10/05/09

    Permalink 07:28:09 am, Categories: Announcements [A]

    Hat tip to Alexander Russo for posting this morning on an article in the L.A. Times about Douglas Reeves’ work on "subjective grading."

    Here is a summary of Reeves’ work excerpted from the LAT:

    "Reeves asked teachers and administrators in the United States, Australia, Canada and South America to determine a final semester grade for a student who received the following grades for assignments, in this order:

    "C, C, MA (Missing Assignment), D, C, B, MA, MA, B, A.

    "The educators gave the student final semester grades from A to F, Reeves said.

    "Why? Because, he said, teachers use different criteria for grading."


    Note that the L.A. Times doesn’t even get into the issue of the subjectivity that went into assigning each of the individual letter grades in the first place.

    Imagine how biases about students affects the directionality of subjectivity. Do students who "act" smarter get the benefit of the doubt and get higher grades? Do teachers’ biases about poverty and race play a role? Do a students’ non-academic activities - whether or not he or she plays sports or is a behavior problem - tip the scales?

    A large body of research says the answer to each of these questions is a resounding "yes."

    This, in fact, is one reason why over the last 20 years we have come as a society to embrace "standardized" testing. But because most of the tests that are out there now are narrow and of poor quality, the term "standardized" has become a bad word, even though standardization is aimed at eliminating the types of biases reflected in Reeves’ work.

    In attempts to make assessments work better, both for the purposes of evaluating individual students and school systems, it’s important that we not return to practices that rely on determining student achievement via a system in which the grade a student receives has more to do with the idiosyncratic grading biases of his or her teacher than with the student’s actual academic progress.
     
    In the book "The Big Test" (2000) Nicholas Lemann grappled with the promise and shortcomings of testing in grading students based on their achievements, as opposed to assigning them college slots based on their family’s social status, as the U.S. did up until a half century ago, or by merely assigning post-secondary slots based on historical disadvantage, as is done through affirmative action. The book raises as many questions as it answers, but is nonetheless worth a re-read as we consider how testing under ESEA reauthorization can best serve the competing goals of maintaining fairness, rewarding success and hard work, and redressing historical education inequities.

    10/01/09

    Permalink 08:33:51 am, Categories: Announcements [A]
    The House Education Committee’s hearing on teacher quality yesterday is being hailed as some sort of landmark in the ongoing struggle to make sure poor and minority children are not shortchanged when it comes to teacher effectiveness and subject matter competence.

    In his testimony NEA President Dennis Van Roekel committed to:
     
    "address barriers in collective bargaining agreements by requesting that every local NEA affiliate enter into a compact or memorandum of understanding (MOU) with its local school district to waive any contract language that prohibits staffing high-needs schools with great teachers.  These compacts should also add commitments that would enhance this goal." [the emphasis in "bold" is NEA’s, not mine]

    I hardly gave this statement any notice. I am so used to rhetorical and even written commitments made by the NEA on teacher quality and equity issues that are at best never followed through on and at worst completely at odds with what they are doing on the ground and behind closed doors, that it blew by me like a falling leaf.

    But they are playing this as a sea change and some observers are taking them at their word.

    Jay Mathews gave it a headline and a few paragraphs yesterday in the Washington Post, based on reporting by Nick Anderson who was at the hearing. Mathews updated the post with a strong statement of support for the NEA’s "shift"  from the AFT. It’s notable that Jay’s dispatch from Anderson stands right alongside his reporting from June about efforts by AFT’s affiliate in Baltimore to reverse a collective bargaining agreement waiver for KIPP Ujima Village charter middle school which is working to the benefit of both students and teachers in that school.

    The Wall Street Journal gave NEA’s announcement headline treatment as well, but also quoted a skeptical Checker Finn who said: "I will be a little surprised if any locals allow districts to assign teachers willy-nilly."

    Hopefully, Van Roekel is sincere, and this would be a significant change from his predecessors who, frankly, have not been. Chairman Miller made sure to mark the moment, stating that he was treating Van Roekel’s commitment as NEA being on record, and said he was encouraged.

