June 2011 Archives

The news that the 39 lowest-performing schools in the Detroit school system will be placed under the authority of the newly formed Education Achievement System starting in the 2012-13 school year was greeted as a long overdue step ("State Authority to Run Worst Schools in Detroit and Michigan," Education Week, June 20).

But before applauding the strategy, we need to examine what has happened in other cities that have attempted to turn around their failing schools through similar means.
I wrote about this subject in a Commentary for Education Week ("When States Seize Schools: A Cautionary Tale", June 13, 2007). Certain facts are worth repeating because of the striking parallels with Detroit's situation.

In 1989, New Jersey became the first state to assume full control of a local district when it seized the reins of schools in Jersey City. Paterson and Newark followed in short order. The reason was the abysmal academic performance of students and fiscal mismanagement.

Instead of creating the equivalent of the Education Achievement System, New Jersey in all three cities replaced the superintendent, central-office administrators and local school board members, and granted broad powers to a new superintendent. But contrary to expectations, the moves were widely considered as hostile takeovers. That's because residents deeply resented replacing locally elected officials with interlopers.

Whether residents of Detroit will react the same way is hard to predict. But what is highly likely is that test scores will improve slightly just as they did in the three cities in New Jersey. Reformers will then tout the small rise as evidence of the success of the strategy. This is always a Pyrrhic victory in my opinion, but apparently not so in the eyes of others.

In 1993, California intervened in the Compton school district for similar reasons. Test scores had plummeted and the district was about $20 million in the red. But despite the existence of the state's management assistance team, which is widely considered to be the model in this specialized field, little progress was made. Nevertheless, in 2001 the state returned control to local officials.

In 2002, New York state seized control of the Roosevelt school district on Long Island after it posted appalling test scores and ran up financial deficits. As in New Jersey, local leaders and residents were bitterly opposed to the takeover, but their opinions were ignored. Predictably, test scores improved only slightly even after five years, despite the infusion of $6 million a year in additional aid.

If the experiences elsewhere are any guide, reformers are promising far more than they can deliver in Detroit. That's because all of the troubled districts are overwhelmingly composed of poor students. Unless steps are taken to address the deficits that they bring to class through no fault of their own, merely substituting one level of government for another is not the answer.

Posted by Walt Gardner at 7:41 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Since resigning as chancellor of New York City public schools to become CEO of News Corporation's educational division, Joel Klein has become a frequent contributor to the op-ed pages of newspapers across the country. His output no doubt pleases Rupert Murdoch, but his views are proving to be an embarrassment.

Let's consider only his most recent writing. As I explained in my column on June 24, Klein commits the base rate fallacy in continuing to claim credit for improvement of test scores when he was chancellor ("Common Errors in Coverage of Education"). He then further calls into question his understanding of educational issues by co-writing (with Jeb Bush) an op-ed for The Wall Street Journal about the link between America's economic strength and students' knowledge and skills ("The Case for Common Educational Standards," June 24).

I've written in favor of national standards, but I've never done so for the reasons that Klein states in the WSJ piece: "The success of today's students will determine our nation's destiny. America's economic strength and standing in the world economy are directly linked to our ability to equip students with the knowledge and skills to succeed in the 21st-century economy."

This assertion is a gross exaggeration. As Lawrence Mishel and Richard Rothstein wrote in "School as Scapegoats" (The American Prospect, Oct. 12, 2007): "The honesty of our capital markets, the accountability of our corporations, our fiscal-policy and currency management, our national investment in R&D and infrastructure, and the fair-play of the trading system (or its absence), also influence whether the U.S. economy reaps the gains of Americans' diligence and ingenuity. The singular obsession with schools deflects political attention away from policy failures in those other realms."

Supporting Mishel and Rothstein, a study published in the International Journal of Education Policy & Leadership in April 2008 found that "the data from previous studies suggest that the relationship between student achievement rankings on international assessments of reading, mathematics and science, and a nation's future economic growth is untenable and not causal." The study concluded that there is no linear relationship between the general level of education attainment and a nation's gross domestic product.

I don't deny that schools play a role in the economic health of the U.S., but I say it is overstated. For example, on the same day that the Klein piece was published, the WSJ also ran an essay by Michael Spence, a 2001 Nobel laureate in economics, who wrote: "Many have expressed shock at the recent U.S. employment data. But 9.1% unemployment shouldn't be a surprise. To address the jobs challenge, we must stop pretending that this is only a difficult cyclical recovery. The root of the problem is structural" ("Why the Old Jobs Aren't Coming Back"). How are public schools responsible?

