More Evidence that Good Instruction Can make a Big Difference

Last spring I reported on the Gering School District (Nebraska) which had taken their Reading First grant back in 2004 and, with the help of NIFDI, implemented the full-immersion Direct Instruction for Reading and Language Arts back in 2004 district wide.

Let's see what the results look like four years later now that that first cohort has reached 3rd grade. We can also take a look at the performance of the 4th - 6th grades who participated in the program for some of their school years. Also, we can take a look at the 7th and 8th grades that received a remedial version of the reading program only.

As you can see from my fancy Excel 2007 graph below, Gering students are now performing better than the Nebraska state average.

The blue bars on the left represents the mean performance of all students in Nebraska on the Nebraska state NCLB test (a test with an artificially high pass rate to be sure, but we are concerned here with relative performance). Nebraska is about 70% white and 25% Hispanic so the average performance of all students comprises mostly white students.

The red bars represent the performance of all Gering students which is higher than the Nebraska average in all grades. This is significant because the demographics of Gering are below the Nebraska average. (Adults are less educated and there is more poverty.)

Now let's take a look at the subgroup data to see who is making the progress.

The green and purple bars represent the performance of Hispanic and white students respectively. Both groups are performing better than the state average for all students in all grades but grade 5 where Hispanics perform slightly below. Gering Hispanics are actually performing better than Gering white students in grade 7 which is something you rarely see on a district wide basis and/or without selective admissions.

The light blue bars (on the right) represent the performance of students receiving free and reduced price lunches -- a proxy for poverty. Poor students in Gering perform better than the Nebraska average for all students (not just poor ones) with the except of grades 5 and 7. This is something you don't see everyday. I've run quite a few analyses like this for different states and I have yet to find an entire school district whose low-SES students performed above the state average for all students.

Apparently the effects of poverty and being a non-Asian minority can be mitigated through good instruction alone.

I challenge anyone to produce similar effects for their favored non-instructional intervention (on a District-wide basis without selective admissions) that produce effects similar to those found in Gering in grades 3-8.

I'll drill down deeper into the data in a future post.

When is a decoding error not an error?

I recently came across the Critical Reading Inventory, a balanced literacy diagnostic, which purports to assess reading ability.


In case you were still under the misapprehension that balanced literacy was a state-of-the-art blend of the best of code-based reading instruction and the best of whole language theory, the Critical Reading Inventory should help disabuse you of that notion.


The problem with balanced literacy is that even though it typically includes phonics-like activities, it is not based on alphabetic code-based reading instruction. The dirty little secret behind balanced literacy is that for all the lip-service that's paid to phonics, in balanced literacy the decoding of text using the alphabetic code can be replaced with the guessing of word identity based on non-phonological information. In balanced literacy, decoding errors can be ignored if the reader guesses a word that means about the same thing as the word that the reader is unable to properly decode. That doesn't sound very balanced to me. Doesn't sound like decoding either.


The Critical Reading Inventory helpfully makes public their scoring assistant website in which teachers learn the black art of miscue analysis (i.e., ignoring decoding errors). Two case studies are provided laying out all the gory details. (Beware this is not for the faint of heart.) Let's take a look at a scoring sheet from the second case study in which "John," a fifth grader, struggles to decode a third grade text.

(Click on the graphic to see a full sized version.)

As you can see, John has made numerous (over 20) decoding errors half of which have been ignored because of the miscue analysis. All the errors with a plus sign (+) in the margin have been ignored because John's errors didn't affect the meaning of the text.

This is how you make it seem like a student has learned how to read when he really hasn't yet. But doesn't it all look so scientific and professional. We have "case studies" which sounds like science. And science is good. right? And we have fancy jargon like "miscue analysis" which makes it seem so professional like these educators really know what they're doing. You can trust us with your child's education.

And, that's just the decoding part of the test, wait until we get to the comprehension part.

All the Cool Kids Are Doing It Now

Uncle Jay is blogging.

Reminds me that I have to do a post on Jay's latest book on KIPP which I enjoyed.

Any other new bloggers to recommend?

What I learned this year

Another school year down. One child completed kindergarten. One child completed third grade. A ptotracted negotiation with my school district over my third grader's GIEP. A hundred blog posts in the hopper. Innumerable education articles read. So what, if anything, did I learn this school year educationwise?

The concept of reading "comprehension" should be abandoned.

There do not seem to be any good instruments for testing reading comprehension that are valid, reliable, and objective and that actually measure how well the student is able to comprehend text.

There is insufficient content instruction in the late elementary grades. Many students are fluent decoders at this level. Too much time is wasted on learning reading strategies and reading simple fiction books instead of learning content knowledge which we know many low-SES students lack and is somewhat easy to teach.

There's a lot of fat in math curriculum from fourth grade until algebra begins (typically in eighth grade). Half the year is typically devoted to review.

Despite all this math review, many students fail to learn elementary math as demonstrated by standardized tests which by and large test nothing but elementary math.

Since when did being able to write a short essay about how you solved a math problem become the end game of elementary math. This seems to be testing the student's reading ability twice rather than the student's math ability. See Reading Comprehension, Not Knowing How to Teach above.

History, geography, science, and civics instruction continue to get short shrift.

Many schools practice education socialism in kindergarten by not formally teaching reading at least to the at-risk students in favor of not teaching anyone in the hope that the at-risk will mature and to slow down the capable.

Students are grouped instructionally for teacher convenience rather than student need. The at-risk and special education students are spread out so no teacher is over-burdened. Same deal with the more capable students.

Instructionally differentiation is largely a waste of time. The more capable students are given make-work and other sundry time-wasters too compensate for an instructional pace that is too slow for them. The less capable students get a watered down version of the curriculum. Is it any wonder why they never catch up?

School Districts don't always follow the regulations when the regulations conflict with how they want to run their school.

Education policy makers aren't too concerned with the nitty-gritty details (see above) that really determine the effectiveness of schools. There's a good argument that they are incapable of knowing the details needed to effectively regulate, so its more important for the incentives to be aligned at the school level so educators will run their schools most effectively themselves. Currently, those incentives are far from aligned.

Acquiring Knowledge

In the last post, we discussed the six forms of knowledge:

• verbal associations - facts and lists: (this one thing goes with that one thing);
  
• concepts - sensory and higher-order: (all these things have some features in common);
  
• rule relationships: (this set of things goes with that set of things); and
  
• cognitive routines: (to read all of these words, or to solve all of these math problems, or to write these kinds of essays, do steps 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6)

These forms of knowledge are defined by the logical structure of the knowledge itself. The logical structure is the connections inherent in the knowledge. Learning one of the forms of knowledge means learning those connection.

In this post we'll discuss how these connections are learned and, thus, how knowledge is acquired by a learner.

Acquiring Knowledge

Generally, facts and lists are learned differently than concepts, rules, and routines.

