« AfterEd Gives Disney a Run for Their Money: Watch eduwonkette, Episode I! | Main | skoolboy Goes to the Olympics, IV: Differences across Schools »

Should Teachers Adjust Their Teaching to Individual Students' "Learning Styles?"

Following rave responses to his first video, Brain-Based Education: Fad or Breakthrough?, UVA cognitive psychologist Dan Willingham returns with the unambiguously titled video, "Learning Styles Don't Exist."

Any thoughts, teachers?


Another teaching fad goes down in flames. Shouldn't teachers, you know, actually wait for method validation before embracing and advocating new methods?

Related to this is the bunk of Gardner's Multiple Intelligences.

Of course it is necessary to debunk urban legends. What is mildly irksome is that professors can gain fame by deconstructing theories without replacing them with an acceptable alternative.

Many school psychologists, for example, will interpret a significant difference between verbal and perceptual reasoning as a sign of a learning disability, and many private practitioners will simply diagnose it on this basis alone. Glutting, Watkins, and others have debunked this myth. Yet, we’re left with nothing but sand slipping out of our fingers as we try to grasp the true meaning of the results.

Now we’re going to question our long held assumptions that learning styles are sub headings under another rubric. Fine. Now what?

While what this guy says is 100% true, surely there must be a reason why there's so much anecdotal evidence saying that learning styles works, right? There is. But, like he says, it really doesn't have as much to do with the students' actual learning styles as it does with the fact that teachers have adapted to teaching the same concept 2 or more ways.

Prior to the learning styles fad, an auditory-learner-as-teacher would get up and lecture once and be done and expect their students to have the same understanding as them. Now, that teacher has been forced (by way of the teaching "gurus") to present the same material several ways, supposedly for the different learning styles. In reality, you're just giving the students 2 or 3 more chances to fully understand what you told them in the first place.

Good teachers are good teachers, as he says, and a good teacher could present the material 3 times in an auditory manner (though different each time) and almost every student would understand.

Further debunking seems to be needed, given that everyone--including teachers--thinks that VAK is true.

I agree that there was no positive message in that video--I tried to keep it brief. Positive suggestions about how to think about modality can be found here:

More generally, all of my columns for American Educator end with monday-morning implications for teachers.

PS Very pleased to hear that you think I'm gaining fame. You're the first to spot a subtle uptick in my trajectory, still invisible to me.

It's a seductively simple argument - but surely meaning is more complex than what is represented by a list of words.

To determine what is 'learned' by determining how much of a list of things they can remember is a very shallow view of learning.

I would certainly question experimental results based on that perspective.

Similarly, 'the shape of Algeria' is hardly typical of what we would want a student to learn in a class.

Explanations about 'how we learn' must first correctly describe 'what we learn', and in this the video (and attendant papers, which I have read0 falls far short.

I don't see how his debunking can possibly substantiate his statement that "good teaching is good teaching, and teachers don't need to adjust to individual students" -- that's just blatantly untrue.

And why is it that everybody assumes that teachers always are in a rush to adopt the latest fad? In my experience, teachers cling very strongly to the old-school ways in which they were taught and resent very much the people who want them to adopt the latest fads.

This debunking is extremely valuable. And like most excellent science, it helps explain things that we are aware of in a much more understandable way. But I have two questions. The least important is whether Willingham's view of "modalities" is completely inconsistent with Gardner's "Multiple Intelligences." I've tended to read Gardner's term in a metaphorical manner not as a scientific term or a falsifiable conclusion like Willingham's.

Secondly, good teaching requires motivation. What we may be seeing is that some teachers motivate some students with the music, while others are more likely to be motivated to seek meaning by words or sights.

Being educated as a historian, I have always read scientific evidence in a more metaphorical manner. It never seemed plausible to me that the terms "muliple intelligences" or "learning styles" should be taken as more than a popular science explanation. I don't have the math to be too precise of a consumer of cognitive science, but when we get these professional development theories and they seem to simple to be true, I've always taken them with a grain of salt. Neither did it make sense to gamble my students' welfare on theories.

I can conclude that Willingham's explanations are better without claiming to have the science to confirm or dispute his arguemnts. Based on my teaching experience they seem so much more solid.

