« Guest Blogger Hilary Levey: Playing to Win (and for college admissions!) — In First Grade | Main | Don't Think about Elephants »

EduJello Wrestling, Round 1! Gladwell vs. Gladwell

| 24 Comments
virtual-jello.gif
A thought experiment: If Malcolm Gladwell, author of Outliers, was to jello wrestle his alter ego on central matters of public education, who would come out on top?

In his article in the New Yorker this week, Gladwell's argument is that it's hard to predict who will become a great pro quarterback or teacher before job candidates start playing or teaching. Like most engaged in the teacher quality debate, Gladwell assumes that there are "good" and "bad" teachers, and this quantity exists a priori. But it's just impossible to observe it before a teacher steps into the classroom. It's not about training. And it's not about some schools providing more supportive environments for teaching than others. For Gladwell, it's about individual "withitness," and we can't see it until after the teacher has walked through her classroom door.

It was surprising to see Gladwell focus so heavily on the potential of the individual player or teacher, given that he just penned a book about the importance of social contexts and chance in producing human greatness. As he put it, "The tallest oak in the forest is the tallest not just because it grew from the hardiest acorn; it is the tallest also because no other trees blocked its sunlight, the soil around it was deep and rich, no rabbit chewed through its bark as a sapling, and no lumberjack cut it down before it matured."

So where's the "forest" for a quarterback or teacher? It's a team. Or a school. Even the most gifted quarterbacks end up with pretty crappy pass completion stats if their teammates consistently miss the ball. And a great quarterback doesn't look so great if he's a poor fit for the team he's playing with. The same goes for teachers. So my fingers are crossed that the Gladwell who recognizes the importance of the environments - not just individuals - wins this match.
24 Comments

I think there's some truth to both sides of the argument. On one hand, it probably is difficult to predict who will be an excellent teacher before he or she actually gets in the classroom and teaches. On the other hand, I agree with EW that it is disingenuous to talk about "good" or "bad" teachers without considering the context in which they are working.

A "good" teacher in one setting might easily be a relatively poor teacher in another setting. I remember teachers I thought were great in high school (who taught advanced or AP classes) who I imagine would have been eaten alive in an inner city school. A thorough knowledge of Hemingway and Homer will not be enough to catapult a teacher to greatness in the inner city. All teaching is not equal: The subject, grade level, administrative and parental support, type of school and type of student all matter enormously.

Most excellent post, Eduwonkette. Lots of people out there have read and massaged the Gladwell piece to make Great Proclamations about teaching, mostly supporting their concept that exemplary teaching is a combination of enthusiasm, native smarts and missionary zeal.

It's the old "is teaching an art or a science?" question. While there is such a thing as a (for lack of a better word) flair for teaching, it's a serious mistake to believe that teaching is an occupation where good practice is instinctive. Relating well to kids may be instinctive--and helps enormously in building a quality teaching practice. But there is much, much more to be learned about being a master teacher--and Gladwell misses that. Teaching well--teaching responsively--is complex intellectual work.

Assuming that teachers are either naturally "good" or "bad" --and that we just have to see how things turn out once they get into a classroom--pushes us toward unwise policy choices. Some analysts are salivating for more sophisticated state data analysis systems, so we can "identify" bad teachers and get them out of the profession, and leave room for the next round of (inexpensive) educational artistes to take their places.

I completely concur with Attorney DC that teaching is context-dependent--but I'd like to add that eventual good teachers often begin as weak teachers, because there is much about teaching that can only be learned on the job. All the research is clear on this point: it takes three years to even approach something like full competence. And the best teachers never stop re-organizing their mental models or re-filling their teacher tool bags.

Art or science of teaching? About 20% natural artistry, 80% hard, scientific work of building an effective practice.

Good smart stuff all the way around. Having taught in a low-performing school, the idea that good teachers can become bad teachers resonates powerfully with me. I've seen promising teachers burn out quickly and regress to the mean. Presumably, the opposite is also true, as DC Attorney suggests.

