March 2012 Archives

The attention finally being paid to bullying in K-12 schools would seem to assure a wide audience for a documentary about the subject. But that hasn't been the case with "Bully," which received an R rating from the Motion Picture Association of America because of six "f" words. Despite the absurd rationale, there are groups that support the rating, including the Parents Television Council, a nonpartisan organization advocating responsible entertainment (" 'Bully' deserved an R," Los Angeles Times, Mar. 28).

Although "Bully" is being released unrated by the Weinstein Co., the issue will not go away - and for good reason. In this country, young people are exposed to films on television with the most violent content, but with vulgar language and, of course, sex of any kind deleted. As David Dobkin, the director of "Wedding Crashers," wrote: "Do we really believe that a repeated curse word, or showing a woman's nipple (an instant R rating), is more detrimental to our children than the high-magnitude violence portrayed in many popcorn films the MPAA gives a PG-13 rating" (" 'Bully' deserved better,", Los Angeles Times, Mar. 28)?

Other countries take an entirely different approach. In 1972, I took my date who was born and educated in Sweden to see "The Godfather" in Westwood Village, which is adjacent to the UCLA campus. As we exited the theater, she was ashen. When I asked what was wrong, she said she was confused. "Portnoy's Complaint," which was playing across the street, had a sign warning about the sexual content of the film, but "The Godfather" had no such warning about the violence. In Sweden, just the opposite was true.

I still don't understand why language triggers an R rating because I remember a childhood refrain: "Sticks and stones will break my bones, but names will never harm me." The MPAA says that if it bends the rules for "Bully" it will have to do so for other films. But doesn't the MPAA also have a responsibility to the 160,000 students who don't go to school each day in order to avoid being bullied ("Kids At Risk," The New Yorker, Apr. 2)? The only way the now unrated documentary can be shown in public schools is by parents signing permission slips. But don't count on that happening on a wide-scale basis. It's a pity because "Bully" is precisely the kind of film that engages students and forces them to rethink how to relate to one another.

Posted by Walt Gardner at 7:24 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

There's no guarantee that what takes place in California will be repeated elsewhere, but it's a mistake to dismiss events in the Golden State out of hand. A new USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times poll serves as a case in point. Despite a series of reports about the persistent underperformance of public schools in the state, voters strongly support Gov. Jerry Brown's proposal to increase the sales tax and raise levies on top earners in order to raise money for schools ("Strong majority backs Jerry Brown's tax-hike initiative," Los Angeles Times, Mar. 26).

Specifically, 64 percent of voters surveyed were in favor of the measure, which will be on the November ballot. If approved, it would raise the state sales tax by a quarter-cent per dollar for the next four years and impose a graduated surcharge on incomes of more than $250,000 over the next seven years. What is most surprising is the percentage of voters who favor this approach. These presumably are the same voters who voice harsh criticism of public schools. Yet when push comes to shove, they are not ready to give up on public education.

How to explain this disconnect?

First, it's important to note another finding of the same survey. Sixty-four percent of voters were against a separate measure put forward by the California State PTA that would hike income taxes on most taxpayers to raise money for schools and early childhood education and pay down the state debt. I stress this point because it indicates that voters surveyed may be primarily out for justice. The Brown proposal would single out top earners, whereas the PTA proposal would spread the tax increase across a broader band of earners. Whether voters will pay more under the Brown plan seems secondary to their anger against the rich.

Second, Californians remember when public schools in the state were considered among the best in the nation. I think many voters only now realize the harm done by the passage of Proposition 13 in 1979. By reducing local property taxes and shifting funding of schools to the state, they created a complicated set of formulas that only experts can fully understand ("Some California schools get twice the funding - and more - of others," San Jose Mercury News, Feb. 26). The result has been that California now ranks 43rd in per-pupil spending.