1. Facts and Lists

Facts and Lists (statements that connect specific things) are learned by simply memorizing the connection. The memorization could be long term or short term depending on how long the knowledge is needed by the learner. If the knowledge is important, it is often useful for the knowledge to be practiced (rehearsed) so that it retained in long term memory. Otherwise, the knowledge will have to be reactivated every time it is needed (this is where Google helps tremendously).

2. Concepts, Rules or Propositions, and Routines

In the case of concepts, rules or propositions, and routines, however, the student has to figure out the general idea that is revealed by the examples. The student gets from the examples (specifics) to the general idea embedded in the examples by inductive reasoning. In other words, the learner performs a sequence of logical operations, beginning with examples and ending with a general idea. That is, the learner:

(a) observes examples and nonexamples (examples of concepts, or rules/propositions, or routines);
(b) performs a series (a routine) of logical operations on what it observes; and
(c) arrives at (induces, figures out, discovers, “gets”) the general idea (the concept, rule, or routine) revealed by the examples and nonexamples.

The teacher's job is to induce this learning by helping the student to “get”(see, grasp, figure out, learn) that the examples reveal a connection—a general idea (verbal association, concept, rule-relationship, cognitive routine). The teacher uses examples (and nonexamples) so that students learn (grasp, figure out, induce) the general idea (the knowledge) that connects the examples.

There are a few ways this can be done.

a. Method of agreement.. The student identifies what is common to the examples and not found in nonexamples. What is common is the general idea; e.g., redness. This is because the examples differ in nonessential features but agree in the essential feature. If they are all “treated” the same way (named, solved), it must be because of the way in which they agree. So, the teacher should present a range of examples; help the student to compare and contrast the examples; and to identify the sameness—which is the general idea (concept, rule, routine).

b. Method of difference. The student identifies what is different between the examples and nonexamples. What is different must be what makes the difference. This feature that is different (present in examples, but missing in nonexamples) must be the general idea. Examples and nonexamples are the same in nonessential features but differ in the essential feature. If they are treated differently, the difference (feature) must be what makes the difference. This difference is the general idea. So, the teacher should juxtapose examples and nonexamples; help the student to compare and contrast and to identify the difference that makes the difference.

c. Method of concomitant variation. The student identifies how one kind of thing changes along with (in the same or different direction as) another kind of thing. If one thing changes, and everything else stays the same, and then another thing changes in a regular way, then it is reasonable to infer that they go together—they are in a functional or causal relationship. This form of inductive reasoning is used especially in discovering rule relationships.

Let's now take a look at how these play out in learning concepts, rules, and routines.

A. Concepts

A concept is a set of events or things that have one or more common features. The common features are the concept. The word (“red”) is not the concept. It is merely a name for the concept. “Red” signifies or points to the feature—the redness. So, to teach a concept, the teacher should teach the student what are the common features of the examples and the name of the features (“red”) so that the student can communicate the concept to other persons.

What makes a concept a basic (or sensory) concept, as opposed to a higher-order concept? The “stuff” of basic concepts is right in front of the learners eyes, ears, or skin.

• Red: Not the word “red”; the color your eye perceives that is called “red.”
  
• On: Not the word “on”; the way things are arranged that is called “on.”
• Hot: Not the word “hot”; the way your skin feels when you touch “hot.”

All of these are basic concepts. Because all the information that defines the basic concept is right there. So, a basic concept should be taught by giving examples and naming them. Then juxtapose (put next to each other, or one right after the other) examples with nonexamples (that are the same in every way except in the features that make the difference), and name them. Here's an example of how to teach the concept "over" using examples and nonexamples.


In basic concepts, such as red, on, and s says /sss/, the “stuff” that defines the concept is right there to be seen, heard, or felt. However, the stuff that defines higher-order concepts is not right in front of the learner's senses. The learner can’t see in one place all the stuff that defines democracy, or justice, or furniture, or symmetry. The stuff that defines democracy (elections, for example) is spread over time and place and groups. So, to teach a higher-order concept the teacher should first give a verbal definition that draws a big circle around all the stuff in the concept. And then give examples and nonexamples so that student sees the actual stuff that defines the concept. Here's a simple example of teaching the higher-order concept "bird":

B. Rules
Rules are statements that connect not one thing and another thing (e.g., name and date), but connect whole sets of things (concepts):

• When demand increases, price increases.
• All dogs are canines.
• Rules can be shown on diagrams; e.g., graphs and models of interconnections.

Rules can be generally taught in one of two ways.

1. Deductive method: from general (rule) to specific (examples). In the deductive method the teacher teaches the rule statement first. Then examples and nonexamples are presented, as with concepts. Then the teacher tests all examples and nonexamples to see if the student has learned the rule.

Teacher: “Is this (verbal description of graph) an example of the demand-price rule?”

Student: “No.”

Teacher: “How do you know?”

Student states rule.

Then the teacher generalizes to/tests new examples and nonexamples. Here's another example of using the deductive method.

“The question is, Is there a connection between how steep an inclined plane is and how long it takes a ball to roll down it?”

The teacher then tells the student the rule-relationship (the steeper the inclined plane, the less time it takes the ball to roll down the inclined plane) and then show examples using inclined planes of different angles. These examples would confirm the rule.

2. Inductive method: from specific (examples) to general (rule). In the deductive method the teacher presents a range of examples first (e.g., different price-demand curves): cars, oil, movies. Then the teacher shows students how to compare the examples and to identify the sameness—the relationship.

One variable goes up and the other variable goes up. “Demand varies directly with price.” Then the teacher present nonexamples, and show (in relation to the rule) how they are nonexamples. “Demand is increasing, but price stays the same. That does not fit the rule. Then the teacher gives new examples and nonexamples, and has the student say if they are or are not examples, and how he knows.

Here's an example of using the inductive method on the inclined plane ball-rolling example above.

The teacher has the student do an experiment by rolling balls down inclined planes of different angles, measuring how long it takes each ball to roll down, and then has the student draw a conclusion.

This way requires more skills. (In the deductive method, the student merely compares examples with the rule. “Yup, the ball takes less time when the angle is steeper.”) For example, the student has to change the angles, measure the times, write the measurements, compare and contrast the instances, and figure out the connection. This means the teacher would have to teach these pre-skills before students do the experiment.