It is an interesting proposition. As a school psychologist, I agree that there are multiple processes that can go into one "task" that purports to measure a solely "auditory" or "visual" task. There are memory processes, motivation, mood, vision/hearing/health issues, prior knowledge/experience with tasks, second language learning, attention...and the list goes on...that impact learning. A good clinician will not make sweeping statements about how a child learns, given the contextual factors at play.

In my experience, most teachers don't put kids in such rigid categories as "auditory learner" and only teach to that modality. I think that students can show learning preferences, and a teacher who understands that a student has say, an auditory processing deficit, will adapt to presenting material visually as well.

It is true that good teaching is good teaching, and learning is far too complex to say a student learns in one way, but I think most teachers get that.

Stephen: I hear you. You're not the first to worry about the transferability of lab results to the "real world." But what evidence is there that the VAK theory is right when one uses more classroom-like materials? There is TONS of evidence (using all sorts of materials) that memory representations are almost always meaning based.

Corey: Why is it "blatantly untrue?" Other than the obvious--you must account for what the student already knows--what dimension of student personality, cognition, whatever, is known to affect learning in a way that students can use? I don't assume that teachers use VAK or "adopt the latest fad" as you put it. But there are data (some that I've collected) showing that about 90% think it's right.

John Thompson: The VAK distinction is orthogonal to MI. No relation. The motivation argument has not, to my knowledge, been tested. I'd be surprised if some kids "just liked visual things more than sounds." Content of the visual or auditory stuff would no doubt be a HUGE effect compared to any tiny effects of that sort. But that's just a guess.

Rebecca: I'm happy that your impression is that no one takes the theory all the seriously. As I said, my hunch is that very few teachers really act on it. I wanted to let them know that there is no scientific evidence indicating that they should.


Thanks for both answers. You said what I meant. I guess you expect more precision from someone who knows what the word "orthogonal" means, and being a good teacher you defined the word for me without calling attention to it.

I use music, art like photography, poetry etc. to motivate, and I would have done it whether I'd ever heard of VAK or MI.

As far as teaching goes, we only really care about the differences and similarities that influence learning and instruction. The vast majority of differences between children have little or nothing to do with how kids learn. Often these differences are expressed in terms of "learning styles and modalities," "multiple intelligences," and "differing interests." All of these so-called differences are similar in that none has any empirical support nor has any been shown to have an effect on learning or instruction.

This is because the content of instruction dictates about 90% of what has to be taught:

Content, and the nature of content, doesn't change according to the interests of children, nor according to any other characteristic of children. If we were trying to teach a gorilla to read, the nature of reading wouldn't change. Obviously, when it comes to the nature of content, differences among learners don't have much to do with anything.Learning style differences are usually assessed informally through teacher observation. Teachers, however, often know little about inducing real learning. These learning styles are often expressed as superficial external traits like visual, auditory, tactile or kinesthetic which mask the underlying complex cognitive traits.For example, children cope with their inability to read in ways that might superficially seem like a learning style, but that actually reflect poor reading skills. It's easy to misinterpret certain behaviors.


Learning Styles seems to be a euphemism. We are constantly trying to name, and therefore separate, learning issues from the learner.

Every student, hell, every person, learns best what interests them; a teacher needs to present material in a way that gets interest from the student (I speak as an elementary school teacher).

When a child needs me to present material in a different way than I did, I do. It's called teaching. So, I agree with Willingham.

I've lost count of the number of educational bandwagons that breeze by every year. Learning styles or some variation thereof, though, always seems to be somewhere in the mix every year.

I think one of the most empowering things Professor Willingham says is that “good teaching is good teaching and teachers don't need to adjust their teaching to individual student's learning styles."

Good teachers use a variety of techniques/tools to explain their content, and they use a variety of methods to evaluate whether they were successful.

Now about that whole right brain, left brain thing…

Besides prior knowledge, teachers must account for: student demeanor, student interests, time of day, attention span, student-teacher rapport, class size, etc.

Ask any teacher who has taught the same lesson multiple times in one day to different classes with wildly varying degrees of success: there is no such thing as "good teaching" that works for every class and every student.

I'm not suggesting that the fundamental argument of your video is incorrect, just that your concluding statement overreaches.