Third, voters want to avoid cognitive dissonance. Polls have consistently found that people believe their local schools are better than schools elsewhere. They are essentially satisfied with the job neighborhood schools are doing in preparing their children or grandchildren for college ("Californians willing to pay higher taxes for better schools," Los Angeles Times, Nov. 19, 2011). By supporting the Brown proposal, they ease their consciences. As Sean Cavanagh noted: "Residents also appear to be taking notice of the pain schools are absorbing" ("Gauging Public Opinion on Tax Hikes for Schools? Good Luck," Education Week, Nov. 29, 2011).

It's unlikely that voters will change their minds very much between now and November. Even if they don't, however, the question remains whether voters in other states will follow in California's footprints. As Joanne Barkan explains in detail, reformers are spending at least a half-billion dollars a year to sway public opinion in favor of a market-modeled movement ("Hired Guns on Astroturf: How to Buy and Sell School Reform," Dissent, Spring 2012). At some point, their message is bound to have an impact.

Posted by Walt Gardner at 7:18 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

It's axiomatic that when the stakes are high enough in any field there will be cheating. But what is news is the extent of the problem in education. In the best tradition of investigative reporting, The Atlanta Journal Constitution found suspicious test scores in some 200 school districts across the nation ("Cheating our children: Suspicious school test scores across the nation," Mar. 24).

A team of three reporters and two database specialists spent five months under freedom of information laws examining test results in math and reading at 69,000 public schools in 14,743 districts in 49 states. (Nebraska didn't administer a statewide test until last year.) Although they concluded that their analysis does not definitively prove cheating, it's hard not to draw that inference based on the available evidence. I say that because when test scores change dramatically from one year to another in the absence of any other possible cause, it's almost always the result of cheating. It's hard to believe that exemplary instruction suddenly accounted for the results.

Not surprisingly, improbable improvement took place most often in large-to medium-sized urban districts and in rural districts. They were also twice as likely to occur in charter schools as in traditional schools. That's because these districts are under the most pressure to post improved outcomes compared with suburban districts. However, it's a mistake to assume that cheating in one form or another does not take place in affluent suburban districts, as the recent SAT cheating scandal at Great Neck North High School on Long Island, New York attests ("Exam Cheating on Long Island Hardly a Secret," The New York Times, Dec. 1, 2011).

I've written before about Campbell's Law as an explanation for cheating ("Campbell's Law Strikes Again," Jun. 21, 2010). So I won't go into it again, nor will I bemoan the obvious. Instead, I'd like to ask why we are shocked when cheating occurs. After all, reformers demand a business approach to education, and yet cheating scandals are uncovered with increasing frequency in Corporate America. If you lie down with dogs, you wake up with fleas.

Posted by Walt Gardner at 7:08 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

The public loves ratings in all fields of human endeavor. Anyone doubting that needs to look at Consumer Reports, which has expanded its coverage over the years from products to services of every category. So it wouldn't surprise me at all if K-12 schools will soon be rated overwhelmingly on parental satisfaction. At least that's what I see forthcoming after reading "Hospitals Aren't Hotels" (The New York Times, Mar. 15).

I realize that comparing schools with hospitals is risky, but I think enough similarities exist to make a case. Theresa Brown, the oncology nurse who wrote the essay, explains that not all sick patients get better despite the best efforts of doctors. Moreover, a lot of hospital care is by its very nature dehumanizing. Despite these realities, hospitals are being evaluated on the basis of the ratings that patients give them. What emerges is that the patient experience is often an unfair way of determining reimbursement.

I maintain that public schools are not unlike hospitals. They also must enroll (admit) all who show up at their door and are expected to produce positive outcomes (cure) regardless of the conditions with which students (patients) present. Yet we know that in both education and medicine, the past history of those served plays an overwhelming role in determining success. If patients have smoked all their lives, for example, we don't blame hospitals if they can't cure lung cancer. But we expect schools to post evidence of learning even when students come from the most chaotic backgrounds.

This strategy flies in the face of reality. Just as hospitals have patients for only a short time, so do schools. The bulk of the waking hours of a student takes place in the home and in the neighborhood - not in school. As a result, asking schools to produce the kind of results now demanded would require turning them into Lourdes and making all teachers clones of Mother Theresa. We don't expect that from hospitals and doctors.