C. Routines
A Routine is a sequence of steps for getting something done. Solving math problems, sounding out words, writing essays, brushing your teeth, brushing someone else’s teeth. Routines are taught in the same way that lists are taught. The teachers models each step (or a few steps), then adds a few more steps (and then models the whole sequence so far, then adds a few more steps; etc., until the routine is complete

Applying Acquired Knowledge

That's how students acquire knowledge, but we also we also want them to be able to apply and extend the knowledge they've acquired to new examples. In general, we apply or generalize knowledge through deductive reasoning. That is, the learner:

(1) has/knows/can say a general idea (concept, rule/proposition, routine);
(2) uses the general idea (definition of a concept, or statement of a rule, or features of the things handled by the routine; e.g., math problems, words) to examine a possible new example using the information in (2);
(3) “decides” whether the new thing fits (is an example of) the definition, rule, or routine (“Can you solve this with FOIL?”); and
(4) “treats” the example accordingly--names it (concept), explains it (with the rule), solves it (with the routine).

Here's an example: If a general rule or proposition (learned either via inductive reasoning or is being told) is that when demand increases, price increases, and if you notice that the demand for oil is increasing, the learner will deduce (predict) that the price of oil will increase.

It is a simple deductive syllogism. When demand increases, price increases. The demand for commodities are increasing. oil is a kind of commodity. Therefore, the price of oil will increase. “How do you know?” “Because when demand increases, price increases, and an increase in the demand for oil is an example of an increase in demand.”

Now we know about the forms of knowledge and how that knowledge is acquired and applied. Next we'll learn how knowledge is retained past the acquisition stage. And, then, we can get to the good stuff -- the differences between novices and experts and why the "struggling" of an novice is not the same as the "struggling" of an expert.

*So far these first two posts have been adaptive from the works of Martin Kozloff, Professor of Education. See Kozloff's site for much more detail on these topics.

To Struggle, or Not to Struggle

I want to follow-up on my last post regarding the purported efficacy of designing instruction such that the novice K-12 student is required to "struggle" to learn the new material.

All the material that is typically learned on the K-12 level is amenable of being placed into meaningful relationships (or connections) with pre-existing skills and knowledge of the student. Learning will be more difficult when:

1. the student does not possess the prerequisite skills and knowledge assumed by the new material; and/or

2. the teacher has not displayed the meaningful relationships inherent in the new material or has given an explanation that is difficult for the student to follow.

In these situations learning will require higher-levels of analytic ability. And, the students most likely to learn in these situations are the high-IQ students because these students are better able to solve problems they haven't seen before (or that contain untaught vocabulary).

For the purposes of this discussion I want to focus on the purposeful failure (often for pedagogical reasons) of the teacher to display the meaningful relationships inherent in the new material to novice K-12 students under the belief that the ensuing "struggle" will better learn the new material and the underlying meaningful relationship/connection. (I think it's generally recognized that providing confusing explanations by the teacher and failing to ascertain whether a student possesses the skill and knowledge prerequisites is an indication of poor teaching.)

Let's start with the kinds of information, skills, and knowledge that the K-12 learns and what neds to be taught and learned. I've adapted this explanation from Martin Kozloff's Making Sense of What You Read and Hear, and Making Sense When You Teach.

Regardless of the subject (math, history, science), there are only six kinds of information, skills, or knowledge that can be communicated to and learned by the K-12 student.

Each kind of knowledge represents a connection. To understand the knowledge is to understand the connection. To use the knowledge (to apply it to possible examples of it) is to apply the connection.

1. Facts

Ex: “The U.S. Constitution was written in Philadelphia.”

For purposes of instruction a fact is a true and verifiable statement that connects one specific thing (Constitution) and another specific thing (Philadelphia).

Teach the connection.


2. Lists

Ex. 1: “The elements of sugar are carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen.”

Ex. 2: “Here is a list of facts about the U.S. Constitution. Written in Philadelphia between May and September, 1787; the draft was sent to the various states for ratification; the Constitution plus the Bill or Rights is a compromise between advocates of strong central government (Federalists) and advocates of strong state governments with a limited central government (anti-federalists); the Constitution was finally ratified in 1789.

Like with facts, these statements connect one specific thing (elements of sugar, Constitution) and a list (of other specific things).

Teach the connection(s).


3. Sensory concepts

Exs: blue, on.

The specific things (examples) of the concepts differ in many ways (size, shape), but they are connected by a common feature, such as color or position.

All of the defining features of the concept are in any example. Therefore, the concept can be shown by one example. However, a range of examples is needed for the learner to see what the common feature is and to cover the range of variations (e.g., from light to dark red).

Teach the range of examples needed for the learner to determine the common feature and the range of variations.


4. Higher-order concepts.

Exs: Democracy, society, mammal.

The specific things (examples) of the concepts are connected by a common feature or features; e.g., making societal decisions through elected representatives (representative democracy).

The defining features of higher-order concepts, however, are spread out. Therefore, you can’t simply show examples to teach a higher-order concept. You have to give a definition (that states the common, defining features) and then give examples and nonexamples to substantiate the definition.

Teach the definition of the common features and then substantiate the definition through suitable examples and non-examples.


5. Rules or propositions

These are statements that connect not specific things but whole groups of things (concepts or categories).

• Categorical Propositions. Some rules or propositions state (assert, propose) how one kind of thing (concept or category) is part of or is not part of another kind of thing (concept of category). These are called categorical propositions. For example, all dogs (one kind of thing) are canines (another kind of thing). Or, No birds (one kind of thing) are reptiles (another kind of thing). or, Some bugs are delicious.
  
  Teach the rule or proposition.
  
  
• Causal or hypothetical propositions. Other rules or propositions state, assert, or propose how one kind of thing (concept or category) changes with another kind of thing (concept or category). These are called causal or hypothetical propositions. You can tell that a statement asserts a causal or hypothetical proposition because it states (or suggests) something like “If…. If and only if.… Whenever…. The more… The less….one thing happens, then another thing (happens, comes into being, changes, increases, happens more often, decreases).
  
  The “thing” (variable, condition, antecedent event) that is the alleged cause of something else can work (have an effect) in different ways. For example, the alleged cause might be considered a necessary condition for something else to happen or change. (“If X does not happen, then Y will not happen.” Or, “If and only if X happens will Y happen.”) Or, the alleged cause might be considered a sufficient condition for something else to happen. (“Whenever X happens, Y will happen.”)
  
  For instance, Whenever temperature increases (one kind of thing), pressure increases (another kind of thing). [This proposition suggests that a rise in temperature is a sufficient condition (by itself) to cause an increase in pressure.] Or, If and only if there is sufficient oxygen, fuel, and heat (one category of thing) will there be ignition (another category of thing. [This proposition suggests that sufficient oxygen, fuel, and heat are a necessary condition for ignition.]
  
  Note: When you have identified all of the necessary conditions, you now have a set of variables that are a sufficient condition. Think of a causal model of fire, a cold, and a revolution.
  
  Teach the rule or proposition.
  

6. Routines

Routines are sequences of steps that usually must be done in a certain order. Solving math problems, sounding out words, and stating a theory or making a logical argument (each proposition in the theory or argument is like a step that leads to a conclusion).

Teach the routine.