I've been thinking a lot about the accountability mess lately and the unholy forms it takes in some hands. At present, we seem to almost fetishize the role of the teacher, but we do so while talking about the importance of school communities. With rare exceptions, the superstar teacher in the lousy school is a Hollywood myth, and even then it's unsustainable.

Here's a thought exercise: Does baseball free agency (to see Gladwell's football analogy and raise him one) offer a model? Suppose we eliminated tenure, and lowered barriers of entry to the profession and gave principals blanket permission to hire and fire, thus creating the school environment (in my opinion, the most important factor) necessary to succeed. But there's a catch: Like signing a baseball free agent, you sign the teacher to a long-term contract, say three to five years. In baseball, if you wildly overpay a player who doesn't perform, you can play him or bench him, but you still have to pay him. If you signed a foolish contract, it's your fault. You can't just cut him and send him home. As you can imagine, this places an enormous premium on due diligence. No one wants to get stuck with a huge long-term contract for a nonperformer.

Could this work for teaching? If you are finacially married to a teacher for 3 to 5 years, you have an incentive to make smart decisions from the start, and to improve that teacher's performance, not fire her or hound, intimidate or antagonize her out (the favored management strategy of bad administrators). This incentivizes the things we really need: identifying and hiring talented teachers, and building functional school communities. Ultimately it enhances accountability. Sure, parents want their kids to have great teachers. But more importantly, they want to send their kids to great schools.

It's nice following three excellent comments on an excellent post about an excellent argument.

I'd like us to follow Richard Sennett's wisdom and speak more of teaching as a craft.

Following Robert's comment, we need to stop buying into Hollywood's picture of super-hero teachers and expect a good craftsman-like professional job from teachers, not expecting every one of us to save every child. In sports, people who want to do it all, on their own, are derided as "one man teams."

Gladwell recognizes something the AFT has known for a long time. No matter how good the selection process, some people won't cut it. You can't quantify "withitness." So we need collaborative methods to efficiently terminate ineffective teachers as well also provide peer-driven mentoring. That's why we need the AFT's Toledo Plan to improve practice and to efficiently get rid of the 8 to 10% of new teachers, and as many as possible to ineffective veterans. So Denver and Toledo provide a positive model that is the opposite of Rhee's plan. I bet Obama can see the distinction.

Following up on Robert's baseball analogy... The goal of all the debate about teacher evaluation is to increase the overall effectiveness of teaching.

And I wonder, has free agency increased the overall quality of baseball? And if so, has it done it in a cost-effective way?

Also, tenure should produce the same incentives for due diligence that a long term contract would. But the general assumption is that it doesn't -- that somehow lots of bad teachers slip through the tenure process.

My guess is that bad teachers slip through the tenure process mainly in schools where it's hard to hire teachers. In suburban school districts which know they'll have 10 applicants for any position they advertise, weak teachers get "counseled out" in their probationary period. That's not going to happen as often if a principal finds that filling positions is a struggle.

It hasn't improved the quality of the game, but the quality was never the issue. Top talent was already in the ranks of major league ballplayers. It has certainly increased cost. My thought exercise, however, recognizes and tries to balance the needs of two diverse and powerful constituencies: teachers unions and parents (localities). Indeed, this could get interesting if we adopt another fairness model from baseball: the luxury tax. Teams like the Yankees that exceed a certain payroll figure have to pay a "luxury tax" to small market teams to keep competitive at relative parity.

Wasn't it Gladwell who claimed that Asian kids were good at math because they came from a rice-paddy culture?

[Rachel] "Tenure should produce the same incentives for due diligence that a long term contract would. But the general assumption is that it doesn't -- that somehow lots of bad teachers slip through the tenure process."

[Nancy] That's the assumption, all right. But here's a thought: maybe school administrators (who control the granting of tenure) are trying to avoid churn, to build a stable workforce with the same goals and skills. It may take the three to five years Robert suggests to develop genuine teacher efficacy --and that's OK, as long as those novice teachers are not working alone. No child should have unsupervised rank newbies, year after year.

