Pearson's Product Placement: States Pay For Tests And Advertising?

The following comes from a New York Post exclusive, and some of their exclusives haven't been accurate lately, so there might be a bit more to this story. If true, it's yet another example of the Common Core's corporate nature:

At lest a half-dozen companies got an unexpected boost in marketing their brands to New York’s children this week — with free product placement on the state’s English exams.

Teachers and students said yesterday’s multiple-choice section of the eighth-grade tests name-dropped at least a handful of companies or products — including Mug Root Beer, LEGO and that company’s smart robots, Mindstorms.

IBM, the comic book and TV show “Teen Titans” and FIFA — the international soccer federation — were also mentioned in the test booklets, some of them with what educators referred to as out-of-place trademark symbols.

“I’ve been giving this test for eight years and have never seen the test drop trademarked names in passages — let alone note the trademark at the bottom of the page,” said one teacher who administered the exam.

I'm not too concerned that the tests mention Legos or the Teen Titans. I'm not sure there is a generic term for Legos; I'm not sure kids would understand the term "interlocking bricks." Superheroes are part of the public consciousness. Mentioning Robin or one of the other Teen Titans is no different than mentioning Barack Obama, Michael Jordan, or Bill Gates.

I have a larger  problem with logos being placed at the bottom of the page. The tests are paid for by tax dollars. States give corporations tax breaks; the corporations don't need free advertisements that are shown to a captive audience.

I wonder if the tests Pearson will write for South Dakota will mention Hy-Vee, Wall Drug, Sandford, or Citibank. We know they won't mention Chromebooks.

What's Holding Schools Back?

George Will contends teachers engage in propaganda and are responsible for holding education is on the wrong path:

The real vocation of some people entrusted with delivering primary and secondary education is to validate this proposition: The three R’s — formerly reading, ’riting and ’rithmetic — now are racism, reproduction and recycling. Especially racism. Consider Wisconsin’s Department of Public Instruction. It evidently considers “instruction” synonymous with “propaganda,” which in the patois of progressivism is called “consciousness-raising.”

Will then goes on a predictable rant to blame political correctness and a burgeoning bureaucracy for public education's failings. I don't know about the examples Will cites. I have enough trouble getting through all of the literature that I think students need to read and discuss to engage in sensitivity training. Will, however, makes an important point about bureaucrats: "the number of bureaucrats — including consciousness-raising sensitivity enforcers and other non-teachers — increased 702 percent" since 1950 while the number of students has doubled.

This slide from The Tempered Radical provides a supporting visual for Will's point that educrats are making teachers' jobs harder. It also sets the tone for a Monday:

 

The results of the wonks' agenda driven education policies are best summed up by retiring teacher George Conti:

For the last decade or so, I have had two signs hanging above the blackboard at the front of my classroom, they read, “Words Matter” and “Ideas Matter”. While I still believe these simple statements to be true, I don’t feel that those currently driving public education have any inkling of what they mean.

Quotation Of The Day II: Alleged Education Reformer Michelle Rhee Is A Hypocrite Edition

From Diane Ravitch:

In Tennessee, [Rhee] told the Nashville reporters that she is “a public school parent.”

For some reason, she prefers not to admit that one of her daughters attends an elite private school in Nashville that has small classes, lovely facilities, a rich curriculum, and experienced teachers; better yet, the students do not take standardized tests. (Rhee herself graduated from an elite private school in Toledo, Ohio, with similar policies and practices.) [Emphasis mine because Rhee is a testing for testing sake advocate.]

Why should she hide that fact?

Is it because she advocates that Other People’s children should have large classes, inexperienced teachers, merit pay, evaluations based on test scores, and nonstop testing?

Quotation Of The Day: The Idolatry Of Numbers

Alfie Kohn points out that our love for numbers warps school reform. The introductory quotation and the first two paragraphs serve as important reminders:

“As we tend to value the results of education for their measurableness, so we tend to undervalue and at last ignore those results which are too intrinsically valuable to be measured.”