    It didn’t take too long, though, to realize that taking the NEA at its word is tricky business. Over at Teacher Beat, Stephen Sawchuk reports on how in the same hearing Van Roekel mischaracterized the Administration’s policies on teacher effectiveness, claiming that Obama and Duncan want to base teacher ratings "on a single test score" even though all the Administration wants to do is make sure test scores aren’t excluded. Miller corrected Van Roekel, who had little to say and visibly shrunk in his seat in response. As Sawchuk notes, these kinds of exchanges between the Chairman and the NEA President are nothing new.

    It’s this kind of wordplay, cleverness and, let’s face it, dishonesty, that is going to make it very difficult to know what the NEA meant yesterday by "committing" to address collective bargaining agreements, let alone make sure they and their locals actually do something. There’s rarely someone around who’s willing to ask the tough questions, and push for real action, and you didn’t need to look any farther than most of the Democrats on the Committee who spent the better part of their limited time with the witnesses kissing Van Roekel’s, uh, ring as if teacher quality and equity back in their districts was not really a problem.
     
    Most policy analysts with an eye on the bigger picture predict that, sooner or later, teacher work contracts will look more like those of their peers in other professions and that parents of those students being shortchanged under the current system will either get a better deal or reach the critical mass necessary for them to persuade their elected officials to let them take their per pupil allotment elsewhere, as they have done in Milwaukee and, kinda, in D.C.
     
    How those dynamics unfold over time is really up to the NEA and the AFT, who throughout this debate have acted like the current system is a meteoroid that dropped on their heads yesterday from outer space, rather than a very high wall that stands between students and quality teaching that they themselves have constructed.

    09/25/09

    Permalink 08:40:00 am, Categories: Announcements [A]

    The Common Core Standards Initiative released the first draft of the first stage of its work on Monday.

    Few were screaming bloody murder so it seems like the political needle is being threaded, more or less, for now.

    The real questions, as always, revolve around what happens in classrooms: who teaches, what’s taught, which instructional materials are used, what is measured, and how well. 

    Also, if the focus is on career and college readiness, my discussions with students - in both suburban and urban schools - of late indicate that there needs to be much better and more frequent counseling. Ask a high school freshman or sophomore what they know about college pre-reqs, financial aid, and when they last met with a guidance counselor, and you’ll see what I mean.

    I presented my take on the larger picture last month at a conference sponsored by America’s Choice and ACT, on a panel with reps from NGA and CCSSO, who are leading the CCSI. You can view it on C-Span: here.

    Education Trust has been around the "standards" block more times than I have (this is my 3rd) and so you may want to seek their wise counsel: here.

    Robert Pondiscio did a nice quick overview. Keep a close eye out for later posts by Robert et al. for additional perspectives. I am not quite the purist that the Core Knowledge folks are, but they have their finger on pulse of this and don’t pull any punches in trying to keep the debate honest and aspirations high.

    09/03/09

    Permalink 06:12:41 am, Categories: Announcements [A]

    Doing something always creates some people who are unhappy. There’s always going to be some interest out there that decides, "You know what? The status quo is working for me a little bit better."

                President Barack Obama, July 22, 2009

       

     
     
    Rhetoric vs. Reality

     Democrats for Education Reform, Race to the Top Backgrounder 

    Overview

    By the end of last week, a broad-based group of educators, researchers, and policy wonks had weighed in favorably on the draft Race to the Top guidance issued by the U.S. Department of Education.*

    The National Education Association (and a few of its allies, many of whom it directly funds) however, chose to tear a page out of a (very) old playbook and mount what might most charitably called a temper tantrum. Once again, they have chosen to mount a political attack rather than engage in constructive collaboration that could help guide $4 billion in Race to the Top funding toward credible efforts to improve K-12 public education and close achievement gaps.

    It’s disappointing - to say the least - that after seven and a half years of complaining about federal education law, and 20 years after the advent of standards-based reform, the NEA is still only able to tell us mostly what it does not want to do. Its comments on the draft guidance, which were issued last Friday, are not surprising; nor are they new. They are the most recent examples of a stubborn, longstanding unwillingness to embrace change, and a stunningly tragic lack of vision, ambition, and spirit.