The Pistons just picked up Allen Iverson, a expensive superstar. And he has not yet improved the Pistons. The missing pieces in this discussion are longevity, ability to collaborate and continuous professional growth. Being a born teacher does not guarantee any of those.

Getting back to Gladwell's forest and trees:

So let’s make sure the sun shines in, there’s plenty of mulch, the rabbit traps are in good working order, and we have a posted no-chainsaw zone.

Getting back to Gladwell's forest and trees:

So let’s make sure the sun shines in, there’s plenty of mulch, the rabbit traps are in good working order, and we have a posted no-chainsaw zone.

Robert: Your baseball analogy is tantalizing and creative. I have never seen a possible solution to the teacher quality problem like it!

As a young teacher struggling with this very issue--do I have the "withitness" to stay in the game long term?--I realize that I would like very much to have been signed to a 3-5 year contract at my first school. I would have liked to have stayed in one place, put down some roots with the kids and the families and the community, and learned to teach well in that environment. I was excessed at the end of my first year, though, which was bitterly disappointing.

Now I am in a different school--probably a better school by all measures, and I have learned a lot, and most days I feel like I know what I'm doing (halfway through year three). But I'd like to know that my school and I had made a commitment to each other--such that, on their end, they would commit to develop and support me, and on my end, I would work my hardest to comply with that development and support.

So again, Robert, that's an idea I like a great deal. I wonder if it could be tweaked and developed into something like a workable long-term solution.

Nancy: You made a good comment that it takes three or more years for a good teacher to really develop his or her potential. A problem with tenure is that the administrator is deciding a teacher's fate in the very period where the teacher is rapidly developing his or her skills. It is odd to be judged on competency at what will statistically be the least competent time in a teacher's career. Perhaps the idea of a three year contract for new employees has some merit.

I support John Thompson's proposal that the profession is more like a craft than an art. Nancy and I have discussed art and science numerous times in the past. I want to point out that when Nancy says "science" and wonks and researchers say "science" they are not talking about the same thing. When wonks say science they are often proposing a word problem something like this: Teaching Practice A yields student success 88% of the time. Teaching Practice B yields student success 64% of the time. Which practice should you choose?

Nancy is talking about approaching teaching with a scientific mindset. She might choose Teaching Practice A but she might also choose Teaching Practice B at another time just to reach that 12% of kids Practice A doesn't work for.
I keep coming back to the story in Teacher Man where a kid throws a sandwich across the room. In that moment, how does McCourt react? There is no science in that moment but there is something else. There is are goals, increasing student engagement and building relationship. Two goals that support and lead to student success although there is no academic element to the situation. What does McCourt do? He eats the sandwich. This is where creativity comes in, in how we react and promote learning "around" the academic content.

One point not mentioned in the discussion so far is the role of Bob Pianta's work in Gladwell's article. I have been a fan of Pianta's work for years. I know that he would not say that teaching should be open to anyone with a pulse but he would agree that the traits of successful teachers can be found in anyone. In the article Pianta highlights what the preschool teacher does that is good teaching, allowing students to show engagement through movement, he also points out what she could have done that would have supported more learning. This is where the profession can be taught, how to maximize learning situations. The teacher does maximize the learning by responding "creatively" to the situation as in she creates more learning using what is out of her control instead of shutting it down.

Gladwell compares watching players in college is similar to watching teachers in student teaching. He then compares playing pro ball to becoming a real teacher. One way the metaphor breaks down is that even though many players can't transition to the big leagues is that the game changes. It becomes more complex and harder in the pros.

Teaching isn't hierarchical in its demands and schools are not organized so that the same type of practice is needed to be successful in each. The truth of the situation is that in some schools you can teach like a high school quarterback and be fine and in others you have to teach like professional quarterback to be successful. The real difference is that you get paid better in professional football if you are successful whereas in teaching the high school quarterbacks and the professional quarterbacks all get paid the same.