OK, where to start? I absolutely agree that "good teaching is good teaching" (because I think that implies that good teaching isn't a cookie cutter act). However, I absolutely disagree that teachers don't need to adjust to student's individual "learning styles." He does admit that people have preferences and therefore it is the teacher's responsibility to adapt her teaching to incorporate everyone's preferences and not just privilege her own preference. That is good teaching. And I find it alarming that ANYONE would suggest that teachers do not need to adapt to the needs of their students...yikes. To me, this is a hop skip and a jump away from an argument that can be twisted to endorse heavily scripted curricula. Yowzers.

Also, is he really debunking anything? It was really just shown that learning preferences/styles/whatever may not predict learning outcomes....but a preference has to mean something.

Finally...he talks about meaning based learning but then presents tests that have no personal meaning for anyone. Strange. People learn best when they can make personal connections or build upon existing schema. Teachers must also adjust for that.

So thank you Mr. Professor, but no thank you. (And by the way, I heart your respect for the job...thank you for not teacher bashing.)

Let's get to the real issue here - the African nation highlighted is not, in fact, Algeria. What about the science of geography, doc?

On my first day of training with the NYC Teaching Fellows we covered NY state standards. On the second day, we learned all about learning styles--that shows more than anything how this has become orthodoxy.

I'm not sure Dan is saying we shouldn't differentiate. But the idea that good planning means every lesson includes "multiple modalities" (which is what I learned that second day in the Teaching Fellows) is clearly silly.
You done good, Dan.

Apparently, Mimi didn't read the article I linked to entitled "cookie cutter curricula" which presents the argument for why you want to focus on the sameness of children and not their differences.

Corey, there may not be any such thing as "good teaching" that works for every class and every student; however, it is certainly true that some "teaching" achieves vastly better results and is capable of consistently reaching far more students than others.

Mimi & Corey
You’re right, I probably overstated in the last line—what I really wanted to say is that there is no reason to try to tune your teaching for learning styles because there is no evidence that learning styles exist. As Corey pointed out, there are characteristics of students and classrooms to which teachers should be attuned, such as class size, time of day, and so forth. I didn’t mean to imply that every student and every class could be treated interchangeably, but I can see how you got that from what I did say.

Mimi, one issue I didn’t go into here is the very idea of identifying learning styles. This has actually been a significant problem for researchers interested in this stuff. For example, if I want to identify leveling vs. sharpening thinkers, I might have people do a categorization task and see if they tend to create lots of categories (sharpening distinctions) or create fewer (leveling the differences between items). Now if I give another leveling vs. sharpening task (e.g., ask people to tell me how two objects are the same, and then how they are different) people *should* show consistency as a leveler or a sharpener between the two tasks. But they don’t. So I get what you’re saying—if someone is a “holistic learner” then that ought to mean something. . . but that processing bias doesn’t hold across situations. (They usually try to look at the extreme endpoints of the style—the people who score at one extreme or the other of the leveler/sharpener scale, for example. It still doesn’t work.)

Oh, and yeah, I highlighted Chad, not Algeria. This was not a big boost to my credibility.

Dan Willingham was my cognitive psych professor at UVA back in the day. Really enjoyed his class. It's good to see his research applied to the field of education (I worked as a teacher for several years after college before becoming an attorney).

This is all well and good but the central question that I'm really curious about is how does this research explain the generality of why men won't ask for directions but women do.

Seriously, how does this study correlate to individuals with special needs?

What bothers me most, I think, about the "learning styles" nonsense (apart from the fact that it is nonsense, as Dan Willingham's video illustrates) is its use as yet another distraction from the subject matter itself.

In my ed courses, trainings, and PDs, I have heard endless talk of teaching "to" this or that style or teaching "with" this or that strategy. Teaching what, though?

The verb "to teach" is transitive and should be treated as such.

On a technical note, that was not Algeria on the map!

Hey, thanks for that! The video refreshed me for the upcoming year.

Scientists- rightfully- separate things into separate strands. I'm glad they do, so we can continually increase our understanding. But lived in the real world of the classroom with real human beings, who has time to measure such things?! Well, speaking for myself, I don't. "Learning/teaching" is a constantly-changing and never-nailed-down process where each solution works at that time, for that person. And given the complexity of human beings, so it should be...