I don't expect Klein to cease his scapegoating of public schools, but I hope that readers of his essays will view his comments with skepticism. There is too much riding on the outcome to do otherwise.

Posted by Walt Gardner at 7:53 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Once upon a time, errors in reportage and commentary about education warranted scant attention because relatively so little was at stake. But today, these errors have widespread implications. I'd like to focus on three common mistakes, in the hope that by doing so readers will become more discerning.

The first is cherry picking. As the term suggests, this means carefully choosing self-serving data. Since so much of the accountability movement depends on quantification of outcomes, it's easy to see why those with a particular agenda engage in this practice. They can then claim that they have evidence to support their position.

Charter schools provide an instructive example. In 2009, Caroline Hoxby of Stanford University looked at charter schools in New York City, and concluded that students there performed better on state tests than students who attended traditional public schools. But about the same time, Margaret Raymond of Stanford University compared the academic performance of charter schools with traditional public schools serving demographically similar students in 15 states and the District of Columbia. She found that only 17 percent of charters posted results that were significantly better, while 46 percent were similar, and 37 percent were significantly worse. It's little wonder which study will be cited by charter supporters and which one will be cited by charter critics.

The second is the base rate fallacy, also known as the base rate neglect. It means making a generalization based on a selected sample without bothering to determine if the same thing exists in the general population. If it does, then it's very difficult to make a compelling case for a particular conclusion.

The release of scores on the latest National Assessment of Educational Progress illustrates the base rate fallacy. Fourth- and eight-graders posted modest growth in reading and math achievement from 2003 to 2009. Based on this data, Joel Klein, chancellor of New York City Public Schools from 2002 to 2010, wrote an op-ed for The Washington Post claiming that the reforms he instituted were responsible for the gains in New York City ("Why great teachers matter to low-income students," Apr. 9). But he neglected to point out that during the same period, other urban school districts, which did not implement such reforms, reported very similar results.

The third is Simpson's Paradox. This refers to the trend of a whole group from one time to another sometimes being the opposite of the trend of the subgroups during the same period. That's because the composition of the subgroups has changed in the interim. As a result, perhaps the omitted variable fallacy would be more descriptive.

The SAT serves as a case in point. Scores posted today cannot be compared fairly with scores posted even two decades ago, let alone in 1926 when the test was conceived. That's because the pool of students taking the SAT has changed dramatically. When the SAT- then an acronym for Scholastic Aptitude Test - first came into being, test takers were largely an elite group. Today's test takers, however, reflect to a much greater degree a normal distribution. A diverse population tends to depress scores more than an elite population. For example, a record 1.53 million students took the SAT in 2009. About 40 percent were minority students, compared with 29 percent in 1999. Differing sizes of subgroups affect the overall results.

Another example of Simpson's Paradox was on display in the fall of 1973 at the University of California, Berkeley. Its graduate division admitted about 44 percent of male applicants but only 35 percent of female applicants. Fearing a lawsuit, the associate dean asked a statistics professor to parse the data. He found no evidence of bias. Instead, he discovered that more women had applied to departments that admitted a small percentage of applicants than to departments that admitted a large percentage of applicants ("When Combined Data Reveal the Flaw of Averages," The Wall Street Journal, Dec. 2, 2009).

Despite these caveats, the media too often continue to take at face value the claims made by advocacy groups. I don't expect education reporters and commentators to become experts, but I hope they will take time to become more skeptical about assertions made in today's accountability movement. Too much is on the line to do otherwise.

Posted by Walt Gardner at 7:33 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

The latest test scores in history posted by students in 4th, 8th and 12th grade on the National Assessment of Educational Progress are cited as evidence that public schools are not doing their job. Only 20 percent, 17 percent and 12 percent, respectively, of the students tested demonstrated proficiency ("U.S. Students Remain Poor at History, Tests Show," The New York Times, June 15).

This is indeed troubling, but if it's any consolation college students are not doing much better. A brief stroll down memory lane reveals why.

In 2006, the Intercollegiate Studies Institute measured the civic literacy of 14,000 freshmen and seniors at 50 colleges and universities. The test focused mainly on American history and constitutionalism. It reported that the average senior received a failing grade of 54 percent. Worse, many schools showed negative learning, meaning that seniors performed worse than freshmen.