In some sense, Texas is already taking this approach. Over the past five years, we have had private alternative certification programs produce teachers without any pre-service training preparation and minimal amounts of support. The graduates from these programs tend to have lower subject area certification scores and lower retention rates. In fact, teachers from these programs are 50% less likely to stay in the field than traditionally prepared teachers--even after controlling for the personal characteristics of teachers, school characteristics, and local labor market participation. For STEM teachers, those from private ACPS are 70% less likely to stay in teaching than traditionally prepared teachers.

Moreover, teachers from the private ACPs are concentrated in lower performing schools with high enrollments of poor and minority kids. So, the very kids who need the best teachers with the most training get the least qualified teachers who are most likely to leave. That's such a fantastic plan Gladwell puts forth.

From Gladwell's article,

"According to Hanushek, the U.S. could close that gap simply by replacing the bottom six per cent to ten per cent of public-school teachers with teachers of average quality."

So the current teacher selection processes are batting somewhere between .900 and .940? If so, I wouldn't say that this average reflects processes that aren't good at selecting teachers.

A lot of companies follow Gladwell's general approach and set a goal of firing some percent of employees every year. But let's not forget the obvious, this firing happens every year! So the purpose is not to reach 100% accuracy of matching employees to jobs but to keep the percent of underperforming employees from growing. The percentage that companies use can go as high as 10%, but is more typically closer to 2%. Which would mean that schools are already in the ballpark, but might be able to improve. I'd like to know if there are enough people wanting to be teachers to bring the school percentages down to the 2% range? Maybe there is a way to fix this at the margin with having longer probation periods for people who are not formally trained as teachers and perhaps raising standards for our schools of education.

I wonder what football would look like if the players were paid what teachers were. Or if as many players were needed as teachers are.

I wonder what football would be like if we recruited players via subway and bus ads, or 800 numbers, or job fairs. Or if we paid the lowest salaries in the area. Or if we made them play in trailers and bathrooms, rather than facilities so expensive they preclude spending enough to give our 1.1 schoolchildren facilities and conditions like those enjoyed by kids in suburbs ten minutes away.

The idea that he assumes, a priori, the existence of "good" and "bad" teachers in the New Yorker article is not true. Specifically, he refers to Stanford economist Eric Hanushek's interpretation of the data. Thus, his picture of "good" and "bad" teachers is gathered from someone with expertise in data analysis. That does not count as an a priori assumption. Gladwell seems very aware of his role as a journalist and in my reading of many of his articles and all three of his books he is usually very thorough about grounding his arguments in expert interpretations of research findings of one sort or another.

If I get the central thesis if Outliers correctly he is trying to 1) bear witness to the arbitrariness of key factors that determine who in society receives the benefits of social investments in their "talent," 2) bring fresh eyes to analyzing the contextual factors that determine particular kinds of dispositions (which can lead to developing "talents") and 3) proposing that we can do much better than we are if we could better recognize and then capitalize "talent" across the board rather than allowing arbitrary factors like birth dates determine the most likely "talent" in a group of kids. He argues quite thoroughly that the individualist explanation of "talent" is wrong.

What he is writing about in the New Yorker article is entirely consistent with his book thesis, the capitalization of teaching "talent" is based on arbitrary factors that do not serve our society well. Thus, we would do better if we changed the system we use to identify and invest in "talented" teachers. We need to recognize what factors actually correlate with teaching "talent," the so-called withitness factor, rather than continuing to operate on the assumption that jumping through the usual hoops required to become a teacher are relevant.

--
Enjoy,

Don Berg

Site: http://www.teach-kids-attitude-1st.com

Blog: blog.Attitutor.com

Good post, I knew Gladwell’s article was bound to foster some serious discussion – I’m glad I found out where that discussion was taking place.

As a teacher of middle schoolers I read Gladwell's article with extreme interest since the issue of teacher merit pay is such a hot political topic right now. Like it or not, the powers that be are looking for a way to improve the quality of instruction by pinning it to teacher competency, and the two factors that have been used to measure this, experience and level of education, are being jettisoned for other research-based solutions.