It's a cliche, but teaching is science as well as art. The art is what we do; the science helps explain how parts of it are done. But the only things worth measuring in education, cannot be measured. Learning is too personal and too deep to be fully shared.

Can you completely, in every particle and aspect, ever share what you "learned" from a novel that moved you deeply? Some of it belongs only to you and your unconscious and your emotions-- (one might say, to your heart). What you "learned" about that novel fills different places in your brain and memory and soul. The parts that stay with you the longest are perhaps buried most deeply.

So measure away; we need measurements! We need people to wield statistics artfully to pierce the educrats' BS and push back their heinous schemes. (worshipful shoutout to eduwonkette and others like her)

But I'm personally paying it no mind whatsoever. I don't expect to "categorize" my students. I expect to get to know them as individuals, to look for their talents and embrace their idosyncracies, to continue the quest of stimulating their curiousity, interest, self-esteem and mastery...

the task will always be changing and moving, just like life.

I was trained in the Peace Corps to address four different learning styles in our lesson plans, and I found the lesson plan format helpful. I really thought I'd see different students pay more attention during different sections of the lesson. After hearing this presentation, I wonder if I was making a post-hoc link between what interests people and learning styles.

Our lesson plan was broken down into four sections: Presentation of material, analysis, practice and application. It seems to me some students would enjoy merely hearing or seeing the material presented ... others would be interested in learning how it works or why it works or teasing out implications, a third ground seemed to like to practice what we'd learned, and a fourth group really didn't get it until they applied the material, that is, actually did something.

My best guess, in light of the good doctor's debunking here, is that our lesson-plan format really was about different ways of demonstrating the meaning we tried to convey ... and isn't that a kind of learning style?

Why didn't you choose to follow through with your thought experiment about learning to build a house? I'll get back to this thought. But first a few points.

Claiming that auditory learners won't necessarily learn the shape of Chad best through auditory means is an overly extreme example that does not reflect your premise that someone does not best learn meaning based upon their relative strength, assuming they have one to begin with, in the VAK spectrum as the shape of Chad is not a meaning based piece of information - it's factual! It would be much more congruent for you to evaluate students across a battery of meaning based learning such as: does a certain student or students repeatedly "understand or learn" better when, for example, reading Shakespearean passages, versus hearing them read aloud, versus acting them out and receiving only one format per passage. It would seem to me that this test foots the bill as a visual, versus auditory, versus kinetic learning for meaning scenario without other complications if conducted reasonably.

You say that it is true that some people have a better visual memory than others and some have a better auditory memory than others on so on. Yet you still conclude that the way information is presented does not "matter(s) in how easily you understand or learn it" even if it is a matter of memorization. But, you only present a test of memorization that, you correctly pointed out, is flawed. In your proof, through the two list example early on, you actually claim that flawed testing supports your hypothesis that learning styles don't exist. You then go on to say that it is really a test for meaning and that meaning is what most teaching is incumbent upon - though I'm doubtful that this claim can be substantiated - but then you continue by saying that it doesn't matter how you come by meaning even though meaning can be arrived at in any of the VAK ways. Even going further to say that "people can learn in different ways and that some people are especially good at learning certain types of information". But your main argument in shooting down the theory is proposing that it suggests that it is always correct and applicable. Where does the VAK theory suggest that this is ALWAYS the predicted case and not just a preferable scenario where it is applicable?

Additionally your example of describing the scientific model of the atom by suggesting that one picture the solar system, IS in fact a horribly out of date visual analogy not a visual representation of the atom!

I would be interested to see if one could conclude, through well conducted tests, whether the theory is largely true where reasonably applicable (I wish you had stuck with the preparation for building a house!). I would suggest the presentation of a number of different concepts capable of being presented in the various ways of VAK learning. The students would then be tested for understanding and one would analyze the results to see if a certain segments of the test classes repeatedly and cohesively, if only particular individuals, understood concepts better through one of the three ways as opposed to the other.

To finish, let me say that the learning styles theory, as I understand it, suggests that SOME students learn best in a particular way and that many learn roughly equally in any format. Understandably, it is not always possible to provide teaching that is consistent with specific ways of VAK learning but this alone does not lend itself to the conclusion that it, or any other derivative style, should not be attempted. Claiming that "good teaching is good teaching" is like claiming a 'frog is a frog' - of course it is a frog - such a statement does not allow us to deconstruct what makes a frog a frog nor what goes into good teaching. It appears that you set out to prove that learning styles don't exist yet in your attempt at proof you use numerous incorrect thought experiments and flawed test results and at one point you do claim that "people can learn in different ways and that some people are especially good at learning certain types of information". If this is not indicative of a style of learning then what is?