There's evidence that a "consumerist ethos" has already established a toehold in schools ("This pampered private school elite can only lead to US decline," The Guardian, Mar. 22). Although it is most obvious in tony private schools in large urban areas, I believe it won't be long before it permeates public schools everywhere. The trouble is that when power shifts to parents, schools become like companies because the customer is always right. That means teachers relinquish their professional judgment, since they are employees. I don't believe the change will benefit students as much as reformers maintain.

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

Although the presidential election is still seven months away, voters are already hearing arguments in support of allowing religion in public schools. "The labor behind the initiatives may be local, but the ideas, the money, and the legal firepower that make them possible are national," as Katherine Stewart makes clear in The Good News Club (Public Affairs, 2012).

New York City is the latest venue for the movement. Encouraged by the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Good News Club v. Milford Central School in 2001 that a school district discriminated against an after-school bible study group by barring it from using space in a school building, an evangelical group known as the Bronx Household of Faith wanted to hold its Sunday services at Public School 15. But in June, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit said that a worship service is different from a bible study group because the former consecrates the place in which it is performed ("Separate Public Schools From Churches," The New York Times, Feb. 1). The high court refused to hear an appeal, resulting in a deadline for the 60 or so congregations to relocate their worship services.

What makes the campaign to inject religion into schools so disturbing is that it is insidious, posing a direct threat to the continuation of public education in this country. This caveat so far applies mainly to Christian fundamentalism, but it is not limited to it. As Stewart writes: "Whether you're talking about Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, Christianity, or Islam, all forms of fundamentalism are on the rise." Reformers argue that the "ethos of common schooling" is undermined far more by the failing of so many public schools, but this is a separate issue ("School Reform's Establishment Turn," The Wall Street Journal, Mar. 19).

Contrary to popular belief, reference to a wall of separation between church and state does not appear in the U.S. Constitution. The term was coined by Thomas Jefferson when he was president in a letter to the Danbury Baptists to assure them that the federal government would not be biased against them in any way. Only in 1879 did the term make its way into the judicial lexicon in Reynolds v. United States. Since then, it has been cited by the U.S. Supreme Court 23 times.

Despite temporary setbacks, as in New York City, the campaign to infiltrate public schools continues unabated. If evangelists ultimately achieve their objective, more and more parents will pull their children out of public schools and enroll them elsewhere. This will create further divisions among Americans. The U.S. is supposed to be a land where church and state are separate. Government is prohibited from supporting faith. That's why any inroad made by any religion into public schools is cause for deep concern. I believe that parents have the right to send their children to any school that best meets their needs and interests - religious or otherwise. But they should not have to base their decision on a violation of the U.S. Constitution.

Posted by Walt Gardner at 7:55 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Ordinarily thought of as a way of evaluating teachers after they have been licensed, performance assessment will be used in Wisconsin to determine if teachers should be given a license in the first place ("New teachers getting ready to be graded on classroom work," Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Mar. 11).

Beginning on Sept. 1, 2015, teachers will have to demonstrate how well they can teach by submitting 5-day lesson plans, appearing in a 15-minute video of their classroom instruction and reflecting upon their work. The three-part process will be rated on a scale of 1 to 5 by independent trained reviewers from across the country. Wisconsin has not yet determined the exact cut score.

Other states are following Wisconsin's lead. Indiana, for example, is in the process of developing a performance assessment that teacher candidates would have to pass in order to be licensed ("Indiana's education schools make new efforts to better teach teachers," Indianapolis Star, Mar. 15). It's part of a trend to incorporate actual classroom teaching early into teacher preparation programs. I expect to see additional states falling in line.

That's a promising trend because I've always believed that the best way to determine the effectiveness of teachers is to observe them in action in a classroom of students. Paper-and-pencil tests have their place, but they are not nearly as predictive of effectiveness as authentic assessment. The performing arts have long held auditions to determine who gets hired. I see no reason why the same strategy can't be used successfully in teaching.