    Here’s a DFER Backgrounder summarizing the game they’ve been running not only for months, but for years: link.

    Bonus track: A page out of "Introduction to the Foundations of American Education," Allyn and Bacon: 1979. 

    * Here are two coalition letters on which DFER collaborated with others:

    DFER with Education Trust, Center for American Progress, and the Education Equality Project: here.

    DFER with the National Alliance of Public Charter Schools, Education Equality Project, The New Teacher Project, The American Board for the Certification of Teacher Excellence, Policy Innovation in Education Network, ConnCAN, DC School Reform Now, Advance Illinois, Advance Innovative Education (Louisiana), Tennessee SCORE, Massachusetts Business Alliance for Educationhere.

    08/31/09

    Permalink 05:05:21 am, Categories: Announcements [A]
    Over at the Core Knowledge Blog, Diana Senechal lamented yesterday about a movement by some teachers to shelve requirements that students read some classics like "To Kill A Mockingbird" and rely more on students’ recommendations for class reading lists.

    Senchal claims the this trend "glorifies a certain indifference to literature."

    I kind of doubt it.

    Senchal leaves out the fact that the New York Times notes that:

    "There were students like Jennae Arnold, a soft-spoken eighth grader who picked challenging titles like ‘A Lesson Before Dying’ by Ernest J. Gaines and ‘The Bluest Eye’ by Toni Morrison, of which she wrote, partly in text-message speak: “I would have N3V3R thought of or about something like that on my own.”

    I fear we are about to enter one of those silly education either-or debates where people have to take sides on one of two extreme positions. Or we reject what young people are saying out of hand because we can’t get past their reformulation of informal language in text messaging.

    Senechal is right to raise concerns about the necessity of students learning history and the value of introducing them to classics.

    But focusing solely on that goal ignores others, such as improving student reading skills (which requires their interest and attention in the first place), instilling in them a passion for lifelong learning (which requires them to increasingly acquire, especially as teens, some curiosity and initiative), and an awareness of the future as much as the past.

    Truth be told, the standard reading lists I have seen are a little stale. They cover important, often vital topics, but suggest that those who created them may need a refresher class in lifelong learning themselves. Surely there’s value in having students bring in their favorites, or their parents’, and balancing their selections with those of educators? If public education is going to survive in an increasingly digital and decentralized age of reading content, there really doesn’t seem to be any other logical choice.
     
    p.s. Dear Kids - if you think required reading lists can be boring in high school, you’ll find yourself longing for those halcyon days of great literature when you grow up and get (sur)real jobs like Sherman Dorn and me.
     
    Update: Oh, Kevin Carey wrote on this yesterday and I missed it. I’m with Carey. (Including re: Ravitch). 
     
    Btw, I read Moby Dick a couple of years ago, and think its overrated. My recommendation: Read the first few chapters (the meeting of Queequeg is one of the great cross cultural studies in literature), skip the voluminous whaling primer in the middle, and cut to the chase in the last 30 pages. I could not help thinking of Joel Klein being Ravitch’s white whale when I saw her quote in the NYT.

    Andy writes about this too. If he can show me a cross section of college-educated adults other than Eduwife who had a love of reading instilled in them as high school students and are still reading classics, I would love to meet them. So, I think, would Kevin.

    Ask 10 random people at a cocktail party attended by the highly educated what "classic" they’ve read lately, and see if you don’t get some really funny looks.

    << Previous :: Next >>

    September 2010
    Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
     << <   > >>
          1 2 3 4
    5 6 7 8 9 10 11
    12 13 14 15 16 17 18
    19 20 21 22 23 24 25
    26 27 28 29 30    

    Swift & Change Able will attempt to cover all aspects of education policy, including:
    * Legislation
    * Policy
    * Politics

    Swift & Change Able will try to look at events in the states and local school districts, as well as the ongoing ESEA reauthorization process in Washington, D.C.

    Content on Swift & Change Able will include:
    * Analysis
    * Commentary
    * Research
    * Data
    * Public Forums

    and, sometimes, some surprises just to liven things up.

    Search

    The requested Blog doesn't exist any more!

    XML Feeds

    powered by b2evolution free blog software