In 2003, the House Education and Workforce Committee reported that some students from elite colleges couldn't even name the president. One howler came from a student who referred to the prestigious journalism award as the "Pullet Surprise."

In 1999, the American Council of Trustees and Alumni commissioned the University of Connecticut to evaluate the civics knowledge of seniors from the country's top 55 colleges and universities. Four out of five received a grade of D or F. Only 23 percent, for example, knew that James Madison was the father of the Constitution.

None of the above is intended to excuse the appalling performance of schools in K-12. But it does serve to put the problem into proper context. The question now is what to do. Some have suggested that if history were tested as part of No Child Left Behind, the subject would be given greater emphasis by teachers. No doubt, but I don't think that is the answer.

There are better solutions. In 2008, the National Endowment for the Humanities developed "We the People" program by investing $75 million to bring 10,000 teachers to workshops at historic sites across the country and created a digital archive of major 19th- and 20th-century newspapers.

More recently, the Center for History and New Media at George Mason University designed a website with funding from the Education Department ("Digitized Historical Documents Give Students Direct Access to the Past," Education Week, June 15). Teachinghistory.org allows students to access primary sources through online databases. Then there is the Center for Civic Education, which includes congressional simulations, and ICivics, which features virtual games to engage students in learning about government ("Making history and civics a priority," editorial, The Washington Post, June 17).

What about textbooks? Long the mainstay of teaching history, they have unfortunately become so politically correct that it's necessary to supplement them by other means. David McCullough, author of nine historical books, winner of two Pulitzer Prizes, two National Book Awards and the Presidential Medal of Freedom, came up with a provocative proposal. In an interview in The Wall Street Journal, he said that the best way to teach history is to teach students how to ask questions - not learn answers ("Don't Know Much About History," June 18). McCullough may be right.

Posted by Walt Gardner at 7:41 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

The living may be easy in the summertime, but the learning lost over the two-month break is hard to overcome. Research has shown that students on average lose about one month of academic skills. For low-income students, however, the loss can be three times as much. In recognition of this problem, June 21 has been designated as National Summer Learning Day. It's a reminder of the importance of maintaining the knowledge and skills taught during the regular school year.

There are several excellent programs dedicated to this proposition. I'd like to focus on Building Educated Leaders for Life (BELL), which was founded in 1992 to provide disadvantaged children with enrichment opportunities that their advantaged classmates have long enjoyed through travel and summer camp. By 2010, it had more than 7,000 students in its program in six cities across the country.

BELL refers to its students as "scholars" in the belief that the designation helps instill the proper attitude about education. In addition to academic lessons, it takes students to museums, parks and other educational sites to reinforce classroom instruction. Participation is free. Those chosen are already in BELL's after-school program or are recommended by principals. Parents are offered workshops to help them become even more involved in their children's education.

The goal of BELL is to create a culture of success for students whose home and neighborhood environment often militates against this objective. It's important to stress this because in-school factors have to compete with out-of-school factors in educating young people. Whatever can be done to compensate for the huge deficits that poor children bring to school is a step in the right direction.

Some critics have said that BELL and other similar programs would not be needed if two proposals presently circulated were implemented. Let's see why that view is misguided.

The first is increasing the amount of homework. This has led some school districts to get carried away in the belief that if a little is good, a whole lot is better ("In Homework Revolt, School Districts Cut Back," The New York Times, June 16). That's a mistake. Homework has to be designed with the same care that doctors prescribe drugs. Overloading students is as dangerous as overdosing patients.

The second is extending the school year. It's true that students in the U.S. aren't in school as long as their peers in other industrialized countries. Recognizing the disparity, Massachusetts added about 300 hours in 19 public schools. But the results were not consistent. Miami-Dade Country also posted mixed results when it lengthened the school day and year at low-performing schools. As with homework, quantity does not guarantee quality.

In the final analysis, children need a change in scenery and routine as much as adults do. Learning does not take place only in classrooms. That's all the more reason to wish that BELL will thrive and expand.

Posted by Walt Gardner at 8:20 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Education ideally is a partnership between teachers, parents and students, as the best schools readily acknowledge. But reformers give short shrift to the role that parents play, preferring instead to blame teachers when schools underperform.