My only caveat is that candidates for a license presumably will not have the opportunity to get to know the students before they are evaluated. This lack of familiarity puts candidates at a distinct disadvantage because their lesson plans will be based on assumptions that may turn out to be unwarranted. As a result, even the most creative lessons can be flops with students from different cultures and backgrounds. I hope that states will provide specific information beforehand in order to allow candidates to tailor their lessons plans accordingly.

If this is done, performance assessment will also provide valuable information about the quality of teacher education programs. Publication of the percentage of graduates of each program who pass the test on the first try will help them improve by providing valuable feedback. With colleges, schools and departments of education across the country under fire for turning out ill-prepared teachers, the information is badly needed.

Posted by Walt Gardner at 7:25 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Teachers are slated to be judged and rewarded in the next school year largely on how well their students perform on the basis of quantifiable outcomes. The usual rationale is that this strategy is how top executives in business are evaluated and compensated. If adopted, the corporate model will transform schools and allow the U.S. to compete in the global economy.

But the argument is dead wrong. "CEOs are different: They are almost certainly the only category of Americans who regularly get rewarded for failure with massive amounts of money" ("Executive Decisions," The New Republic, Mar. 1). To put it differently, nothing succeeds like failure in the executive suite. There are countless examples of the disconnect between performance and pay in corporate America, from Angelo Mozilo of Countrywide, to Aubrey McClendon of Chesapeake Energy, to Mark Hurd of Hewlett Packard.

Yet Americans still are most likely to believe that "people are rewarded for intelligence and skill" ("The Mobility Myth," The New Republic, Mar. 1). There is some truth to this belief, but it overstates the reality, which is that connections figure heavily in who moves up and who is laid off. If this observation is accurate, it will lead to mass firings in education when they are not deserved. And unlike CEOs who leave with huge severance packages despite their failure at the helm, teachers will leave with nothing but the pensions they've paid into during their days in the classroom.

Perhaps the notion of pay for performance would make sense if schools were allowed to operate like businesses. But they're not. Public schools by law must enroll all students who show up at their doors regardless of their ability or motivation, and they can't be expelled except for the most egregious behavior. It's a wonder that teachers do as well as they do under the circumstances. Yet don't ever expect education marketeers to concede this point. They're only interested in the undeniable cases of failing schools.

I wonder what their reaction will be to the op-ed by Greg Smith, a former executive director at Goldman Sachs who laid bare the truth about the assertion that corporations have their customers best interests in mind ("Why I Am Leaving Goldman Sachs," The New York Times, Mar. 14)? It's a scathing exposé of how the storied Wall Street firm actually does business, and a reminder that the double standard used to judge public schools and public corporations is too blatant to be ignored any longer.

Posted by Walt Gardner at 8:03 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

The report issued by the Education Department's Office of Civil Rights leaves the distinct impression that public schools are unfairly disciplining black students ("Minority students as targets?" Los Angeles Times, Mar. 10). The operative word is "unfairly" because if this is true then the practice needs to immediately change. But I think there is more to this story than meets the eye.

First, the Education Department acknowledged through a spokesperson that it is not just white teachers in predominantly black or in predominantly white schools who are disproportionately disciplining black students. In some cases, it is black principals at overwhelmingly black schools who are involved. This fact does not minimize the lopsided findings that black students, who constitute 18 percent of the student population, account for 39 percent of all expulsions and 46 percent of repeated suspensions. But it does call into question the reflexive reaction that prejudice is the reason.

Second, the Education Department does not include data about the disparity in discipline rates between white and Asian students. This omission is relevant because white students are disciplined at a higher rate than Asian students ("What About the Kids Who Behave?" The Wall Street Journal, Mar. 10). Since the report emanated from the Office of Civil Rights, why are data about this difference not cited? Does the office believe that current practices are also prejudiced against white students? If so, doesn't the office have a duty to look into this as well?

Third, the Education Department will no doubt claim that it is not its job to go beyond reporting the numbers. However, I wonder if anyone there understands how the right of black students to get a sound education is violated by allowing disruptive students of any color to remain in the classroom? Blacks are not a monolith any more than any other racial group. Citing the removal rate of miscreants of any color that deviates from an acceptable figure is a distraction. Instead, the focus should be on the number of black students who are held hostage by misbehaving students from any racial or ethnic group.