On top of it all, analysis of why it seems so right is, completely and utterly beside the point. Ultimately, any reasonable person is going to see that the theory is meant to make teachers aware that some people learn best in particular ways and that, where applicable, those ways should be incorporated into teaching so that learning is optimized for every student - isn't that what a good teacher does?

I think the "evidence" supporting learning styles is sometimes actually evidence of the importance of letting learners control their learning.

If you provide information as text and images, learners can skim over unimportant parts and focus on interesting and relevant information. Good teachers use student input to direct a lecture, giving some of the same control to the students.

However, if you just give students a recorded lecture, or an audio file or a video file, that media has to be consumed at a certain rate, and learners have no ability to focus on what they want or need. When something they want to know more about comes up, it's only on screen for a set amount of time, and then another topic is pushed at you. (Pausing, rewinding, etc help a little but present usability problems and in reality few students do this.)

Sometimes, providing a lesson tailored for an additional "learning style" stumbles across providing the lesson in a user-controllable format, rather than a lecture by a teacher who doesn't watch their audience for feedback clues.

There's also a good argument for challenging students to move beyond their learning preferences, whatever they might be. If you have a variety of subjects, and a variety of lessons within each subject, you already have an opportunity to reach a variety of "learning styles." Some topics and tasks will come naturally to a particular student; some will not. The ones that don't are just as important to the student's education as the ones that do. And when the teacher teaches the lesson in a way that makes sense, the lesson comes across clearly, instead of getting garbled in various translations that don't suit it.

Now, of course a translation into a different mode can be quite effective at times. My sixth-grade teacher had various chants for the arithmetic problems. I still remember them. Music teachers would ask us to write down the images that came to mind when we listened to a symphony. I used to practice my declensions while jogging. But that is different from saying that a teacher should fit each lesson to all learning styles. That strains the lesson while leaving the student unchallenged.

Thanks, Doc Willingham, for excusing what I had heretofore assumed was a major metacognitive shortfall and huge professional liability: my inability to identify my own "learning style"! I lived under the leadership of a principal who would recite the mantra, "I'm a visual learner!" every time the cerebral going got tough. Many of the teachers on staff eventually recognized her relentless proclamations of self-awareness as a cover up for an inability to process quickly. This experience should have nudged me toward similar conclusions. Rats. (I also had all the materials to invent the sticky-note. Rats!)

Regardless, it seems that the practical implications of the findings--despite what teachers believe and profess--are limited because of the classroom reality that even a firm believer in learning styles, doesn't actually have time to analyze each student's learning style, let alone differentiate so optimally so as not to waste any one learner's time on an inefficient mode of teaching or learning. The real classroom implication of the Learning Styles fad (dogma?) is flexibility, which, as abundantly mentioned above, is the essence of good teaching.

What fans my spirit in all of this is the idea--one that so often gets strangled in this here NCLB era--that teaching and learning are fundamentally meaning-making activities. This reality both disarms the scripted-program zealots and requires that teachers be ever mindful and agile.

Good teaching is good teaching. This is correct. What is incorrect is making broad-based conclusions based on one narrow scientific specialty. The cognitive experiment that the video's conclusions are based on is if someone who is "audio" learns a list of written words better/worse than someone who is "visual" learning a list of words via pictures and vice versa. If learning were confined to lists of words then the conclusions of the video would be correct. But neuroscience research (specifically memory) has shown that the attention level that we give to something is the key to learning anything from how to speak another language to how to swing a baseball bat correctly. Interest is based on relevance to you (is it meaningful to you?), but it's also based on how you're "wired" (I love to read so I'll easily pick things up visually, but many of my friends don't like to read but like to socialize so they'll pick up things easily auditorily), and how much you care about me (when I know someone really cares about me I pay a lot more attention). Then there's the issue of experimental bias: having someone self-select to participate in an experiment (ooh, a puzzle to solve!) is dramatically different than teaching everyone in a classroom (ugh, another list of words to memorize).