-- Edmond G. A. Holmes, chief inspector of elementary schools for Great Britain, 1911

The reason that standardized test results tend to be so uninformative and misleading is closely related to the reason that these tests are so popular in the first place. That, in turn, is connected to our attraction to  — and the trouble with — grades, rubrics, and various practices commended to us as “data-based.”

The common denominator? Our culture’s worshipful regard for numbers. Roger Jones, a physicist, called it “the heart of our modern idolatry ... the belief that the quantitative description of things is paramount and even complete in itself.” [italics and bold in original]

Quotation Of The Day: Education Polarization Edition

From this John Merrow post:

Companies like Pearson are getting rich while we blather and battle. They step into the vacuum and measure everything that’s measurable. We should be measuring what counts, instead of counting whatever we are able to measure.

Our school and political leaders ask, “Can kids read?” but they and we must also be asking, “Do kids read?”

Are are we also polarized about the purposes of public education? I am not sure whether we are polarized, indifferent or excluded from the conversation, but we have a real problem. The goal of school is to help grow American citizens. Four key words: help, grow, American, citizen. Think about those words:

Help: Schools are junior partners in education. They are to help families, the principal educators.

Grow: It’s a process, sometimes two steps forward, one back. Education is akin to a family business, not a publicly traded stock company that lives and dies by quarterly reports.

American: E Pluribus Unum. We are Americans, first and foremost.

Citizen: Let’s put some flesh on that term. What do we want our children to be as adults? Good parents and neighbors, thoughtful voters, reliable workers? What else?

Quotation Of The Day: Educational Gurus Edition

Richard Feynman takes a look at gurus:

If your guru fails to meet these minimal qualifications, put away your wallet. They're wasting your time:

• Has your guru taught in a real classroom the past three years?
• Does your guru allow his research to be peer reviewed?
• Does your guru grasp statistics?
• Is your guru free from the financial interests of a billionaire?

Bye Wong!
See you later Marzano!
Hasta la vista Duncan!
Arrivederci, Gardner!

If we're even going to pretend we're a profession, we need to stop buying snake oil.

HT: John T. Spencer

We May Not Need Algebra: The Horror!

In the future, I can see a math teacher sadly proclaiming, "First, they cut ancient history from the curriculum, but I didn't care because I didn't teach history. Then they came after Shakespeare, but I didn't care because I didn't teach English. When they came after algebra, the precedent was set and I was totally screwed."

The algebra teachers who smugly watched their social studies and literature counterparts try to justify their curriculum may soon face the same battle.  Writing in the New York Times, Andrew Hacker opines:

A TYPICAL American school day finds some six million high school students and two million college freshmen struggling with algebra. In both high school and college, all too many students are expected to fail. Why do we subject American students to this ordeal? I’ve found myself moving toward the strong view that we shouldn’t.

Surely Hacker is wrong. STEM is allegedly America's salvation, and algebra is a key component of STEM. Hacker has an answer:

Nor is it clear that the math we learn in the classroom has any relation to the quantitative reasoning we need on the job. John P. Smith III, an educational psychologist at Michigan State University who has studied math education, has found that “mathematical reasoning in workplaces differs markedly from the algorithms taught in school.” Even in jobs that rely on so-called STEM credentials — science, technology, engineering, math — considerable training occurs after hiring, including the kinds of computations that will be required. Toyota, for example, recently chose to locate a plant in a remote Mississippi county, even though its schools are far from stellar. It works with a nearby community college, which has tailored classes in “machine tool mathematics.”

That sort of collaboration has long undergirded German apprenticeship programs. I fully concur that high-tech knowledge is needed to sustain an advanced industrial economy. But we’re deluding ourselves if we believe the solution is largely academic.