Yet there is a faint glimmer of hope on the horizon. According to The New York Times, legislators in some states have introduced bills holding parents responsible for their children's performance and behavior ("Whose Failing Grade Is It?", May 21). Whether these bills ever become law is another matter, but at least they signal a possible shift in the accountability movement.

Let's be frank: No matter how effective teachers are in the classroom, their influence is either positively reinforced or negatively undermined by what transpires when the school day ends. If parents do not inculcate in their children the importance of an education, there is not much even the best teachers can do. Teachers are not miracle workers, despite what Hollywood would have everyone believe.

In recognition of the limitations, California law allows parents to be charged with a misdemeanor if their children's truancy is chronic. As teachers have long complained, they can't teach students who are not in class. By the same token, teachers can't enlist the help of parents if they do not respond to requests for conferences.

When I was teaching in the same high school for my entire 28-year career, there was one night in the fall semester and one night in the spring semester devoted to Open House. For three hours, teachers were available to meet parents and discuss the progress of their children. Predictably, the parents who religiously attended were those whose children were doing well. I don't recall ever seeing parents whose children were persistently tardy, absent or disruptive. Phone calls and letters sent by certified mail were in vain.

Reformers will argue that teachers should persist in their efforts to reach these parents. But there is just so much time in any given day. How likely is it that parents can be convinced of the importance of their involvement, even if they can be contacted? KIPP prides itself on the accessibility of its staff at all hours and the involvement of all parents. But KIPP will not enroll students unless their parents first sign a contract that spells out their responsibility. Traditional public schools have to enroll all students who show up at their door.

It's hard to understand how parents can detach themselves so completely from their children's education. I've always believed that parents have a responsibility to provide their children with a reverence for education, along with food, clothing and shelter. Yet in many homes, what transpires in school is not accorded the same consideration. Parents who are forced to hold two jobs or who do not speak English are at a distinct disadvantage in this regard. But without their help even the best teachers face an uphill battle.

Posted by Walt Gardner at 8:16 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

It's not often that my column elicits as many interesting comments as "A Fairer Way to Evaluate Teachers." Perhaps this is because final report cards have been handed out, but it also may be because the subject by its very nature is controversial.

In either case, I'd like to expand upon an excellent suggestion that one reader made. Why not include ratings made by students? After all, they observe what takes place in the classroom on a daily basis. Unlike the dog-and-pony shows sometimes put on when teachers know they will be observed, this continuity is indispensable to obtaining a comprehensive picture.

I agree. Yet I hasten to add a few caveats. Students don't always possess the ability to distinguish between good and bad teachers. Sometimes they use the opportunity to get even with a teacher they don't personally like for one reason or another. And sometimes they seek to punish the teacher because the grade they received was not what they believed they deserved.

Nevertheless, I believe that such ratings will be seen as aberrations and discounted accordingly. In support of this view, a two-year study of student evaluations of teachers funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation found that "student perceptions are reliable, informative and predictive of teacher effectiveness" ("Students can help with teacher evaluations, Gates study says," St. Petersburg Times, Dec. 10, 2010).

There is, however, another factor that warrants further attention. I've made it a practice to attend the class reunions of the same high school in the Los Angeles Unified School District where I spent my entire 28-year career. I often heard comments from students that they didn't appreciate a particular teacher until many years after they graduated. They attributed their change to maturity. By that time, however, it was too late.

To increase the likelihood that evaluations of teachers are fair, it's important to include input from multiple sources: colleagues, students, parents and administrators. In addition, the rubric that is eventually designed for evaluation needs to be a joint product. In that way, no one stakeholder will be able to dominate the process. Finally, evaluations need to be anonymous in order to protect the identity of the students. Surprisingly, none of these considerations are included in Erik A. Hanushek's essay that was published in the Summer 2011 issue of Education Next ("Valuing Teachers").

No system of teacher evaluation is perfect. But we can certainly do a better job than what now exists.

Posted by Walt Gardner at 7:40 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Although business and education have different missions, there is one exception worth examining. I was reminded of this by a provocative essay written by Kate Canales in The Atlantic with the apt title "Finding Creative People Is Easy (and Here's How)."

Canales maintains that the most creative people don't do things "by the book." They engage in behaviors that workplace cultures don't support. Specifically, they occasionally break rules, push things through without first getting permission, and don't make numbers. (The latter means not hitting stipulated targets.) Canales says that "just about everyone is looking to bring creativity into his or her organization. The theory seems to go that hiring creative people could bring much needed innovation, new thinking, and organizational revitalization." A similar point was made by Byron Lewis Sr., chairman and CEO of UniWorld Group, a major advertising agency ("Got an M.B.A.? Great, but I Prefer Uncommon Sense," The New York Times, June 12).