I took issue, not so much with the results of research Gladwell cites in his article, as the choice of research. There seems to be an almost romantic obsession with Harvard-based economists right now and while the work of Thomas J. Kane and Douglas Staiger has merit it left me with nothing more than a "yeah, duh" reaction. Of course good teachers exhibit a "withitness" as Gladwell claims. But nowhere in the piece was experience mentioned as a factor that leads to this. Much worse, the article seems to suggest that this quality that good teachers have is somehow inherent, a quality that can't be measured by certificates, licenses, or University degrees. Once again, ant teacher worth their salt would respond with, "well, duh."

"Withitness" CAN be inherent, but more often than not it is learned. Every professional knows that experience is the best teacher. Other examples of obviousness observed by Gladwell and the researchers; feedback to students so they know where they stand and making connection to student's lives through the lesson.

These are the bread and butter practices of good teachers - and they can be learned by bad ones as well. But Gladwell leaves his readers with "same old story" conclusion culled from the annals of the business world (why do people continue to look to the business world for educational models?). Good teachers should be hired from a pool of talent after they have demonstrated proficiency at the profession, but to follow this course would require (gasp!) a dedication of funds that would test the public's will to pay higher taxes.

Than Gladwell makes the obvious point, "What does it say about a society that it devotes more care and patience to the selection of those who handle its money than of those who handle its children?"

Well, schools and teachers don’t automatically lead to profits and returns! BIG DUH!

Clearly I was disappointed with Gladwell's article not because it tried to make a connection between teachers and other professions, but because it makes it sound like teachers are somehow born good - or that there are these "intangibles" that can't be qualified in the hiring process. And perhaps most glaringly - not one teacher was interviewed or quoted in the piece. And he seemed like such a smart guy. I guess there's just no way of KNOWING with writers.

Good post, I knew Gladwell’s article was bound to foster some serious discussion – I’m glad I found out where that discussion was taking place.

As a teacher of middle schoolers I read Gladwell's article with extreme interest since the issue of teacher merit pay is such a hot political topic right now. Like it or not, the powers that be are looking for a way to improve the quality of instruction by pinning it to teacher competency, and the two factors that have been used to measure this, experience and level of education, are being jettisoned for other research-based solutions.

I took issue, not so much with the results of research Gladwell cites in his article, as the choice of research. There seems to be an almost romantic obsession with Harvard-based economists right now and while the work of Thomas J. Kane and Douglas Staiger has merit it left me with nothing more than a "yeah, duh" reaction. Of course good teachers exhibit a "withitness" as Gladwell claims. But nowhere in the piece was experience mentioned as a factor that leads to this. Much worse, the article seems to suggest that this quality that good teachers have is somehow inherent, a quality that can't be measured by certificates, licenses, or University degrees. Once again, ant teacher worth their salt would respond with, "well, duh."

"Withitness" CAN be inherent, but more often than not it is learned. Every professional knows that experience is the best teacher. Other examples of obviousness observed by Gladwell and the researchers; feedback to students so they know where they stand and making connection to student's lives through the lesson.

These are the bread and butter practices of good teachers - and they can be learned by bad ones as well. But Gladwell leaves his readers with "same old story" conclusion culled from the annals of the business world (why do people continue to look to the business world for educational models?). Good teachers should be hired from a pool of talent after they have demonstrated proficiency at the profession, but to follow this course would require (gasp!) a dedication of funds that would test the public's will to pay higher taxes.

Than Gladwell makes the obvious point, "What does it say about a society that it devotes more care and patience to the selection of those who handle its money than of those who handle its children?"

Well, schools and teachers don’t automatically lead to profits and returns! BIG DUH!

Clearly I was disappointed with Gladwell's article not because it tried to make a connection between teachers and other professions, but because it makes it sound like teachers are somehow born good - or that there are these "intangibles" that can't be qualified in the hiring process. And perhaps most glaringly - not one teacher was interviewed or quoted in the piece. And he seemed like such a smart guy. I guess there's just no way of KNOWING with writers.

Very interesting point of view which indeed opens a debate either the teachers are just good or bad or if they develop in good or bad teachers based on the students and coleagues they have.