 Hacker offers at least one possible alternative to algebra:

Instead of investing so much of our academic energy in a subject that blocks further attainment for much of our population, I propose that we start thinking about alternatives. Thus mathematics teachers at every level could create exciting courses in what I call “citizen statistics.” This would not be a backdoor version of algebra, as in the Advanced Placement syllabus. Nor would it focus on equations used by scholars when they write for one another. Instead, it would familiarize students with the kinds of numbers that describe and delineate our personal and public lives.

It could, for example, teach students how the Consumer Price Index is computed, what is included and how each item in the index is weighted — and include discussion about which items should be included and what weights they should be given.

He also suggests that math and other disciplines combine analyses:

I hope that mathematics departments can also create courses in the history and philosophy of their discipline, as well as its applications in early cultures. Why not mathematics in art and music — even poetry — along with its role in assorted sciences? The aim would be to treat mathematics as a liberal art, making it as accessible and welcoming as sculpture or ballet.

One could also examine the poetry or music of mathematics  instead of the math of poetry. Hacker's conclusion shows why that sort of inversion might be necessary:

Yes, young people should learn to read and write and do long division, whether they want to or not. But there is no reason to force them to grasp vectorial angles and discontinuous functions. Think of math as a huge boulder we make everyone pull, without assessing what all this pain achieves. So why require it, without alternatives or exceptions? Thus far I haven’t found a compelling answer.

If only a literary allusion to some guy pushing a boulder up a hill existed. Hacker could have referenced such a story to help make his mathematical point.

A Useful Metaphor For Educational Reform Efforts

From this National Geographic article:

In a "eureka" moment worthy of Dr. Frankenstein, scientists have discovered that two 3,000-year-old Scottish "bog bodies" are actually made from the remains of six people.

According to new isotopic dating and DNA experiments, the mummies—a male and a female—were assembled from various body parts, although the purpose of the gruesome composites is likely lost to history. [ Emphasis in original]

The most recent efforts began with NCLB which was based on a Texas Miracle that never happened. Reformers then urged everyone to emulate Michelle Rhee whose alleged results did not stand up to scrutiny. Every state created new "tough" standards and schools started testing just to test.  Meanwhile, teachers began creating curriculum maps to perfectly demonstrate that each lesson met some standard.

President Barack Obama and Secretary of Education Arne Duncan attempted to institute Race to the Top which is billed as being both the same as but also different from NCLB.  Meanwhile, one can now get NCLB with waivers.  New Common Core standards arrived, so no one uses the old maps but the curriculum remains the same.

NCLB, Rhee, RTTT, waivers, and Common Core have created "a gruesome composite" "assembled from various body parts" with a purpose that has been "lost."

Education Tweets Of The Week: Teacher Frustration Edition

John T. Spencer nails it

Too often the term "professional" is used to devalue teachers and make them practitioners rather than true professionals #edchat #edpolicy
— John T. Spencer (@johntspencer) June 5, 2012

Teachers are fighting against the factory model of education but also fighting against a manufactured crisis of "bad" schools. #edchat
— John T. Spencer (@johntspencer) June 5, 2012

And yet, you can't push for policy reform without thinking about the way tech is transforming education and society #edpolicy #edchat
— John T. Spencer (@johntspencer) June 5, 2012

You can't push for innovation without recognizing the political structures that need to change #edpolicy #edreform #edchat
— John T. Spencer (@johntspencer) June 5, 2012

Quotation Of The Day: Why Teachers Are Angry Edition

From this Dana Goldstein article in The Nation

It is difficult to generalize about the opinions of any group as large and diverse as public school teachers, of which there are about 3.2 million. But it can’t be good news that a survey of teachers released in March by MetLife found the lowest job satisfaction numbers since 1989, with just 44 percent of respondents describing themselves as “very satisfied” with their classroom careers, down from 59 percent in 2009 and 62 percent in 2008. According to MetLife, nearly a third of public school teachers are considering leaving their jobs. . . . .