Yet when it comes to education, just the opposite is taking place. Instead of creativity, reformers demand conformity. Can anything be more non-creative than requiring teachers to follow scripted lesson plans? Then there's the problem about questioning authority in schools. Which teachers who don't have tenure are willing to take on their principal? Even when they have earned tenure, do they dare risk an unsatisfactory rating because they have spoken up in faculty meetings?

Finally, what about not making numbers? I'm referring now to standardized test scores and the value-added model, which are essentially quota systems for teachers. For example, several states have already mandated that 40 percent of a teacher's evaluation is to be based on progress made on standardized tests. If that is not a quota, what is? These performance measures are precisely what Canales correctly argues are enemies of creativity.

In fact, so many proposals offered today are the antithesis of the ideal model. I'm not saying that all teachers have the same potential to become creative influences in the education of young people. As in any population, there is always a distribution of abilities. But whatever talent that teachers innately possess or can develop through mentoring in this area is being vitiated by the accountability movement. It's something to think about over the summer.

Posted by Walt Gardner at 7:13 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Reformers have long maintained that the system of evaluating teachers is a travesty. They cite evidence showing that tenure is virtually automatic after teachers complete a minimal number of years and that subsequent ratings are unreliable. I agree with this overall conclusion. But rather than bemoan the situation, I think it's time to present solutions.

In this regard, I urge readers to consider what the Montgomery County Public Schools are doing ("Helping Teachers Help Themselves," column, The New York Times, June 6). Under a program called Peer Assistance and Review, a panel consisting of eight teachers and eight principals are put in charge of the process. They first mentor struggling teachers and then vote to fire those who do not improve after a stipulated period.

Contrary to the concern that this split division of power will lead to stalemate, over the past 11 years, PAR has voted to fire 200 teachers. (300 more have quit to avoid going through the process.) By contrast, in the decade before PAR was in place, only five teachers were fired.

This track record should put to rest the claim that involving teachers in evaluating other teachers will vitiate the rigor of the practice. Even before PAR came into existence, I saw how demanding teachers can be of each other. Let's not forget that when teachers at one level are ineffective, they create additional work for their colleagues at another level. As a result, it is in the interest of all teachers to be vigilant in their ratings.

However, the one element of PAR that needs clarification is the importance of including only teachers who are certified in the same subject of teachers being evaluated. For example, I don't believe that English teachers should be on a panel evaluating science teachers. While there are certainly instructional principles that cut across all fields, subject matter being taught should not be given short shrift in the evaluation. Yet too often it is an afterthought. That's a serious mistake because it breeds resentment among teachers and shortchanges students.

If the numbers of peer review panels increase, as I hope they will, their proliferation will also help mute cries that teachers unions exist only to protect teachers. The way they operate should provide evidence that the rights of teachers and the rights of students are not mutually exclusive. That's a win-win situation.

Posted by Walt Gardner at 8:41 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Lest any doubt remain that public schools are under enormous pressure to operate as businesses, a new report by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation presented to the Los Angeles Unified School District should put an end to the question ("Report says L.A. principals should have more authority in hiring teachers," Los Angeles Times, June 7). It backs the right of principals to hire any teacher they wish without regard for existing district rules.

If the LAUSD Board of Education approves the recommendations, displaced tenured teachers who aren't hired within the district in one year would be terminated. At present, teachers who lose their positions because of declining enrollment, budget cuts, conflict with an administrator, or poor evaluations, or are returning from parental leave or illness, are placed on what is called a must-place list. Although neither district rules nor state law require principals to hire from this list, they feel pressured to do so.

Based on responses from three-fourths of principals surveyed, the Gates report concluded that forcing principals to hire from the list rarely, if ever, turned out to be a good fit. It recommended that principals should be given the freedom to hire any qualified teacher from outside the system.

The report is revolutionary because it breaks with policies, contracts and traditions. Yet that is precisely what corporate reformers want. Whether the source is the Gates Foundation, the Broad Foundation or the Walton Family Foundation - the Big Three - the objective is the same: Operate public schools as corporations, with all that implies.