Kate Walsh, the president of the National Center on Teacher Quality, published an interesting commentary that covered a lot of this ground in 2007 (“If Wishes Were Horses” at: http://www.nctq.org/p/ )

NCTQ is an interesting place, in my view, critical of existing practice, but apparently quite committed to evidence and high-quality research, unlike most of the think tanks we come across, many of which are little more than advocates masquerading as researchers. Pointing to Hanushek’s data, which has created a “feeding frenzy” in political circles, Walsh points out that a little modesty might be in order among the wonks and politicians eager to implement solutions. The reality of what’s going on in schools (not the politics of schools) is likely to get in the way. The major reality is that the likelihood of a student getting a great teacher three years in a row (or five) is quite limited, due to several factors:

1. Only one teacher in seven meets the standard of effectiveness needed to produce big learning gains annually. A child’s chances of meeting Hanushek’s fabulous teacher five years in a row are one in 17,000.

2. The odds for a child in a high-poverty school are even worse, since the consensus in the profession is probably accurate: good teachers are not evenly distributed and some of the worst teachers are likely to dealing with some of the students from the most impoverished backgrounds.

3. Within schools, the most active and savvy parents seek out the best teachers, and it is not secret in any school who these teachers are.

4. A Robin Hood approach of putting the best teachers in the most challenged schools would require pooling all of a district’s best teachers in a few schools, a politically and educationally suicidal thing to do.

5. Hanushek et al did not identify first-rate teachers in advance and then study them to see how they accomplished these impressive gains. They identified these teachers “ex post facto.” That is to say, they combed records to see which teachers produced high gains in any given year. The cumulative effect of 3 years or 5 years of excellent teaching is a fiction, the results imputed to what would have happened if low-income students were lucky enough to have excellent teachers year after year.

6. Beyond that, it turns out that individual teachers are not consistently excellent from year to year, for any number of plausible reasons. This makes it hard to predict which teachers should get bonuses or be assigned the most needy students on the basis of last year’s performance.

7. When teacher performance is plotted on a graph, about 15% are decidedly superior, and a similar proportion are underperforming. The 70% in between are practically indistinguishable, making rewards and bonus schemes hard to manage (although clearly suggesting strategies for dealing with the bottom 15%).

8. Teachers, quite understandably, don’t want to be judged on the results of standardized tests. One reason is that standardized tests lend themselves much more readily to testing mathematics than to reading, conceivably because most children learn all their math (even if by rote and memorization) in school, while their ability to read is conditioned by many out-of-school experiences.

Walsh calls for ratcheting down the hyperbole about what to do with these fabulous findings from Hanushek et al, aiming to make sure not that every teacher in every school be outstanding, but that every school has at least one outstanding teacher in each grade. This would reduce the chances of a student getting an outstanding teacher five years in a row from 1 in 17,000 to about 1 in 3,750.

I like Gladwell. I think he’s a brilliant writer. Loved “The Tipping Point.” Loved “Outliers.” But I couldn’t be bothered finishing his treatise comparing the assessment and selection of professional quarterbacks to the assessment and selection of teachers.

Think about that comparison for a second. There are only 32 professional football teams in the NFL. Most of them carry three quarterbacks on their roster. So this is a multi-billion dollar enterprise, which devotes millions of dollars and countless person-hours to the assessment and selection of perhaps 100 highly skilled athletes annually -- including on-site performance assessments, the filling out of questionnaires, discussions with college coaches, review of film, annual “combine” testing (in which trainers, psychologists, and fitness specialists prod and poke the raw material to see how fast it responds, how high it jumps, and how quickly it can cover 40 yards). All of that in an effort to determine whether these athletes can do something at a professional level that is almost identical (albeit at a much higher level) to what they have been doing on an unpaid basis for the last ten or twelve years.

After all of that, as Gladwell’s sources freely acknowledge, they really don’t know how well their careful selections will work out. Heath Shuler, an incoming Congressman from North Carolina, was one of the most ballyhooed first-round draft selections in the history of the Washington Redskins – and he was a complete, total, and utter bust as a professional football player, after a brilliant college career and the tag of “can’t lose” entering the pros.