But polling shows teachers are depressed by the increasing reliance on standardized tests to measure student learning—the “high stakes” testing regime that the standards and accountability movement has put in place across the country and that Race to the Top has reinforced in some states and districts. Teachers are also concerned that growing numbers of parents are not able to play an active role in their children’s education, and they are angry about the climate of austerity that has invaded the nation’s schools, with state and local budget cuts threatening key programs that help students learn and overcome the disadvantages of poverty.

I would add that it would be nice if politicians would invite a few more teachers to the table when policies are being determined.

Learn 'Em That They Can Be Wrong

I hate the self-esteem pop psychology that masks itself as profound pedagogy.  I also hate the fact that students plan their academic schedules around GPA rather than academic needs or desires.  I believe the easiest way to solve both problems is to mandate that America's Lake Woebegone students, the ones who are above average in every subject on every day, be given at least two "Cs" on their report cards every year, starting in kindergarten.

There may be a small light at the end of the tunnel.  The Answer Sheet blog reports on academic studies that conclude that teaching a student that failure is necessary may help them learn.  One of the studies authors concludes,

“We focused on a widespread cultural belief that equates academic success with a high level of competence and failure with intellectual inferiority. By being obsessed with success, students are afraid to fail, so they are reluctant to take difficult steps to master new material. Acknowledging that difficulty is a crucial part of learning could stop a vicious circle in which difficulty creates feelings of incompetence that in turn disrupts learning.” [emphasis mine]

In other words, if schools and parents create a culture that says some things may be difficult to learn, students may actually learn more..Unfortunately, the study was conducted in France, so I doubt the findings will gain much traction.  Taking an idea from France might hurt Americans self-esteem.

Quotation Of The Day: Education Privatization Edition

From this Deborah Meier post,

Meanwhile, back at the ranch we face this absurd takeover of our public life—almost overnight—by a bunch of smart folks who see education much as Willie Sutton did when asked why he robbed banks: "That's where the money is." It has other plusses (ideological biases, generosity, etc., which attract some), but if it were a fiscal loser (as Edison Schools thought when it pulled back 20 or so years ago) it would not have the political allies now driving it. I've been so used to trying to persuade powerful people that we can't base good schooling on simple tools of "measurement" that I forgot that they truly don't care.

I had counted on the real Right Wing to stop national curriculum, national testing, and other such nonsense, but even they seem to have come to terms with the power of the State when it comes to such minor details, . . . .

Quotation Of The Day: Education Accountability Edition

From Robert Pondiscio at The Core Knowledge Blog

I remain equally skeptical of the storyline that says schools are dysfunctional purely as a result of adult indifference or self-interest.

I see no reason to believe that failing schools are filled with tenured layabouts refusing to teach and not getting fired. In my experience, such schools are mainly filled with decent people trying their best and failing. And with depressing regularity, they are failing despite doing exactly what they were trained to do–even because they are doing exactly what they were trained to do.

The entire edifice of accountability assumes that American education is essentially a sound product, but it’s delivered poorly. I see no evidence to suggest this is true. I see much evidence to suggest it’s not.

Educational Jargon Alert

On this Answer Sheet post, Roxanna Elden takes on a some of the jargony catch phrases beloved by reformers of all stripes and educational reformers in particular.  Her list of most annoying catch phrases:

"We know what works!"
This line promises a great sigh of relief to the non-teaching public: Now that we finally figured out what works in education, all we have to do is get teachers to do it! Then we can move onto fixing healthcare and jumpstarting the economy!
 
"Demographics don't determine destiny! (You lazy racist!)"
No one really says the part in parenthesis. It would ruin the alliteration. However, the line above suggests those who disagree with the speaker are insisting that demographics DO determine destiny — and presumably think it's not worth working hard to teach poor, minority students. This phrase sets off alarm bells for teachers, who know that while demographics don't "determine destiny," they don't tell the whole story, either. Kids from similar demographics or neighborhoods aren't necessarily similar kids.
 