Any attempt to debunk educational theory is laudable. Sadly, the inevitability is that someone will cook up another to take it's place.

Theories are genralizations. To the degree that a teacher starts relying on generalizations to direct teaching, a gap develops between student and teacher that results in failure.

Here's some thoughts to ponder:

The whole teaching/learning dynamic is so complex, varied and ever changing that it defies generalization.

When two viewpoints about education oppose, it's possible that both are (at least) partially right.

Reducing the art of teaching down to theories and recipies is nothing more than packaging for resale.

By the way, when are we going to start addressing the needs of students who learn best by taste or smell?

The example of country shapes was to highlight that in those instances where students are to learn something that *is* visual (and not meaning based) it is self-evident that they have to see it.
I presented the list-learning experiment in the video because it is easy to explain. . .there are quite a few studies using more realistic classroom like materials. If you’re interested in reading a review of VAK studies in particular, try Kavale & Forness, “Substance over style: Assessing the efficacy of modality testing and teaching,” _Exceptional Children_, vol 54, no. 3, pp. 228-239. There are LOTS of studies just along the lines that you suggest, and, taken as a whole, they don’t support the theory.

I agree with you about the time constraint—tuning one’s lesson plans to all the learning styles of students seems like an impossible burden. I think many people would respond that more often teachers would use a shotgun approach and try to include activities that would engage all possible styles. Which would be good because I think everyone would agree that there is benefit in using several approaches to get at the same idea.

As I noted to KC, studies on VAK and most of the other learning styles have been conducted in classrooms using classroom materials, not just word lists. It doesn’t work and it ought to if interest were a driving force. Then too, making the theory about “interest” makes it (to my mind) really implausible. . . . then we’re claiming “Jimmy is generally interested in things he can see, but Mary is interested in things she can hear. . .” wouldn’t the CONTENT of what is being seen or heard be MUCH more important than any such slight bias?

Mark Alberstein
I’m not as pessimistic as you are. There are things known about the mind and about teaching specific subject matter that can be useful to teachers, I think. Not *prescriptive*!!! Not directing teachers “you should do this!” but more “Here’s something scientists are pretty sure is right about how children think. . you might keep it in the back of your mind as you plan lessons.” I’ve been writing articles for American Educator for the last several years that are in this vein. (You can download them free at www.danielwillingham.com).

JM expressed my exact thoughts. Well reasoned and based in solid research. We know that attention is critical to learning. What grabs someone's attention? Whatever is most salient to that person. I think it is not about what is interesting to us. Salience (aka "attention-grabbing") is different from interesting (when interest is used in the more popular sense ("what I like"), not in the strict meaning of the word). I might hate the subject of science, but if presented in a way that is more easily processed by me, it becomes more salient and thereby "learnable", despite the fact that science may remain uninteresting to me.

For example, I love music and lyrics of songs. However, because of my own cognitive style (and auditory processing weakness), it can take me several listens of a song to really get the meanings, nuances, analogies, etc. However, if I were to read the lyrics of the same song, I would get it in one reading.

I think there is definitely merit in Dan's research, and there are probably those who have missed the forest for the trees with VAK. However, let's not throw out the baby with the bath water in re-evaluating how best to teach.

Comments are now closed for this post.


Recent Comments

  • DR: JM expressed my exact thoughts. Well reasoned and based in read more
  • Dan Willingham: KC The example of country shapes was to highlight that read more
  • Mark Alberstein: Any attempt to debunk educational theory is laudable. Sadly, the read more
  • JM: Good teaching is good teaching. This is correct. What is read more
  • Michelle: Thanks, Doc Willingham, for excusing what I had heretofore assumed read more