If all of that artillery devoted to selection in something as mundane as athletics produces something only a little better than an educated guess, how well do we really think we can predict teacher quality on entry, based on college grades, completion of a required syllabus, and the impression candidates make during a college fair about how well they will do when they are asked to do something they have never done before – namely confront ignorance and conquer it?

The point isn’t that we can’t do better than we’re doing, it’s that we’re barking up the wrong tree if we think we can learn much about how to improve the process of hiring hundreds of thousands of new teachers by watching how the NFL selects 100 quarterbacks each year.

I always read Gladwell's illustrations and come to different conclusions. Abortions lead to crime reduction? Huh?

What I took from all the examples was this: We need more on the job training. Sure, some of these skills are native for some people, but they are skills that can be learned, nonetheless.

Surely, if someone had followed me through student teaching, giving me good advice about what to do and what not to do... leading me through structured exercises to show me what worked with a classroom of students... or even showing me more examples of good teaching... I would have been a better teacher than I was.

As has been said, missionary zeal is not enough.

The whole process of teacher training needs to be overhauled.

Abortion and crime reduction? Don't think that was Gladwell.

Thought that came from a Chicago economist (God, not another one) named Levitt, subject of the book about "Freakonomics." I find Gladwell's insights to be often counterintuitive, but convincing. I can't say that about Levitt's stuff, which just struck me as a self-indulgent and unconvincing.

Comments are now closed for this post.

Advertisement

Recent Comments

  • blaneyboy: Abortion and crime reduction? Don't think that was Gladwell. Thought read more
  • Kimmy: I always read Gladwell's illustrations and come to different conclusions. read more
  • blaneyboy: Kate Walsh, the president of the National Center on Teacher read more
  • Stefan from StandardsToolBox: Very interesting point of view which indeed opens a debate read more
  • S. Harris: Good post, I knew Gladwell’s article was bound to foster read more

Archives

Categories

Technorati

Technorati search

» Blogs that link here

Tags

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

accountability
accountability in Texas
accountability systems in education
achievement gap
achievement gap in New York City
acting white
admissions
AERA
AERA annual meetings
AERA conference
AERJ
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
ATR
Baltimore City Public Schools
Barack Obama
Bill Ayers
black-white achievement gap
books
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
Chicago shooting
Chicago violence
Chris Cerf
class size
Coby Loup
college access
cool people you should know
credit recovery
curriculum narrowing
D3M
Dan Willingham
data driven
data-driven decision making
data-driven decision-making
David Cantor
DC
Dean Millot
demographics of schoolchildren
Department of Assessment and Accountability
Department of Education budget
desegregation
Diplomas Count
disadvantages of elite education
do schools matter
Doug Ready
Doug Staiger
dropout factories
dropout rate
dropouts
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
ETS
Everyday Antiracism
excessed teachers
exit exams
experienced teachers
Fordham and Ogbu
Fordham Foundation
Frederick Douglass High School
Gates Foundation
gender
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
IES
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
KIPP and boys
KIPP and gender
Lake Woebegon
Lars Lefgren
leaving teaching
Leonard Sax
Liam Julian

Marcus Winters
math achievement for girls
McGraw-Hill
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
NCLB
neuroscience
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
Pearson
picking a school
press office
principal bonuses
proficiency scores
push outs
pushouts
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
skoolboy
small schools
small schools in New York City
social justice teaching
Sol Stern
SREE
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
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
testing and accountability
Texas accountability
TFA
The No Child Left Behind Act
The Persistence of Teacher-Induced Learning Gains
thinktanks in educational research
Thomas B. Fordham Foundation
Tom Kane
Tweed
University of Iowa
Urban Institute study of Teach for America
Urban Institute Teach for America
value-addded
value-added
value-added assessment
Washington
Wendy Kopp
women and graduate school science and engineering
women and science
women in math and science
Woodrow Wilson High School