"Measurable results"
Some information in education lends itself to accurate measurement. In other cases, measurements can be counterproductive. For example, pushing for improvements in "discipline numbers" encourages schools to let behavior problems slide rather than processing discipline referrals. It's also no secret among teachers that the obsession with test scores often forces schools to do things that are bad for kids. This is especially true during "crunch time," the unspecified period leading up to a high-stakes test.
 
"If grocery stores were run like public schools..."
This is supposed to be an argument about how introducing market-based competition in education encourages innovation and leads to better opportunity, especially for low-income families. If kids and families are treated as consumers, the thinking goes, they will have the buying power to demand a quality education. . . . It is also worth noting that businesses aren't run for the benefit of consumers. They are run for profit, and many businesses make their biggest profit on people who don't read the fine print.
 
"We need transformational change!"
Bashing the status quo is so 2010. This year, the issue is transformational, disruptive change (cue applause) vs. incremental change (eeewwww). In 2011, reformers delivering gleeful knockout punches to anyone who disagrees with them have drowned out their more reasonable colleagues. This leaves teachers uneasy. After all, history (and the history of education, according to Rick's most recent book) is filled with examples showing that good ideas, taken to extremes, become bad ideas, and that change can bring unintended consequences.

This is a great list, and the whole article is worth a read.

On a snarky note, I need a about 10 more do make a decent Buzzword Bingo card for the next in-service or to prepare for the cookie-cutting competition that SDDOE has in store for teachers. 

Comments are now open for other buzzwords to add to the list.

Steve Jobs On Schools

Kevin Drum points to a piece of Steve Jobs's education policy that Walter Isaacson relates in his new Jobs biography:

Jobs also criticized America's education system, saying it was "crippled by union work rules," noted Isaacson. "Until the teachers' unions were broken, there was almost no hope for education reform." Jobs proposed allowing principals to hire and fire teachers based on merit, that schools stay open until 6 p.m. and that they be open 11 months a year. [Emphasis in original]

I have always been torn by Jobs's comments about education.  His 2005 graduation address at Stanford is a prime example.  Jobs said the following:

Reed College at that time offered perhaps the best calligraphy instruction in the country. Throughout the campus every poster, every label on every drawer, was beautifully hand calligraphed. Because I had dropped out and didn't have to take the normal classes, I decided to take a calligraphy class to learn how to do this. I learned about serif and san serif typefaces, about varying the amount of space between different letter combinations, about what makes great typography great. It was beautiful, historical, artistically subtle in a way that science can't capture, and I found it fascinating.

None of this had even a hope of any practical application in my life. But ten years later, when we were designing the first Macintosh computer, it all came back to me. And we designed it all into the Mac. It was the first computer with beautiful typography. If I had never dropped in on that single course in college, the Mac would have never had multiple typefaces or proportionally spaced fonts. And since Windows just copied the Mac, it's likely that no personal computer would have them. If I had never dropped out, I would have never dropped in on this calligraphy class, and personal computers might not have the wonderful typography that they do. Of course it was impossible to connect the dots looking forward when I was in college. But it was very, very clear looking backwards ten years later.

Again, you can't connect the dots looking forward; you can only connect them looking backwards. So you have to trust that the dots will somehow connect in your future. You have to trust in something — your gut, destiny, life, karma, whatever. This approach has never let me down, and it has made all the difference in my life.

I appreciate the idea that one should be curious, be able to make connections between unrelated disciplines, and attempt to connect the dots.  I dislike the idea that dropping out of college is the best way to make those connections.

The points Isaacson reports that Jobs add to my ambivalence.  I don't really dispute the fact that the school year should be longer.  I was at school at 7:40 this morning and didn't leave until 5:45.  I would hope that schools could get away from the 23 minute lunch break if they stay in session until 6 pm. I also believe that a six week session followed by a week or ten day break would be better than the current system.  My system would have school in session for about 10 months.

On the other hand, I still don't see how or why firing teachers is the solution to every problem facing education.  I guess that's because I'm not a billionaire.