Technorati search

» Blogs that link here


8th grade retention
Fordham Foundation
The New Teacher Project
Tim Daly
absent teacher reserve
absent teacher reserve

accountability in Texas
accountability systems in education
achievement gap
achievement gap in New York City
acting white
AERA annual meetings
AERA conference
Alexander Russo
Algebra II
American Association of University Women
American Education Research Associatio
American Education Research Association
American Educational Research Journal
American Federation of Teachers
Andrew Ho
Art Siebens
Baltimore City Public Schools
Barack Obama
Bill Ayers
black-white achievement gap
books on educational research
boy crisis
brain-based education
Brian Jacob
bubble kids
Building on the Basics
Cambridge Education
carnival of education
Caroline Hoxby
Caroline Hoxby charter schools
cell phone plan
charter schools
Checker Finn
Chicago shooting
Chicago violence
Chris Cerf
class size
Coby Loup
college access
cool people you should know
credit recovery
curriculum narrowing
Dan Willingham
data driven
data-driven decision making
data-driven decision-making
David Cantor
Dean Millot
demographics of schoolchildren
Department of Assessment and Accountability
Department of Education budget
Diplomas Count
disadvantages of elite education
do schools matter
Doug Ready
Doug Staiger
dropout factories
dropout rate
education books
education policy
education policy thinktanks
educational equity
educational research
educational triage
effects of neighborhoods on education
effects of No Child Left Behind
effects of schools
effects of Teach for America
elite education
Everyday Antiracism
excessed teachers
exit exams
experienced teachers
Fordham and Ogbu
Fordham Foundation
Frederick Douglass High School
Gates Foundation
gender and education
gender and math
gender and science and mathematics
gifted and talented
gifted and talented admissions
gifted and talented program
gifted and talented programs in New York City
girls and math
good schools
graduate student union
graduation rate
graduation rates
guns in Chicago
health benefits for teachers
High Achievers
high school
high school dropouts
high school exit exams
high school graduates
high school graduation rate
high-stakes testing
high-stakes tests and science
higher ed
higher education
highly effective teachers
Houston Independent School District
how to choose a school
incentives in education
Institute for Education Sciences
is teaching a profession?
is the No Child Left Behind Act working
Jay Greene
Jim Liebman
Joel Klein
John Merrow
Jonah Rockoff
Kevin Carey
KIPP and boys
KIPP and gender
Lake Woebegon
Lars Lefgren
leaving teaching
Leonard Sax
Liam Julian

Marcus Winters
math achievement for girls
meaning of high school diploma
Mica Pollock
Michael Bloomberg
Michelle Rhee
Michelle Rhee teacher contract
Mike Bloomberg
Mike Klonsky
Mike Petrilli
narrowing the curriculum
National Center for Education Statistics Condition of Education
new teachers
New York City
New York City bonuses for principals
New York City budget
New York City budget cuts
New York City Budget cuts
New York City Department of Education
New York City Department of Education Truth Squad
New York City ELA and Math Results 2008
New York City gifted and talented
New York City Progress Report
New York City Quality Review
New York City school budget cuts
New York City school closing
New York City schools
New York City small schools
New York City social promotion
New York City teacher experiment
New York City teacher salaries
New York City teacher tenure
New York City Test scores 2008
New York City value-added
New York State ELA and Math 2008
New York State ELA and Math Results 2008
New York State ELA and Math Scores 2008
New York State ELA Exam
New York state ELA test
New York State Test scores
No Child Left Behind
No Child Left Behind Act
passing rates
picking a school
press office
principal bonuses
proficiency scores
push outs
qualitative educational research
qualitative research in education
quitting teaching
race and education
racial segregation in schools
Randall Reback
Randi Weingarten
Randy Reback
recovering credits in high school
Rick Hess
Robert Balfanz
Robert Pondiscio
Roland Fryer
Russ Whitehurst
Sarah Reckhow
school budget cuts in New York City
school choice
school effects
school integration
single sex education
small schools
small schools in New York City
social justice teaching
Sol Stern
Stefanie DeLuca
stereotype threat
talented and gifted
talking about race
talking about race in schools
Teach for America
teacher effectiveness
teacher effects
teacher quailty
teacher quality
teacher tenure
teachers and obesity
Teachers College
teachers versus doctors
teaching as career
teaching for social justice
teaching profession
test score inflation
test scores
test scores in New York City
testing and accountability
Texas accountability
The No Child Left Behind Act
The Persistence of Teacher-Induced Learning Gains
thinktanks in educational research
Thomas B. Fordham Foundation
Tom Kane
University of Iowa
Urban Institute study of Teach for America
Urban Institute Teach for America
value-added assessment
Wendy Kopp
women and graduate school science and engineering
women and science
women in math and science
Woodrow Wilson High School