NB: A routine is a connection of a number of events, such as steps in solving a problem or a listing of events leading up to a war. There are different arrangements of steps or events in routines. You want your students to see what these arrangements are.

• Sequence in one direction. A leads to B leads to C leads to D. Ex.: sounding out words, solving math problems.
  
  
• Sequence with feedback loops. A leads to B and the change in B produces a (reciprocal) change in A which produces more change in B until some limit is reached. Exs.: Outbreak of war, onset of illness, falling in love, divorce, getting porky and out of shape.
  
  
• Stages or phrases. A sequence of events or steps can be seen as a process divided into stages in a process.
  
  Ex1: Load rifle: steps a—b—c--d; Fire rifle: steps e—f—g; Clear rifle: steps h—i; Clean rifle: steps j—k, etc.
  
  Ex2: In history: If you examine enough (examples of) genocidal movements, you notice that one group has some features (e.g., property, social status) that produces envy in another group, or does something that threatens another group (e.g., resists power). This might be seen as the background (first) phase. Then (phase 2) the genocidal group demonizes the first group with racial slurs and propaganda. Then (phase 3) the genocidal group begins to mistreat the victim group; e.g., attacks, job loss, confiscating weapons, special (degrading) clothing. If (phase 4, escalation) the victim group fights back, this provokes worse treatment. If the victim group submits, it furthers the genocidal group’s perception of the victim as degraded. The genocidal group then (phase 5) creates an organization for killing or transporting. Then the killing begins (phase 6).
  
  
• Logical argument. A text might be arranged as a logical argument. There are two sorts of logical arguments:
  
  a. Inductive. Facts are presented. Then the facts are shown to lead to a general idea, such as a conclusion. For example, examine five examples of genocide and INDUCE (figure out) the common phases and the activities in each phase.
  
  b. Deductive. Or, text may be arranged so that it presents a deductive argument. It begins with a general idea, such as a rule--first premise.
  
  “If X happens, then Y must happen.”
  
  It then presents facts relevant to the first premise—evidence or second premise.
  
  “X happened.”
  
  It then draws a conclusion.
  
  “Therefore, Y must happen.”
  

In the next post we'll discuss how a student learns this knowledge.

Once More into the SES Breach

Here goes some new research on effects of positive parental efforts in their adopted children and the persistence of negative outcomes for these children:

The results show that parents invested more in adopted children than in genetically related ones, especially in educational and personal areas. At the same time, adoptees experienced more negative outcomes. They were more likely to have been arrested, to have been on public assistance and to require treatment for drug, alcohol or mental health issues. They also completed fewer years of schooling and were more likely to divorce. In adoptive families, it appears that “the squeaky wheel gets the grease.” Parents invest more in adoptees not because they favor them, but because they are more likely than genetic children to need the help.

Razib of Gene Expression points out:

In Western countries adoptive parents are screened. Many of them are of higher socioeconomic status, and they adopt children from the general population, with a likely skew toward lower socioeconomic status biological parents. The traits which determine your social status are a combination of environment and genes, the latter mediated through various personality dispositions and attributes. In fact there is plenty of data to show that shared parental environment has a marginal long term effect. This is not to say that there aren't environmental inputs which matter, and which adoptive parents bring to the table, but their direct guiding is not the operative element.

This study is consistent with the results of other adoption studies, such as the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study which found similarly disappointing results.

Apparently, changing a low-SES child's environment to a high-SES environment is not going to magically convert the child to a high-SES child that can be plopped into a fancy suburban school and expect magic results. No, that's not going to happen.

Berliner can put "studies" like this out every year in which he pretends he has some secret anti-poverty potion that will cure the education woes of the low-SES.

If high-SES parents aren't capable of ameliorating the biological/genetic factors of their low-SES adopted children, what's the basis for our believing that any governmental sponsored poverty intervention could produce the same or similar results given that the children will still be saddled with their less-capable biological parents?

Berliner's out of school factors (OSFs) as not as powerful as he thinks or at least his cherry-picked research has led him to believe:

[O]ut-of-school factors (OSFs) play a powerful role in generating existing achievement gaps, and if these factors are not attended to with equal vigor, our national aspirations will be thwarted.

This brief details six OSFs common among the poor that significantly affect the health and learning opportunities of children, and accordingly limit what schools can accomplish on their own: (1) low birth-weight and non-genetic prenatal influences on children; (2) inadequate medical, dental, and vision care, often a result of inadequate or no medical insurance; (3) food insecurity; (4) environmental pollutants; (5) family relations and family stress; and (6) neighborhood characteristics. These OSFs are related to a host of poverty-induced physical, sociological, and psychological problems that children often bring to school, ranging from neurological damage and attention disorders to excessive absenteeism, linguistic underdevelopment, and oppositional behavior.

Berliner is overselling the effects of prenatal care, the first of his OSFs.

The remaining OSFs would seem to have been taken care of in the adoption studies, and yet the achievement gaps persisted. In fact, the parents in the adoption studies would have been more likely to ameliorate the "linguistic underdevelopment" and yet they seemed to have been incapable of doing so. See Hart and Risley and Zig's explanation of the effect in the first six or so minutes of this video.

Most of Berliner's OSF's seem to be related to various distractions (hunger, sickness, bad peers, chaotic family environment) that low-SES children must contend with. Berliner seems to forget that middle-class kids and high-SES kids have their own distraction to contend with. We don't worry too much about those distraction but they certainly exist. And, with respect to the linguistic deficiencies, these deficiencies will remain in place unless there is some kind of high-powered instructional intervention put into place, i.e., the kind that form part of any preschool program that the the SES hustlers advocate.

So even if we were to follow Berliner's recommendations to the letter, we're still going to be left with children with instructional needs and language deficiencies that are different than the needs of high-SES children. These kids are still going to require compensatory education and improved instruction that takes into account their deficiencies. This is not the kind of instruction that you find even in high-SES schools.

The problem remains an instructional problem at its core.

Compare and Contrast

Because Ed schools do such a lousy job teaching teachers how to teach and how children learn, teachers often develop their own theories on teaching and learning based on their own observations. Often these theories are wrong.

Here's Dan Meyer blogging about a common teacher misconception: the supposed instructional value of allowing/encouraging students to struggle:

The good teacher knows if the learner learns through the ears, the eyes, or the hands just like the good spotter knows where the lifter wants support — at the wrists or under the elbows or on the bar. The good spotter is unhelpful; the good spotter doesn't intervene at the first sign of struggle but realizes that the struggle is essential, that the struggle is the entire reason they are there, and waits as long as possible before intervening.