Finally, too many students of any color are being suspended under the zero tolerance policies in place in most schools. Boards of education paint themselves into a corner when they adopt this disastrous practice. There are other more productive ways of dealing with the issue. These can range from after-school detention to the use of such programs as Restorative Practices. Don't forget that when students are suspended in most states, teachers are still legally obligated to provide them with the work they missed. As a result, students are given a holiday while teachers are given more work.

Posted by Walt Gardner at 7:30 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Scapegoating is a powerful tool to sway public opinion. That's why I'm not surprised that teachers unions are consistently being singled out for the shortcomings of public schools ("Can Teachers Unions Do Education Reform?" The Wall Street Journal, Mar. 3). After all, they are such an easy target at a time when the public's patience over the glacial pace of school reform is running out.

The latest example was an essay by Juan Williams, who is now a political analyst for Fox News ("Will Business Boost School Reform?" The Wall Street Journal, Feb. 28). He claims that teachers unions are "formidable opponents willing to fight even modest efforts to alter the status quo." Their obstructionism is responsible for the one million high school dropouts each year and for a graduation rate of less than 50 percent for black and Hispanic students. Williams says that when schools are free of unions, they succeed because they can fire ineffective teachers, implement merit pay, lengthen the school day, enrich the curriculum and deal with classroom discipline.

These assertions have great intuitive appeal to taxpayers who are angry and frustrated, but the truth is far different from what Williams maintains.

First, if teachers unions are responsible for low student achievement, then students in states where teachers unions are weak should do much better than students in states where teachers unions are strong. This is not the case. In Massachusetts and Minnesota, where teachers are heavily unionized, students post the highest scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress, the nation's report card. Conversely, in Mississippi, Louisiana and Arkansas, which have few teachers union members and virtually no union contracts, students have the lowest NAEP scores ("Beyond Silver Bullets for American Education," The Nation, Dec. 22, 2010).

Second, teachers unions are not obstructionists. New Haven has the full cooperation of the New Haven Federation of Teachers in transforming its schools ("The New Haven Experiment," The New York Times, Feb. 15). Two years ago, the district and the union reached an historic agreement whereby job security would be sacrificed in exchange for better pay and benefits. And the National Education Association, often thought of as a hidebound organization, has agreed to re-evaluate its stand on determining employment and advancement of teachers ("NEA proposes criteria reform for teacher jobs," The Washington Post, Dec. 11, 2011).

Third, teachers unions do not have a chokehold on teachers. Educators 4 Excellence in New York City, NewTLA in Los Angeles, and Teach Plus in six cities, including Boston, Chicago and Memphis, want to change how teachers are evaluated and retained ("Teacher Faction Expands to L.A.," The Wall Street Journal, Dec. 1, 2011). Although the overwhelming majority of members are young teachers, there are also veteran teachers who share their vision for overhauling schools.

Finally, teachers unions are not nearly as powerful as critics claim. In Los Angeles, home of the nation's second largest school district, United Teachers Los Angeles no longer exerts the influence it once did ("Once-mighty UTLA loses political muscle," Los Angeles Times, Feb. 18, 2011). The change is the result of UTLA's slowness in adapting to the demand for school reform. Depicting UTLA as calling all the shots is a caricature.

I don't know why Williams chose to perpetuate hoary myths at this time, but his charges will only set back the cause he claims to espouse. Teachers unions are not saintly, but neither are they evil. Bringing about change first requires the acknowledgement of reality.

Posted by Walt Gardner at 7:16 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

The results of the annual MetLife Survey of the American Teacher confirm what has been apparent to anyone who has been paying attention to news and commentary about public schools. They show that morale is at its lowest point in more than 20 years ("Teacher Survey Shows Morale Is at a Low Point," The New York Times, Mar. 8).