I Try To Be Agreeable About The Purpose Of Education, Sort Of

Yesterday, I quoted this Kevin Woster post.  Coincidentally, Cory at The Madville Times, as is his wont, got some of his readers in a tizzy for taking Madison principal Sharon Knowlton to task for suggesting that a gym is as important as a science lab or library.

One or Woster's commenters, John2, suggests the following:

If you want SD and the US to have 1st world secondary scholastic achievement results then take a modern model from nations that do: Denmark, the nations of northern Europe, Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Shanghai, etc. Focus on scholarship. Put all extracurriculars where they belong – in clubs outside of school jurisdiction. These leaders in secondary education excellence took the US model and improved it with up to 230 , or more full contact days per year. The US, on the other hand, is frozen in the 1950’s Happy Days-era of high school games and year books.

Both Cory and John2 have an important point; schools should focus on academic content.  It's irresponsible for a high school principal to suggest that a gym is as important as a science lab or library.  That's not to say that a gym is unimportant, but it doesn't rank as high as a library or computer lab.

Further, I would not object to a longer school year as long as it had breaks dispersed throughout it.  I've long advocated a school year that followed a 6 weeks on and 2 or 3 weeks off pattern.

That being said, a longer school year or eliminating non-academic extra curriculars won't change much of anything.  The club sports that spring up will dominate students' priorities because they are "fun."  Parents will probably put a higher priority on club athletic events than they do on current extra curriculars because they are paying for them.  Further, if club sports become the norm, schools will probably lose funding because clubs will want money to build gyms and practice facilities.  In the court of public opinion, bread and circuses beat math and literature every time.

I wish I lived in a world dominated by Cory's and John2's thinking.  I don't.  Given the thinking that dominates American culture, the educational and activity framework South Dakota has now is probably the best we can hope for.

Science And Religion And Education, Oh My!

These three things are more frightening than lions and tigers and bears.

At South Dakota Politics, Dr. Blanchard has written a provocative post about science having the authority that religion formerly along with the schisms that still plague the faithful.

Science enjoys the kind of unique authority in modern civilization that religion once enjoyed. It is the one source of wisdom that is all but immune to challenge. To be openly "anti-science" is to be discredited in modern eyes.

Blanchard goes on to quote Steven Hayward who writes,

But rather than stopping with the simple observation that ideology or politics drives acceptance or rejection of certain domains of science, it is worth pressing on to ask why liberals dislike some kind of science, and conservatives other kinds. Liberals in the case of childhood vaccinations and GM organisms dislike certain forms of authority

If I can carry the religious analogy a step further, modern personal technology like mp3 players, tablets, laptops, and smart phones function as the paten and chalice.

Public schools are legally mandated to worship at the alter of science.  NCLB demands no less:

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, which reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, calls for the use of "scientifically based research" as the foundation for many education programs and for classroom instruction.

 A lengthy New York Times article "In Classroom of Future, Stagnant Scores" shows that schools, like the larger culture, struggles with the limits of science and technology.  The article profiles the Kyrene School District's efforts to "offer what some see as a utopian vision of education’s future."  The schools "[c]lassrooms are decked out with laptops, big interactive screens and software that drills students on every basic subject."

The school seeks to change the nature of education.

The digital push here aims to go far beyond gadgets to transform the very nature of the classroom, turning the teacher into a guide instead of a lecturer, wandering among students who learn at their own pace on Internet-connected devices.

The problem here is that some of the results have more to do with "the substance of things unseen, the evidence of things hoped for" rather than scientific fact.

But to many education experts, something is not adding up — here and across the country. In a nutshell: schools are spending billions on technology, even as they cut budgets and lay off teachers, with little proof that this approach is improving basic learning.

This conundrum calls into question one of the most significant contemporary educational movements. Advocates for giving schools a major technological upgrade — which include powerful educators, Silicon Valley titans and White House appointees — say digital devices let students learn at their own pace, teach skills needed in a modern economy and hold the attention of a generation weaned on gadgets.