The good teacher puts weight on the student's intellectual bar and lets her struggle under that weight as long as possible, asking questions to help her cut through the confusion, just like the spotter shouts encouragement at the lifter. (emphasis added)

I hate to ruin a colorful analogy, but the theory is wrong. Students struggling with material is not good for learning, retention, or motivation. Here's Engelmann on the topic:

Always place students appropriately for more rapid mastery progress. This fact contradicts the belief that students are placed appropriately in a sequence if they have to struggle—scratch their head, make false starts, sigh, frown, gut it out. According to one version of this belief, if there are no signs of hard work there is no evidence of learning. This belief does not place emphasis on the program and the teacher to make learning manageable but on the grit of the student to meet the “challenge.” In the traditional interpretation, much of the “homework” assigned to students (and their families) is motivated by this belief. The assumption seems to be that students will be strengthened if they are “challenged.”

This belief is flatly wrong. If students are placed appropriately, the work is relatively easy. Students tend to learn it without as much “struggle.” They tend to retain it better and they tend to apply it better, if they learn it with fewer mistakes.

The prevalence of this misconception about “effort” was illustrated by the field tryouts of the Spelling Mastery programs. Over half of the tryout teachers who field tested the first and second levels of Spelling Mastery with lower performers indicated on their summary forms that they thought the program was too easy for the children. Note that most of these teachers were not DI teachers and had never taught DI programs before. When asked about whether they had ever used a program that induced more skills in the same amount of time, all responded, “No.” Nearly all agreed that the lower performers had learned substantially more than similar children had in the past. When asked if students were bored with the program, all responded, “No.”

What led the teachers to believe that the programs were too easy? All cited the same evidence: students didn’t have to struggle. For them, it wasn’t appropriate instruction if it wasn’t difficult for the lower performers. (p. 17)

This is the danger for a would-be-profession that eschews empiricism in favor of individual intuition.

Duncan: More Class Time and More Choice

Education Secretary Arne Duncan believes that American schoolchildren need more class time and more school choice.

One out of two ain't so bad.

More School

Duncan believes that American school children should be in school at least six days a week, 11 months a year if they are to be competitive with students abroad.

I fundamentally think that our school day is too short, our school week is too short and our school year is too short.

You're competing for jobs with kids from India and China. I think schools should be open six, seven days a week; eleven, twelve months a year.

Presently, this proposal is a waste of time.

Is more seat time really needed in today's poor instructional environment? If you're in the top third of the student distribution, you're already forced to endure an instructional pace that is too slow, resulting in wasted time and opportunity and plenty o' boredom. if you're in the bottom third of the distribution, you're mostly lost because the instructional pace is too fast. More seat time isn't going to help. Just because KIPP has been successful with an expanded school day and school year, doesn't mean that other schools will find the same success.

Duncan's comparisons with foreign countries is misplaced. The U.S. is competitive with foreign countries once you control for demographics. Our white students are competitive with white students from European. Our Asian students are competitive with Asian students from Asian countries. And no country does a particularly good job educating black and Hispanic students in large numbers.

If we want to do a better job educating students, we need to get government out of the education business and limit its role (on all governmental levels) to the education funding distribution and regulation business which is more difficult to screw up.

This is not to say that our currently antiquated system is ideal. It isn't. But there are bigger fish to fry before we force most students to endure more seat time. Our colleges are the envy of the world and they make due with about 20% less class time than our current system. Maybe we should reduce class time?

More Choice

Duncan also believes that students need more choice.

I'm a big believer that students and parents should have a choice what school they want to go to.

Me too. The problem, however, is that current voucher and charter schools are too tiny to provide sufficient choice or develop an adequate market of educational choice from which students can chose.

Currently, most schools (private, public, and charter) look remarkably similar from an instructional standpoint. If you like your Model T in black you are in luck. There are a few reason for this.

• Lack of information on the relative merits of different instructional practices. (The Internet is starting to make a dent here.)
• Popular instructional practices (i.e., the norm) serve the middle-class adequately. (In fact, most instructional practices will provide adequate instruction to this population.)
• There are other non-instructional considerations (like school environment, extracurricular offerings, peer environment, school prestige, and the like) that are relevant and serve as an independent basis for picking one school from another
• The measures for measuring the relative merits of instructional are few and far between, not widely used and/or made publicly available, and are population dependent.

To improve, we need a well-functioning and competitive education market which provided real choices to students. And, the best way to accomplish this is to give the public school funding directly to parents and let them decide (within regulatory limits) the appropriate use of the funding. (After the system has been rebooted, naturally.) That stills sounds like a public education system to me.

Three Year Blogiversary

Here are the Stats


Nearly 600 posts. (Maybe 15% were decent.)

Countless typos.

190,000 Visits. (Mostly from the same dozen people)

300,000 Page Views.

317 Google Reader Subscribers

60 Bloglines Subscribers


Top Referring Websites (Other than Search Engines)

1. Joanne Jacobs
2. Kitchentable Math
3. Eduwonk
4. Wapo
5. OEDB
6. This Week in Education
7. RRF Message Board
8. EconLog
9. Core Knowledge Blog
10. Rightwing Nation


Most Popular Posts From the Past Year

1. Science Leadership Academy (What they say vs. what their students can do) (Series)
2. Learning Styles are Bunk
3. Today's Chart (Pass rates vs. % Free/Reduced Meal Students)
4. Improving Socioeconomic Status (A fool's Errand)
5. Developmentally Appropriate Practice is Not Developmentally Appropriate
6. Efficiency and Spelling
7. New DI Program: Differentiated Reading
8. Decodable vs. Predictable Texts
9. Theory II: Teacher's Salaries
10. Your Pet Reform is Suckier Than You Think

Most Popular Posts From the Archives

1. It's Official: Everyday Math Sucks (Sept. 2006)
2. Alfie Kohn: Dangerous Jackass (Aug. 2006)
3. How to Effectively Manage a Classroom (Oct. 2007) (Guest Post by teacher PalisadesK)
4. Differentiated Nonsense (May 2006)
5. Everyday Math on Long Division (Oct. 2006)
6. Kid Writing (Aug. 2006)
7. Reading Mastery III Sample Lesson (Part 1) (May 2006)
8. Effective Mathematics Instruction The Importance of Curriculum (April 2007)
9. It's the Vocabulary, Stupid (Nov. 2006)
10. New Way to Teach Penmanship (Dec. 2006)

Thanks to all the readers, commenters, and other edu-bloggers.

Duncan Hypocrisy Watch

The NYT reports that during a press phone call yesterday, Education Secretary Arne Duncan "unleashed a barrage of dismal statistics about the South Carolina schools" whose Governor, Mark Sanford "has told the Obama administration that he would not accept some $577 million in educational stimulus money for South Carolina unless he could use it to pay down state debt."

During the putative barrage of dismal statistics Duncan noted that "only 15 percent of the state’s black students are proficient in math and that the state has one of the nation’s worst high school graduation rates."

This is a pot kettle black moment.