The findings have direct relevance to the reform movement. Because teachers are the most important in-school factor in student achievement, it is imperative to do everything possible to recruit and retain the best. But about one in three teachers said they were likely to leave the field in the next five years. This compares with one in four in 2009. The reasons are a combination of the weight given to tests scores and seniority in determining employment, coupled with budget cuts that have resulted in fewer aides and counselors, and the elimination of arts, music and foreign language programs.

But I think there's another factor that is poorly understood. Teachers (and their unions) have been made scapegoats for all the ills afflicting public schools. The unrelenting criticism makes them feel unappreciated. It's important to remember that teachers do not choose the profession for fame, fortune or power. They do so because they want to help young people reach their full potential. Their mission is captured in a recruiting slogan from many years ago: "Be all you can be... in the Army."

The MetLife Survey puts to rest the assumption that teacher disaffection is higher in inner-city schools than in suburban schools. In fact, attitudes were remarkably similar across the board. This finding is notable because salaries of teachers in suburban schools are much higher than those in urban districts. For example, thousands of teachers in the New York City suburbs in 2005 were already making six-figure salaries ("6-Figure Salaries? To Many Teachers, a Matter of Course," The New York Times, Jun. 5, 2005). If money were the major factor in determining satisfaction, then teachers in the suburbs would be expected to register high on the satisfaction scale. But they don't.

It's hard to come away with anything encouraging from the MetLife Survey. I say that after careful consideration because the conditions that are responsible for teacher dissatisfaction today will only get worse in the years ahead. With approximately 2.2 million teachers expected to retire in the next decade, efforts to recruit top talent to the classroom will be a daunting challenge. This will be especially so because 200,000 or more new teachers in math and science alone will be needed. Who will want to make teaching in a public school a career?

Posted by Walt Gardner at 6:31 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Often thought of as an unfortunate but unavoidable part of growing up, bullying is finally being recognized for the serious problem it is. Yet "Bully," a documentary to be released nationwide this month that is aimed at raising consciousness about the issue, may not be seen by students because of its R rating for profane language ("A 'Bully' pulpit for Weinstein Co.," Los Angeles Times, Mar. 6). It's a telling commentary that we are more concerned about language (and sex) in movies than about violence.

The double standard is troubling because ignoring bullying can have tragic consequences. I'm referring to the documented cases of students who complained in vain to their teachers, and later committed suicide. That's why the agreement reached on Mar. 5 between the Anoka-Hennepin school district, north of Minneapolis, and the federal government is being hailed as a national model ("Minnesota School District Reaches Agreement on Preventing Gay Bullying," The New York Times, Mar. 7). The largest district in Minnesota will take steps to prevent harassment based on sexual orientation.

At the same time, however, it's important to note that schools too often exacerbate the problem by overreacting. Consider the situation in New Jersey, which mandates that any bullying whatsoever be reported by a school employee within hours to a designated official who in turn informs the school board ("The Myths of Bullying," Time, Mar. 12). According to Time, this included one student calling another a "retard," which set off a sequence of events that resulted with the insult being filed with the state's education department. If the bully applies to a state university years down the road, the admissions office would see the label.

I'm not minimizing the harm that bullying does, but where is common sense in this draconian process? There was a time when school officials were able to use their professional judgment in deciding how to handle bullying on a case-by-case basis. But the tide began to slowly change with the student-rights revolution of the 1960s. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District in 1969 that students had freedom of expression that could be limited only when it interfered substantially with the school's educational mission.

But where does cyberbullying, which ranges from individual texts to group sites, fit in? According to a 2010 study by the Cyberbullying Research Center, one in five middle school students have been affected ("Online Bullies Pull Schools Into the Fray," The New York Times, Jun. 27, 2010). Because this form of bullying does not take place in school, it's hard to know who is responsible for eliminating it. Even judges are confused because the issue is relatively new.

Today, all but two states have anti-bullying laws. The language of the laws differ somewhat from state to state, but what is clear is their intent. That's why in the final analysis such programs as the Center for Civic Mediation, a Los Angeles-based non-profit that teaches students how to resolve conflict and coexist peacefully, are so promising ("Settling school disputes before they escalate," Los Angeles Times, Feb. 5). Mediators in the program don't take sides or give advice. Instead they try to help students identify the root of the conflict.