Some backers of this idea say standardized tests, the most widely used measure of student performance, don’t capture the breadth of skills that computers can help develop. But they also concede that for now there is no better way to gauge the educational value of expensive technology investments.

“The data is pretty weak. It’s very difficult when we’re pressed to come up with convincing data,” said Tom Vander Ark, the former executive director for education at the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and an investor in educational technology companies. When it comes to showing results, he said, “We better put up or shut up.”

Despite that admission, Vander Ark illustrates both the faith of a believer and the depth of the schism.  The Times continues,

And yet, in virtually the same breath, he said change of a historic magnitude is inevitably coming to classrooms this decade: “It’s one of the three or four biggest things happening in the world today.”

Critics counter that, absent clear proof, schools are being motivated by a blind faith in technology and an overemphasis on digital skills — like using PowerPoint and multimedia tools — at the expense of math, reading and writing fundamentals. They say the technology advocates have it backward when they press to upgrade first and ask questions later.

I will offer a few observations that may or may not serve as theses to nail to the school house door.

1. American society has become so tech centric that schools need to have tech in place and teachers need to use it in order for their classes to be taken seriously.

2. John Naisbitt was correct in the 1980s and 1990s when he asserted that society was becoming high tech and high touch. Literature teachers in particular must help students learn to "balance material wonders of technology with the spiritual demands of our human nature."

3. Schools will always be behind the curve when it comes to the latest technology; therefore, they must do more to teach about the principles of using technology than the specifics of currently fashionable programs and platforms.

4. There is nothing new under the sun.  Some of us of a certain age remember filmstrips and mimeograph machines.  A power point and a film strip do not differ that greatly.  When done well, both help students learn; when done poorly, both put students to sleep.  Likewise, worksheets are worksheets.  It doesn't matter if they were mimeographed or photocopied.  Photocopies do lack that ink odor that may or may not have destroyed many fourth graders' brain cells from the 1950s through the mid-1980s.

5. All of this is a long way of saying that schools are rightfully prevented from teaching a specific religion.  Likewise, they should not be mandated to use a specific scientific method or technological tool.  All require a bit of faith and a skilled practitioner.

Changing Education: A Continued Musing

I'd like to add to the list of suggestions to change education that I posted here.

First, emulate the National Football League.  Every team in the NFL has a goal: win the Super Bowl.  The successful teams are also able to enunciate clearly a "system"  that they will use to achieve the goal.  The NFL has a "West Coast offense" or "use the running game to set up the passing game," :Tampa 2," or "pressure defense" philosophies that may be intricate but communicated clearly and concisely.  I don't know if any schools clearly communicate their method.  Further, most seem to follow any idea that's in vogue even if it doesn't fit with what they have been doing.

Second, (I realize this point may partially contradict the previous one) teachers should eliminate the use of jargon.  Education jargon for whatever reason is wimpy.

Finally, this problem needs to get fixed.  Daniel Luzer reports,

Many critics argue that American college students seem to earn grades that are too high, or too high at least for the actual effort they’re putting in. In 1991 the average college GPA was 2.93. In 2006 the average college GPA was 3.11.
Well, guess which students earn the highest grades? It’s future teachers. According to a new study by Cory Koedel published by the American Enterprise Institute:

Students who take education classes at universities receive significantly higher grades than students who take classes in every other academic discipline. The higher grades cannot be explained by observable differences in student quality between education majors and other students, nor can they be explained by the fact that education classes are typically smaller than classes in other academic departments

This is despite the fact that education majors have the lowest high school grades and standardized test scores of all college students.

Now obviously there’s nothing we can do about this from a policy perspective. Grades are awarded by professors. If they think their students all deserve As and Bs (the average classroom-level grade GPA in American education departments is 3.8), well, that’s their prerogative.

But this is an important thing to keep in mind when discussing standards-based reform and rewarding and punishing teachers based on student achievement. Tough grading might be sort of a novel concept for many teachers.