Duncan, who up until he was tapped by the Obama administration, served as CEO of Chicago Public Schools. Why don't we take a look at how well the Chicago Public Schools has fared under Duncan's astute management?

In 2007, only 10% of 4th Grade black students in Chicago tested at the proficient level in Reading. (Table A-5) And, only 9% of 8th Grade black students tested at the proficient level. (Table A-6)

In 2007, only 8% of 4th Grade black students in Chicago tested at the proficient level in Math. (Table A-5) And, only 6% of 8th Grade black students tested at the proficient level. (Table A-6)

These dismal results were obtained with spending of between $13k - $14k per pupil -- far higher than what South Carolina spends. Apparently, how much a district spends has little to do with how well it educates.

Now there goes some performance information on our public schools that is "embarrassing."

Parental Involvement in Low-Income Areas

Uncle Jay has a good column on how the need for parental involvement in low-income schools isn't all that critical.

The story of his school and others like it suggests that the importance of parental involvement, at least in the most disadvantaged neighborhoods, has been exaggerated, probably because middle-class commentators have been imposing their suburban experiences on very different situations. Unchallenged, this misunderstanding of what works for low-income children could stymie efforts to improve the country's worst schools.

The best school leaders say that they don't need much parental involvement when they are hiring staff, creating class schedules and putting discipline procedures in place.

...

Low-income parents may often be distracted just trying to make a living, but they know what works. Once they see a school keeping its promises, they provide the kind of support found in suburban schools. But it's important to remember that good schooling must come before parental support, not the other way around.

That seems about right to me. Parents need to make sure their kids get to school timely and regularly. But then the school needs to demonstrate that it is doing its job. Or why would parents think its important to send their kids to school every day?

Reboot III

In this post I'll lay out the final main points in my plan for school reform.

Lots of Data, Set Free

The most important aspect of the plan is data. Useful data must be made freely available to all parents and students so that parents can make sense of the various educational offerings. Parents must be able to answer the following questions:

• What is the predicted performance of my child in this education program based on the past performance of children, like my child, in this program?
  
  
• How much better (or worse) is the predicted performance of my child in education program A compared to educational programs B, C, ... , n.
  

The disaggregation of data made available has to go far beyond that provided under NCLB. For example, a male student with two Hispanic parents - one with a high school degree and the other with a college STEM degree, a family income of $ x, from neighborhood z, with various scores on prior tests taken should be able to drill down through the data and find out similar students like him and see how they fared in a particular course.

Such a system is predicated on accurate demographic data being collected, initial placement exams being taken when the student enters formal education, and all subsequent testing results.

Furthermore, the data should be made publicly available (while respecting FERPA regs) so that organizations, like S& P, can provide services for the public to use to evaluate the various educational offerings.

Maintain the Default System, Allowing Educators to Experiment with Their Top-Down Schemes

Under my plan, in which teachers take responsibility for student learning within the agreed upon obligations agreed upon by the students, there will remain some students that no teachers believe thay are capable of educating. These students must still be provided with a free appropriate education, so an educational system of last resort must be maintained. In all liklihood, states will maintain a scaled-down version of their present public education system for these children (and those parenst who favor the present system and wish to keep their children in it). These children will remain a political problem and states and the federal government will continue to employ top-down edicts and experiments in an attempt to solve the problem. They'll also continue to pump money into the system. None of it will work because the nature of the present precludes such a system working. Nonetheless, eventually some educators will be enticed by the per pupil funding available (the reward) and agree to the risks inherent in educating this kids.

Funding

I've left this one for last because I have no ecific ideas how to employ an equitable funding system. Basically, some kids are much easier to educate than others and, as such, require more effort to educate. This effort is likely to cost more and you'd think there should be additional compensation for those endeavoring to educate these kids.

There's also an argument that the present funding levels are more than adequate to educate most kids.

I don't have an answer for this problem. Nor does anyone else.

I do know how you might go about solving the problem. First you gather all the educators who think they know how to educate these kids. Then have all of these educators bid to take as many schools worth of children that they think they can handle. The losing educators can then be offered to participate in a small scale experiment and take a random sample of children at the winning bid price and see what they can do. The winning bidder will be paid only for the children they are capable of successfully educating. If the winning bidder (and any of the successful losing bidders) is sufficinetly successful, they should be provided any needed funding to scale up.

****

That's it. The minimal framework needed for a bottom-up evolution of the present system within a top-down regulatory framework which provides for a fair environment for professional educators to work and permits for top-down efforts for the difficult to educate children.

I'll discuss how a system might work in practice in my next post.

Reboot II

I noted in the previous post that the public education system needs a reboot to get a fresh start.

To use another metaphor, the public school system needs to be declared bankrupt so it can be restructured, eliminating all the conditions that drove it into bankruptcy in the first place.

The primary reason for the reboot, as opposed to less drastic measures, is to extinguish all the bad contracts, obligations, and relationships they've entangled themselves in and have had thrust upon them by political means.

As I pointed out in the previous post, after the great reboot of aught nine you'd have students, teachers, buildings, equipment/instructional material, and existing funding. All that is needed is to restructure the relationship between these existing elements so the incentives are better aligned while avoiding the mistakes of the present system.

So how should the system be rebuilt?

Power to the People

The first, and most important, fix is to return the power to the people. Education funding should go directly to the students to spend on education services as they see fit. One way to do this would be to set up education savings accounts for each student, like medical savings accounts, that can only be used for education services.

People pay taxes for education. A certain percentage of those taxes go to fund the education for the benefit of the public. But a person should a get a credit for a percentage of the taxes they pay each year that goes into their education savings account for at least the benefit of their own children's education. The idea is to provide parents (and students) control over their children's education commensurate with resources they've contributed into the system free from interference from the government or otherwise. To the extent that students are being subsidized from public funds, then it is likely that taxpayers, through their elected representatives, will want some control how those funds are spent. That seems to me to be a fair compromise.

Teachers Will Be Professionals

Teachers need to be professionalized, whether they like it or not, with all the benefits and responsibilities that flow from that status. We need professionals to do the hard work of education because we need educators to be responsible for student outcomes. Teachers should be like treated like doctors, lawyers, accountants, and other professionals. Doctors don't have to cure every patient and lawyers don't have to win every dispute, but they are required to render their services competently. If they fail to do so they risk having their license revoked and having to compensate for their malpractice. The upside is that as professionals, teachers will be free to render their services (within the guidelines established by the profession) in the manner of their choosing and free from the silly micro-regulations in effect today because educators have failed to police themselves like other professions.

The main benefit for teachers for professionalizing is that teachers themselves get to decide how they will organize themselves to offer their services. Any professional teacher can put out a shingle and offer services as a sole practitioner. Or than can partner up with one or more lawyers and offer services as a partnership. They can enter into more complicated organizational structures as they grow, much like modern day law firms and doctor practices.

Of course, since educators haven't yet developed their own code of professional responsibility (especially one that people trust), they're going to need some objective criteria for determining when services have been rendered adequately. This can be accomplished by ...

All Educational Services Will be Rendered on a Contractual Basis

Students and their teacher would have a contract setting forth the manner in which educational services will be rendered and criteria against which learning will be measured. Students will have obligations and so would teachers. Ideally, the system might work like this:

The teachers would determine her entrance requirements and placement criteria. The teacher should be able to determine if the student has the skills,knowledge, and other factors needed to succeed in the class. The teacher would also determine the obligations of the students accepted for instruction, such attendance criteria, homework criteria, and the like. Teachers are in the best position to determine whether a student is capable of succeeding with the instructional methods that will be employed and the teacher's assessment of her own skills. This is only fair since the teacher will be on the hook for educating the students she accepts. Bear in mind that the more stringent the teacher's requirements, the more difficult it will be for the teacher to attract students, so this process should find an efficient equilibrium point that satisfies both teachers and students.

teachers will also be required to spell out everything that will take place in the classroom and exactly what skills and knowledge will be taught and learned by the students -- what will be taught, how it will be taught, what curriculum will be used, how will the curriculum be supplemented, and the like. The student and her parents should be able to determine in advance exactly what will be taking place in the classroom and what will be learned.

Most importantly, the education contract will specify the class's exit criteria and whether it has been met by the student. The exit criteria should include the content specified by the State which will likely be a minimal skills test to assure the public that it has gotten the expected value from its investment. The exit criteria should also include any additional content, if any, that the teacher has promised to teach in the education contract.

Also, spelled out in the education contract should be the downstream teachers/programs that accept this teacher's final exam as fulfilling their entrance requirements. For example, the final arithmetic teacher would specify in her education contract which algebra teachers accept a passing grade in her class as fulfilling their algebra class prerequisites. This will encourage teachers to work together to develop their own standards that will carry students from the beginning of their formal education to the end, whether it be college or work.

As professionals, teachers would be responsible for assuring that all the students they accept learn everything they've promised to teach and pass the final exam. Otherwise, the teacher will be given a brief period (say two weeks) to cure the student's deficiencies through remediation. Failing to cure the student's deficiencies will result in the teaching forfeiting some or all of the funding she received to educate the student which will go to remediating the student.

Education Colleges Will No Longer Have a Monopoly on Teacher Preparation

Any person with an undergraduate degree should be able to teach if she is capable of passing the state's licensing exam and background check. This would include degrees from college's of education.

College's of education mostly teach pedagogy. But pedagogy should be determined by practicing teachers. Some teachers may find value in the pedagogy taught in Ed colleges in which case they should be free to hire Ed school graduates. Other teachers may feel that content knowledge is more valuable and that pedagogy is best taught by them according to their own philosophy in which case they should be free to hire graduates of their choosing.

Classrooms should be allocated to teachers who've attracted sufficient students in the district the school Building serves

Since the community owns the school buildings and the equipment therein, these resources should be offered to any teacher who has attracted sufficient students from the district to consume the eduction services they're offering.

Any licensed teacher (or group of teachers) should be able to offer educational services to students in any school district. For example, before every semester there might be an educational services "fair" in which all teachers interested in offering educational services in a particular school district advertise their offerings and attempt to attract students. Each classroom should be rated as to the minimum and maximum students it can hold. Once a teacher has attracted the minimum number of students in the district that teacher would be entitled to lease a classroom in that district for that semester. That teacher determines the maximum number of students she believes she can educate. The number of students successfully educated per semester determines the compensation that teacher receives. This provides an incentive for teachers to maximize the efficiency of the services they provide.

If students don't like the educational services offered in their home district, they are free to go to any other school district that has room. In this way, classroom space will be efficiently allocated. This also permits niche educational offerings to pull students from different districts.

I'm going to stop here for this post and let you chew this over. I haven't included everything that a well run public school system should have, such as funding allocation, but I think you have enough to see how my proposed system better aligns the incentives needed to improve education.

No doubt I've failed to include much and have failed to account for various factors. That's what the comments are for to point out my mistakes and help to improve on this basic framework. Or to argue that certain parts should simply be thrown out.

Do your worst.

I'll attempt to draft a post that includes the rest of the framework while responding to your critiques.

Blog Update

As some commenters may have noticed I've activated the CAPTCHA verification system and the comment moderation system for posts older than 30 days old. I had to do this to combat the influx of Chinese spam I've been receiving over the course of the last week. Last night alone I had to manually delete, one by one, about 200 comments that were spam. Let's see if this drives them away. if it does I'll remove the CAPTCHA system.

I'm currently trying to finish my reboot post. It's turning out to be a little more difficult than I originally thought.

I'll answer Brian's and Dick's comments after I've posted the conclusion of the reboot post.

Reboot

The administration's tentative rhetoric-heavy, action-light education policies aren't going to work.

Wishful thinking isn't going to make up the deficiencies.

The problem isn't necessarily that the Administration's policies are bad, though in this case most of them are. (The Bush Administration's policies weren't much better.)

And let's not forget that each state has the primary role in education anyway. That's federalism and it's usually a good thing. Mississippi's education needs are much different than Massachusetts'. Why should their education policies be the same? Moreover, no one has found the recipe for providing a good education for all students yet, so the need for experimentation remains. And, the more laboratories the better until one state finds a system that works and can be replicated.

To improve education, the Administration needs to take an important first step:

Admit defeat.

The current system simply doesn't work well for many children (and teachers). The incentives are all screwed up. There is not enough "choice" in the system, hence all the "wars." There is a "reading war" because some parents don't agree with the reading instruction services favored by some educators, yet have no choice when it comes to selecting those services. Educators should be able to choose what instructional services they offer and parents and students should be able to choose which educator's services they want to consume. There would be a market for both "progressive" education services and "traditional" education services.

Henry Ford used to offer his Model T automobile in any color the customer wanted provided they wanted black. Ford's competitors soon offered a choice of colors. Everybody was happy, except perhaps Henry. In education you're only happy if you like black. If you don't, you're at "war" with the system because you don't have a choice.

But I digress.

The first step to improve education has to be to admit defeat. We picked a bad system a century or so ago and it didn't deliver on its promises. We tried to educate the masses and we failed. We don't educate the masses; we educate the same small group of students that have always been easily educable. For the rest, we offer an expensive facsimile of education that fails to educate. We're good at claiming we've educated; not so good on delivering the education. We're good at shifting goal posts to make it appear that we're doing a good job, but few people are fooled.

Worse yet, the present system has attracted many powerful entrenched special interests whose best interest is to maintain the status quo. Those special interests are not students or teachers.

Instead of playing the blame game, it is more productive to say that the education incentives are not aligned. They need to be aligned for the system to work. Until they are aligned, no "reform" is going to work. There is lots of data proving this point.

To get the incentives aligned you need to take the right second step after you admit defeat. Admitting defeat provides the political will to take the second step. And, there's only one right second step. And that is to ...

Reboot.

The system needs to be rebooted.

We need a do over.

All the existing ties need to be severed. Then they can be rebuilt. The right way.

After the reboot what would have when the system comes back online?

• A bunch of students with varying education needs.
• A bunch of teachers with varying teaching abilities.
• A bunch of administrators and support personnel with varying administrative capabilities.
• A bunch of school buildings where education services and transportation services can be provided.
• A lot of instructional material and many publishers willing to supply almost any instructional need.
• Over $10k per student for operational expenses from existing tax revenue.
• An information superhighway capable of providing all the information services needed for a transparent network linking parents, students, taxpayers, and educators.

That's more than enough to get us started on Education System 2.0 - 21^st century edition.

Actually, you need to do one more thing. Throw out all the existing rules and regulations and institute a ten year moratorium on all education-specific rules, like we did with the Internet when it was opened up to consumers. When the reboot goes into effect, you want only a bare minimum of rules in place to bootstrap the new system.

Then its just a matter of realigning the incentives which is easy.

That'll be the next post.

New P21 Video Found Lacking

Is it me, or is the the new P21 Video lacking some 21st century skills or, at least, 21st century production values?



I mean it's not exactly a good use of technology or the video format.

Would you buy a suit from this guy.

Obama's Five Ponies of Education Speech

Today, President Obama promised us five ponies to cure our education woes.

It started off well enough:

My outstanding Secretary of Education Arne Duncan will use only one test when deciding what ideas to support with your precious tax dollars. It’s not whether an idea is liberal or conservative, but whether it works.

But then he goes on to offer us five ideas which largely don't work.

In other words, we won't be getting five ponies; we'll be getting at best one pony, three broken down mares, and a gelding.

And a large pile of horseshit for the next generation to clean-up.

Let's take a look at each of our ponies.

Pony One: Early childhood initiatives.

Obama sells this pony by pointing us to some non-educational benefits.

For every dollar we invest in these programs, we get nearly ten dollars back in reduced welfare rolls, fewer health costs, and less crime.

He has to do this because these early childhood initiatives tend not to have any educational benefits that don't wash out rapidly once the child enters the public school system.

He also offers what appears to be an preschool version of NCLB by offering grants to states that:

[d]evelop a cutting-edge plan to raise the quality of [their] early learning programs. Show us how you’ll work to ensure that children are better prepared for success by the time they enter kindergarten.

Letting states develop their own plans and then define what success looks like didn't work too well under NCLB.

This pony might have offered some hope if the funding went to actual preschool programs that directly remedied identifiable deficits that many low-SES children enter school with: low language skills.


Pony Two: Better standards and assessments.

Next, Obama wants to challenge states to enact better standards and assessments.

Why would they ever want to do a thing like that? It's much easier to enact low standards that appear to show that students are achieving, rather than actually getting them to achieve to high standards. Where is the incentive? And Obama isn't providing any new incentives in this speech. States will either answer the "challenge" or they won't. My money is on "they won't."

Obama is also promising funding for data systems "to track how much progress a student is making and where that student is struggling."

This is one of the few good ideas in the speech. Although, why states aren't doing this for themselves is beyond me.

Pony Three: Recruiting, preparing, and rewarding outstanding teachers.

Then Obama attacks teachers. Apparently, the ones we have now aren't any good. I disagree.

When the automakers ran their businesses into the ground and came begging for relief, the CEOs got the spanking from Congress, not the assembly line workers.

The problem isn't the teachers. The problem is with the management from top to bottom. They are the ones who made the silly rules, who created the impossible work environment, that entered into bad contracts wit the unions, and hired teachers from education schools that failed to prepare teachers with the skills they need.

And, let's be honest, you'd have to be a little crazy to want to work in many schools today given the conditions. I think most teachers simply don't realize what's in store for them. That's changing with the Internet.


Pony Four: Promoting innovation and excellence in America’s schools.

Obama promises to remove the current caps on charter schools. This is a good thing. No student should be forced to go to a failing school. There's no guarantee that a particular charter will be any good, but at least the student gets a choice and isn't forced to attend a bad school.

Obama also ants to increase the school day and year. That's great, students get to waste even more time in crappy schools. Let's focus on improving the schools first and then we'll worry about gaining further efficiencies by lengthening the time requirements.

He's also going to develop "new strategies to make sure at-risk students don’t give up on their education" by dropping out in high school. Here's a good way: improving their K-8 education. I thought that was what this whole speech was about in the first place.


Pony Five: Providing every American with a quality higher education ...

... by making it more expensive to go to college by floating more "grant" money into the system.

This one fails Econ 101. It also ignores the primary problem preventing students from attending college: they aren't sufficiently prepared for the rigors of college. And, there's precious little in this new plan that's going to help here. Let's work on that.

This plan is long on lofty rhetoric, but short on anything that stands a good chance of working, much less has an established track record. Basically, more of what we've come to expect from education from the Feds.

21st Century Skills, Not So new

21st Century skills aren't so 21st century. They've been peddled under various names for a long time.



Flawed in 1940; flawed in 2009.

Now with no more research base than they had back then. Yet educators are still "convinced" of their efficacy.

Of education and strawmen

Now this is funny.

Stephen Downes, in a post arguing that Joanne Jacobs has erected strawmen in her post on the 21st Century Skills debate, erects a few of his own.

Each of these three formulations serves to misrepresents actual positions held by educators that do stand up to scrutiny: that knowledge depends on critical thinking skills (not the other way around), that teachers address multiple cognitive needs (not just drill and recall), and that self-direction does not entail content-free learning.

Let's take each in turn.

Knowledge depends on critical thinking skills (not the other way around)

This is a demonstrably false statement.

Knowledge is defined as (i) expertise, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject, (ii) what is known in a particular field or in total; facts and information or (iii) awareness or familiarity gained by experience of a fact or situation.

Since knowledge includes facts and information, and facts and information can be acquired by rote (albeit inefficiently), knowledge does not depend on critical thinking skills.

The converse (Critical thinking skills depend on knowledge) is, however, true. You can't think critically unless you've learned a procedure for thinking critically (such as the critical reading procedure I laid out) without the knowledge of the steps (this would be information and facts) that make up that procedure.

That teachers address multiple cognitive needs (not just drill and recall)

This would be a strawman. Does anyone actually think that teachers should only address drill and recall?

That self-direction does not entail content-free learning

Another strawman. Does anyone actually believe that self-direction entails content-free learning? I suppose there is a risk that the self-chosen direction might not entail enough content, but this gets dangerously close to making a point that is educationally relevant.