I understand the appeal of the business model. There is intense frustration over the admittedly slow pace of school reform. When it reaches a certain level, anything that is presented as a solution is seized upon. That's because desperate people embrace desperate measures. But before assuming that anything is better than what exists at present, it's vital to ask a hard question: To what extent is ideology used in place of evidence?

Let's ask this question about the Gates report. The source that is most relied on for its recommendations is principals alone. They are entitled to their input, of course, but their views about a poor fit are strictly from their vantage point. What exactly does that term mean? Are teachers who are instructionally effective in the classroom but personally disliked by principals deemed a poor fit? The usual response is that principals rise above their own dislikes to put the education of students first.

But as The New York Times demonstrated in a series of On Education columns published from 2004 to 2006, it is a naive assumption. The subject was Brooklyn Technical, one of New York City's elite high schools. A carefully documented investigation found that Lee McCaskill, the principal, forced out some of his stellar teachers by his policies and practices ("Principal's War Leads to a Teacher Exodus," Jan. 28, 2004). The only justice came when the special commissioner of investigation for the school district rebuked the Department of Education for allowing McCaskill to retire just days before the completion of an investigation into his daughter's improper enrollment in a Brooklyn elementary school.

When principals are given the kind of power that the Gates report urges, it has a chilling effect on the ability of even the best teachers to speak out for what they believe are the best interests of students. I wonder how many of the principals surveyed by the report labeled poor fits those teachers who challenged them in faculty meetings. A Gotham Schools Community blog presents a list of immoral and illegal actions by principals (" 'Merit? My Experience With Arbitrary U Ratings," Feb. 11, 2011). The Gates Foundation makes no mention of this disturbing evidence.

I consider the Gates report to be another step in reducing teachers to labor under the heel of principals who function as management. If reform is ever to be successful, teachers and principals must work as partners. An adversarial system may work in the courtroom, but it has no place in the classroom.

Posted by Walt Gardner at 8:31 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

When the NAACP joined a lawsuit brought by the United Federation of Teachers to prevent the closure of 22 public schools and stop the growth of 19 charter schools in New York City, the news was greeted with disbelief ("The NAACP's mystifying decision to side with a union over students," editorial, The Washington Post, June 2).

That's because the schools affected are overwhelmingly failing black students. For example, at the Academy for Collaborative Education, which is earmarked for closing, only 3 percent of students were performing at grade level in English last year, and only 9 percent in math. Why would the NAACP, which has a long history of fighting for a high quality education, take this step?

The answer came partly in an op-ed by Benjamin Todd Jealous, president and CEO of the NAACP ("Why the NAACP is suing New York," The Washington Post, June 3). He explained that charter schools are being given preferential treatment in buildings they share with traditional public schools, and that parents are not being given an opportunity to voice their concerns about closings as required by New York State law.

It's the latter point that warrants elaboration. According to The Wall Street Journal ("NAACP vs. Black Parents," editorial, June 4), "thousands" of black parents held a rally in Harlem to protest the NAACP's decision. Whether that count is accurate and whether the parents represent the feelings of all black parents are both debatable. But what is clear is that parental satisfaction with schools is not necessarily limited to academic performance.

In Oct. 2005, the National Center for the Study of Privatization in Education reported that parents frequently opt for schools based on holistic, social, logistic and administrative factors. Academics is not consistently No. 1 on their list, as counterintuitive as that may seem.

Then in May 2009, a study of academic quality in the Charlotte-Mecklenburg, N.C. schools based on interviews with parents, students and faculty found that just because parents expressed satisfaction with a school does not necessarily mean students are learning much.

In light of these two studies, it is altogether possible that black parents in New York City feel the same way about the schools scheduled to be shuttered. They have the right to choose any school they believe best meets the needs and interests of their children. They may be misguided in not making academic achievement their primary consideration, but that is their prerogative. We need to respect it.

Posted by Walt Gardner at 9:36 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

In an editorial published on May 31, The New York Observer dared the teachers unions in New York State to contest Gov. Andrew Cuomo's proposal to count standardized test scores for as much as 40 percent in the evaluation of teachers ("In Classroom Accountability Battle, Cuomo Will Take the Unions to School"). In high dudgeon and even higher certitude, the editorial blamed teachers unions for what it calls "truly shocking - and infuriating" results posted by the state's public schools. It pointed to the fact that New York spends more money per student than any other state - more than $18,000 per year - and yet ranks 39th in high school graduation rates.