I wonder, though, whatever became of detention? For example, New York State requires that every school have rooms for students serving detention or in-school suspension. But budget woes have meant that many schools have been unable to follow the regulations. That's too bad because detention can be a simple way of teaching students that there are consequences for their behavior without stigmatizing them for life.

Posted by Walt Gardner at 7:54 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

As farfetched as it sounds, pulchritude is an important factor in determining how teachers are evaluated. It's not that student test scores don't count (they will constitute up to 40 percent of a teacher's rating in some states beginning in the 2012-13 school year), but as long as classroom observations are factored in, the role of good looks comes into play.

Daniel Hamermesh, an economist at the University of Texas-Austin, has conducted a series of studies on the role that appearance plays in the workplace. He found that better-looking men and women get paid more than average-looking men and women of similar education and experience ("Linjustice," The New Yorker, Mar. 5). To add insult to injury, taller people also get paid more on average.

Readers will probably think that this tendency does not apply to education. But they would be wrong. Hamermesh also found that good-looking college professors received significantly higher teaching scores than their less attractive colleagues ("Economic Scene; A beautiful mind is not enough when it comes to evaluating teachers," The New York Times, Aug. 28, 2003). Curiously, good looks played a significantly more important role in rating men than women. Why would teachers in K-12 be immune to this halo effect? I think that evaluators are unconsciously influenced by good looks, despite the existence of checklists. I'm not saying they can't be trained to minimize or eliminate this bias. But it's all too easy to associate good looks with instructional competencies.

Teacher observations have always been subjective, as an essay in yesterday's New York Times written by a special education teacher explains ("Confessions of a 'Bad' Teacher," Mar. 4). To make them more objective, it's vital to have teachers evaluated by different persons. In that way, the possibility of beauty bias is kept to a minimum. Some teachers may have won the beauty lottery at birth, but that's no reason they should be rewarded for what they haven't earned in the classroom. Let's leave the fortunes bestowed on extremely good looking people to Hollywood.

Posted by Walt Gardner at 7:24 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

The debate over effective instruction is so familiar by now that it seems little more can be said. But a provocative article about how music is taught in Venezuela calls that view into question ("El Sistema for all, U.S. kids too," Los Angeles Times, Feb. 26). The fame of Gustavo Dudamel, music director of the Los Angeles Philharmonic, has focused attention on what is known as El Sistema because he attributes his success to it.

Funded by $100 million a year, the state-run music education program in Venezuela is enormously popular. Its nearly 300 music schools for children, called núcleos, reach into every part of the country, and rely on children helping each other. It is the antithesis of the way music is taught to most children in the U.S., where private lessons are the norm, and children typically spend hours practicing by themselves. Music education typically begins in school in the sixth or seventh grade.

But that's only one of the differences. The entire program is based on standardization of instruction. All núcleos use the same teaching methods. The goal is to first inculcate basic skills and techniques. In time, the gifted few will emerge from those less talented. Dudamel is a prime example. Whether there is another virtuoso among the one million children who have gone through the program is doubtful. But even if they never achieve his greatness, they have been given a priceless gift that will last a lifetime.

Because of its success, observers from around the world have flocked to Venezuela to see if El Sistema can be transported to their countries. (A similar pilgrimage to Finland is ongoing because of the overall reputation of its schools.) But it's highly unlikely that El Sistema can be imported to the U.S. For one thing, music is not a high priority. It is considered a frill by financially strapped school districts. The Los Angeles Unified School District Board of Education, for example, is considering eliminating arts education from the elementary school curriculum.

But I think there is another more fundamental reason why El Sistema will never be adopted in this country. The notion of standardized instruction in any subject field is anathema. If the U.S. can't agree on the benefits of a standardized curriculum, it certainly won't be able to agree on standardized instruction. Venezuela views music education differently. It sees El Sistema as a social program, rather than a cultural one. If President Obama were to ask for federal funding for music education as part of a social welfare program, he would be attacked on a variety of fronts.

Posted by Walt Gardner at 7:39 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend