, dedicated, and creative servants of the public good.

Yes, there are bad eggs out there--as this teacher at Rocky Mountain demonstrates. My above argument notwithstanding, even I don't completely buy that this guy had that kind of rapport with his class; or that, having that rapport, would be stupid enough to put this question in writing; or that, even if those were true, that this would in any way justify putting this question on a test that more than one class would have to take. This guy, I think, has an agenda which he subjects his students to, probably on a regular and humorless basis.

The real tragedy here is that the system is built in such a way that this guy will be protected, and that system was designed and built by Big Education. Consider that it's okay for this guy to do what he does in class with taxpayers' money, but it's not at all okay for students to have a moment of prayer before a football game.

Until this system gets disrupted, we should get used to stories like this.

For more thoughts on this subject, read all of the Face the State post (linked above), and then read Ben's thoughts on this--it's really in his wheelhouse.

Labels:

Posted by: Michael / 5/11/2007 10:28:00 PM

Weblog Commenting by HaloScan.com

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?