This is the kind of inflammatory rhetoric that The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Times routinely engage in. As a long-time subscriber to the former, I know exactly what to expect from its op-eds and editorials. What is disturbing, however, is that the same kind of hostility is beginning to permeate the opinion pages of other newspapers. So let's take a closer look at the alleged lack of accountability.

On May 19, 2002, Jeannie Oakes, former presidential professor in the UCLA Graduate School of Education, wrote an op-ed in the Los Angeles Times that I believe presents the best rebuttal to the indictment ("A Plan to Save Our Schools"). Oakes explained that accountability is a two-way street. She pointed to the importance of a plan then under consideration in the state Legislature advocating an "Opportunity to Learn Index."

What this meant was that everyone from the governor on down be accountable to students, rather than vice versa. The performance of these adults would be measured and reported each year by an index that would complement California's Academic Performance Index. For example, did teachers have enough textbooks and supplies? Did they teach in a clean and safe learning environment? In other words, accountability cannot be laid solely on the backs of teachers. It is a shared responsibility.

I don't know of any other field of human endeavor where the concept does not apply. Yet teachers alone are somehow expected - no required - to produce outcomes against overwhelming odds. The New York Observer refused to acknowledge the deficits in socialization, motivation and intellectual development that so many students bring to class through no fault of their own. This is no more an excuse why they underachieve than gravity is an excuse why objects fall to the ground.

Nevertheless, the attack continues unabated. It's much easier to scapegoat teachers unions for all the ills afflicting public schools than to engage in a productive discussion. I'll repeat what I've written often before: the ultimate goal of corporate reformers is to privatize all schools. Everything else is a red herring.

Posted by Walt Gardner at 7:57 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Every year about now, students are focused more on summer vacation than on learning. This places enormous pressure on teachers to command their attention. Yet despite the reality of the situation, reformers insist on expanding the school year and school day, arguing that students in this country aren't in school as long as students in other industrialized countries. (They fail to mention that Finland, which is acknowledged to have the best schools, requires students to spend the fewest number of hours in the classroom in the developed world.)

Cynics counter that if public schools here are as bad as reformers maintain, then why subject students to even more of the same inferior instruction? There is much logic to this position. But I prefer to seek evidence about the benefits of extending the time students are in school, if, in fact, there are documented benefits.

The results, however, are inconclusive, despite what Chester E. Finn Jr. maintained in an essay published in The Wall Street Journal that argued for school on Saturday ("The Case for Saturday School," Mar. 20, 2010). Massachusetts, which is known for the quality of its public schools, serves as a case in point. The state identified 19 schools serving more than 10,500 students that it believed would be good candidates. It added about 300 hours to the school year. Although some students posted greater academic gains than the state average, the results overall were mixed. The Boston Globe published an update on Massachusetts's plan on Apr. 4, 2011 ("Change begins at ailing schools").

Miami-Dade County introduced a pilot program extending the school day and year at low-performing schools. A 2009 evaluation produced mixed results in academic performance. Moreover, teachers reported fatigue as a result of the abbreviated vacation time, and some students simply did not attend summer school.

If anything, the evidence shows there are benefits to fewer days in school. According to the National Council of State Legislatures, the four-day school week has been in existence for decades. By lengthening the school day so that overall instructional hours were not cut, the reduced week has resulted in significantly lower absenteeism among students and teachers, lower dropout rates, and fewer discipline problems. The kicker was that test scores not only didn't fall, but they actually rose.

Although I look forward to further studies, I expect them to show similar outcomes because the key is not the number of hours spent in school but the way the time is spent there. This is where cynics are correct. If something is not working, merely subjecting students to more of the same is absurd. What needs to be done is to change the curriculum and adjust instruction accordingly.

How would this work? We know that out-of-school factors are crucial to learning. During the summer particularly - although not exclusively by any means - students from advantaged backgrounds enjoy enrichment in the form of travel and other cultural activities that their disadvantaged classmates are denied. For starters, why not use the extended school year calendar to provide all students with frequent field trips geared to stipulated goals, or make these trips a regular part of the traditional school year?

I realize that this enrichment will come at an additional cost at a time when school budgets are already tight. But as Oscar Wilde wrote in The Picture of Dorian Gray in 1891: "Nowadays people know the price of everything and the value of nothing." Some things never change.

Posted by Walt Gardner at 8:07 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend