Tuesday, September 27, 2005
Education: our lowest priority
If you live in Georgia, you (or your kids) are not in school today. Why? The governor decided to close schools for two days, in order to save gas.
I'm all in favor of saving gas, especially when supplies are short due to the hurricanes and other events, but isn't the real message here that missing a few days of school doesn't matter? The governor could have declared a state holiday, with all government offices closed. He could have asked businesses to close. But government offices and businesses are important. Schools aren't.
I'm all in favor of saving gas, especially when supplies are short due to the hurricanes and other events, but isn't the real message here that missing a few days of school doesn't matter? The governor could have declared a state holiday, with all government offices closed. He could have asked businesses to close. But government offices and businesses are important. Schools aren't.
Sunday, September 25, 2005
Diversity and educational effectiveness
Like many parents, I send my daughter to a diverse public school, in part, because I value the opportunities she gets to interact with children from different backgrounds. I suspect most parents believe that, to the extent that a diverse school helps educationally, it is probably in "soft" skills, something along the lines of Teaching Tolerance.
But I'm now thinking about the impact of school diversity on more academic subjects like mathematics and science. It's a timely issue. As Jonathan Kozol's new book, The shame of the nation: The restoration of apartheid schooling in America points out, schools are no more racially integrated now than they were 30 years ago. And the situation is getting worse. Parents from all backgrounds dislike bussing, but its hard to see how you integrate schools when America's cities and suburbs are becoming increasingly segregated.
On the other hand, according to the NY Times [free registration required], bussing works. Or, more precisely, bussing appears to have worked in Raleigh. They've implemented a policy to integrate schools by income (not directly by race, though the result is more racial integration), and test scores are up across the district.
Both Kozol's book and the Times article about Raleigh assume the same mechanism for how school diversity results in school improvement. When the school's parents are spread across the spectrum of income and political power, then resources will be more evenly spread across the district, so no schools get "left behind."
It's a good theory. It's probably true. But redistribution of wealth isn't the kind of thing that resonates with the wealthy and politically powerful. No wonder schools are re-segregating.
But what if diverse schools really were more effective schools? What if diversifying a school didn't just help kids get along with others but it actually improved mathematics learning for all kids in the school?
Some recent data suggests that this might be the case.
Gary Plano studied the impact of Cognitive Tutor on students in a district Seattle. He found especially strong effects on English Language Learners. But a more recent analysis (submitted for publication but not out yet) shows that the benefit extended to students in high-ELL classes, even though they are not themselves English Language Learners.
I figured that these students, though not technically ELL, were lumped into those classes due to poor language skills, and that would explain the results. But Dr. Plano thinks I'm wrong. He offered the same explanation that Bill Hadley independently came up with. Students in high-ELL classes spend more time talking to each other. The ELL students are always asking the other students for help, and the non-ELL students get used to explaining the math, which helps them learn.
Its a much more subtle and interesting explanation than mine. If it's true, it's the start of a powerful argument for figuring out how to increase diversity in schools.
But I'm now thinking about the impact of school diversity on more academic subjects like mathematics and science. It's a timely issue. As Jonathan Kozol's new book, The shame of the nation: The restoration of apartheid schooling in America points out, schools are no more racially integrated now than they were 30 years ago. And the situation is getting worse. Parents from all backgrounds dislike bussing, but its hard to see how you integrate schools when America's cities and suburbs are becoming increasingly segregated.
On the other hand, according to the NY Times [free registration required], bussing works. Or, more precisely, bussing appears to have worked in Raleigh. They've implemented a policy to integrate schools by income (not directly by race, though the result is more racial integration), and test scores are up across the district.
Both Kozol's book and the Times article about Raleigh assume the same mechanism for how school diversity results in school improvement. When the school's parents are spread across the spectrum of income and political power, then resources will be more evenly spread across the district, so no schools get "left behind."
It's a good theory. It's probably true. But redistribution of wealth isn't the kind of thing that resonates with the wealthy and politically powerful. No wonder schools are re-segregating.
But what if diverse schools really were more effective schools? What if diversifying a school didn't just help kids get along with others but it actually improved mathematics learning for all kids in the school?
Some recent data suggests that this might be the case.
Gary Plano studied the impact of Cognitive Tutor on students in a district Seattle. He found especially strong effects on English Language Learners. But a more recent analysis (submitted for publication but not out yet) shows that the benefit extended to students in high-ELL classes, even though they are not themselves English Language Learners.
I figured that these students, though not technically ELL, were lumped into those classes due to poor language skills, and that would explain the results. But Dr. Plano thinks I'm wrong. He offered the same explanation that Bill Hadley independently came up with. Students in high-ELL classes spend more time talking to each other. The ELL students are always asking the other students for help, and the non-ELL students get used to explaining the math, which helps them learn.
Its a much more subtle and interesting explanation than mine. If it's true, it's the start of a powerful argument for figuring out how to increase diversity in schools.
Friday, September 16, 2005
Catching up to Singapore
Tom Friedman's one of the smartest guys out there, on a lot of topics. And he's exactly right about Singapore [NY Times - may need to register].
Singapore reminds me of a smart tech like Apple. If you haven't heard, Apple killed their most successful product because they thought they could do better.
Singapore's doing the same thing. They're tops in the TIMSS results, but they know they'll get beat, if they don't try to improve. They're not afraid to change what they're doing, if they see a better way. And they're always working on a better way.
The embarrassing US performance in these international comparisons is not because we're getting worse in math. In fact, NAEP results show small improvements over time. Its just that much of the rest of the world has improved much more rapidly.
In the US, we're still debating about whether we should go back to basics -- back to the supposed glory days of the 1950's. The problem is that we're already back in the 50's, in terms of achievement, and that isn't good enough anymore.
I don't know anything about HeyMath (though I guess I should), but I know that we at Carnegie Learning have been seeing a lot of interest from the Singapore government about what we're doing with technology and math. They're paying close attention to what's being shown to work in the What Works Clearinghouse.
The attention goes both ways. We've been imitating a lot of the diagramming techniques used in Singapore math texts in our Bridge to Algebra product. And it works.
Singapore reminds me of a smart tech like Apple. If you haven't heard, Apple killed their most successful product because they thought they could do better.
Singapore's doing the same thing. They're tops in the TIMSS results, but they know they'll get beat, if they don't try to improve. They're not afraid to change what they're doing, if they see a better way. And they're always working on a better way.
The embarrassing US performance in these international comparisons is not because we're getting worse in math. In fact, NAEP results show small improvements over time. Its just that much of the rest of the world has improved much more rapidly.
In the US, we're still debating about whether we should go back to basics -- back to the supposed glory days of the 1950's. The problem is that we're already back in the 50's, in terms of achievement, and that isn't good enough anymore.
I don't know anything about HeyMath (though I guess I should), but I know that we at Carnegie Learning have been seeing a lot of interest from the Singapore government about what we're doing with technology and math. They're paying close attention to what's being shown to work in the What Works Clearinghouse.
The attention goes both ways. We've been imitating a lot of the diagramming techniques used in Singapore math texts in our Bridge to Algebra product. And it works.
Saturday, September 03, 2005
Easing up on NCLB
The Department of Education has decided to make an exception for Chicago in its rules about tutoring. Basically, the "Supplemental Education Services" part of the law requires failing schools to offer to reimburse parents for tutoring services. The schools aren't normally allowed to provide the tutoring themselves, since, presumably, they won't do any better in their tutoring role as they did in their regular teaching.
Chicago made the case that they could provide tutoring much cheaper than the private sector. They're probably also able to make the case that the private tutoring firms weren't educationally effective, either.
Although this does appear to pull some teeth out of NCLB, the SES provisions were always pretty weak. Its difficult to hold these providers to high standards of effectiveness, so we shouldn't be surprised to find private companies charging $2000 to show the kids Garfield the Movie.
I don't know what to do about this mess, but I do know that the the Hoover Institution's recommendations will only make it worse. They propose strengthening the SES law, the better to use it as punishment for failing schools. They're right that the schools have a disincentive to give their money away to private firms, but they're wrong if they think that invisible-hand magic will automatically produce better instruction in the private sector than students were getting in the public. They say:
Call me a skeptic (please), but l doubt that "persuading students to attend" has much to do with providing students with effective instruction. Look at what Platform Learning did in response to their Garfield scandal: they hooked up with Russell Simmons. Does that sound like they're focusing on effective education or on "persuading students to attend"?
The SES law won't work unless there is clear accountability for the tutoring firms. Throwing up $2.5 billion to anyone in the private sector who says they can teach kids isn't going to work.
Thanks to Susan Ohanian for pointing me to the Education Next article, which is really a good summary of what's going on in SES, even though their recommendations are all wrong.
Chicago made the case that they could provide tutoring much cheaper than the private sector. They're probably also able to make the case that the private tutoring firms weren't educationally effective, either.
Although this does appear to pull some teeth out of NCLB, the SES provisions were always pretty weak. Its difficult to hold these providers to high standards of effectiveness, so we shouldn't be surprised to find private companies charging $2000 to show the kids Garfield the Movie.
I don't know what to do about this mess, but I do know that the the Hoover Institution's recommendations will only make it worse. They propose strengthening the SES law, the better to use it as punishment for failing schools. They're right that the schools have a disincentive to give their money away to private firms, but they're wrong if they think that invisible-hand magic will automatically produce better instruction in the private sector than students were getting in the public. They say:
education providers have strong incentives — and few impediments — to make these moments educationally rewarding. Unlike the regular school day, the afterschool program is voluntary, not compulsory. Education providers, to secure their revenue flow, must find ways to persuade students to attend.
Call me a skeptic (please), but l doubt that "persuading students to attend" has much to do with providing students with effective instruction. Look at what Platform Learning did in response to their Garfield scandal: they hooked up with Russell Simmons. Does that sound like they're focusing on effective education or on "persuading students to attend"?
The SES law won't work unless there is clear accountability for the tutoring firms. Throwing up $2.5 billion to anyone in the private sector who says they can teach kids isn't going to work.
Thanks to Susan Ohanian for pointing me to the Education Next article, which is really a good summary of what's going on in SES, even though their recommendations are all wrong.