Changing Education: A Minor Musing

Yesterday, Travis at Dahle Communication ended a long blogging hiatus and posted a few ideas for education reform along with a request for others to do the same.  Travis advocates a longer school year, taking steps to treat teachers like professionals not hourly employees, and paying teachers more.  I have no argument with any of those proposals, but since he asked, I'll add a few of my own.

First, the National Education Association (NEA) and American Federation of Teachers (AFT) need to start acting like the American Bar Association (ABA) and the American Medical Association (AMA).  Right now both groups act more like labor unions.  If teachers want to be treated like professionals, our professional organizations need to model themselves after other successful professional organizations.

Second, education needs to develop diagnostic tests that give teachers more information about student needs.  On the first day of school, 25 to 30 students will walk into the classroom.  Three weeks later classroom teachers will start to get an idea of what each student needs.  It might take another three or four weeks to determine what works for each student.  If schools gave teachers better information at the start of a semester, teachers would be more effective and students would learn more. If people are worried about adding administrative personnel, I would eliminate curriculum directors and replace them with diagnostic test experts.

Third, the diagnostic testing should allow students to test out of certain subjects.  Sitting in classes and relearning or reviewing things is a waste of time.

Fourth, the class size argument needs to be framed differently.  A class with people who have trouble in the subject should have 12-15 students.  Classes with students who have no problem mastering the material can be much larger. 

Fifth, students who have tested out subjects need to be allowed a "personal interest period."  Students can use this period to take a literature or science class even if they have tested out of literature or science.  If they want, they can take a carpentry class, an art class, a music class, a computer class.  Taking things that interest them in school setting may help students understand that learning is a life-long enterprise

Sixth, high schools should have a junior college option for students who are testing out of most of the basic classes.  I'm fairly certain that most of South Dakota's AA schools have enough teachers with advanced degrees who are competent to teach 100 or 200 level intro classes.  With the price of college tuition shooting through the roof, this option should help a lot of lower income families send their students to college and allow the student to leave college with hill of debt rather than mountains of debt.

Finally, work to change the culture's view of education.  Right now, teachers seem to be viewed as sales people.  Let me work with the students; someone else can take care of the PR.  Right now, it seems as if everything has to do with marketing the school or a particular department or a certain class.

I realize that most of my proposals need the longer school year and increased pay that Travis proposed, but I think the results will be worth the investment.

Quotation Of The Day: David Brooks Edition

David Brooks profiles Philip Leakey and offers some thought provoking closing paragraphs that should apply to the classroom:

Philip guides you like an eager kid at his own personal science fair, pausing to scratch into the earth where Iron Age settlers once built a forge. He says that about one in seven of his experiments pans out, noting there is no such thing as a free education.

Some people center their lives around money or status or community or service to God, but this seems to be a learning-centered life, where little bits of practical knowledge are the daily currency, where the main vocation is to be preoccupied with some exciting little project or maybe a dozen.

Some people specialize, and certainly the modern economy encourages that. But there are still people, even if only out in the African wilderness, with a wandering curiosity, alighting on every interesting part of their environment.

The late Richard Holbrooke used to give the essential piece of advice for a question-driven life: Know something about something. Don’t just present your wonderful self to the world. Constantly amass knowledge and offer it around.

A few quick comments:  First, curiosity and failure are essential elements of success.  I just wish that institutions were more accepting of both.

Second, I'm certain that "learning-centered life" is incompatible with both status seeking and wealth seeking.  On the other hand, I believe that being "learning-centered" or "God-centered" or "community-centered" need not be mutually exclusive.

Finally, the Holbrooke quotation should hang in every classroom.  American education has spent far too much time pushing self esteem so that students can show their wonderful selves to the world.  Some in education even smirk at amassing knowledge because the interwebs know more than any individual.  Holbrooke's statement serves as reminder that amassing and sharing knowledge still necessary.