Swift & Change Able - Latest comments on AASA to After-School Teachers: "You're Fired"

In response to: AASA to After-School Teachers: "You're Fired"

Jacqueline Spates [Visitor] — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 23:16:09 +0000

All after school programs help counsel as weel as teach our children. Please do not eliminate these valuable programs such as these. There is enough trouble from children and teens who don't have that extra attention given to them when they are out of school. Thanks

In response to: AASA to After-School Teachers: "You're Fired"

Charlie [Member] — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 19:47:53 +0000

John - Did you know that the Dadaist artists Man Ray and Jean Cocteau used to play tennis without a net? That's kinda the way I feel when we have these little chats. Although nominally, the most apt artistic term would have to be "surreal".

In response to: AASA to After-School Teachers: "You're Fired"

john thompson [Visitor] — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 19:00:59 +0000

Charlie,

My comments echo RAND because I lifted them from its report by cut and paste.

I mention Chicago because it discussed cost effectiveness, asking what does $1,800 per student produce. Although a $40 million investment produced “small significant” increases in reading, no increases were found in math. Chicago found tutoring to be more cost effective for the younger elementary students.

Another commentator emphasized that when RAND studied nine big-city districts, only one-half of 1% of eligible students made use of the choice option. RAND suggested that one reason for this is that many choice options, especially charter schools, predated NCLB, with the implication that “choosers had already chosen.”

The most relevant point is that SES did show greater impact for students had two or more years of tutoring. So, tutoring worked for those students where tutoring worked. It seems that we always get back to this, you citing successes for a very small group and I question whether those outliers are representative.

But, I’m really not trying to argue. Tutoring can be valuable. But for a far greater number of our poorest students, they need longer days of engaging classroom instruction. CAP has shown that we could increase the school day by 30% for as little as $750 per student. But, the extended day can’t just be more of the same instruction-driven work within the four walls of the classroom.

Think of the cognitive dynamic. Tutoring must be coordinated with classroom instruction. In schools where 90, 95%+ of students need remediation, it would be humanly impossible to coordinate the after-school remediation with the school’s instruction. The absolute minimum amount of tutoring to show any effectiveness is 30 hours, according to those studies, and the results of students below that number were dropped. But once you have enough tutoring to make a difference, why not invest a little more and offer the full classroom experience.

In response to: AASA to After-School Teachers: "You're Fired"

Charlie [Member] — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 16:54:12 +0000

Right. So, I don't think you realize this, but you are agreeing with me so far on all points re: Rand.

1. The outcome data is good - 5 of 7 districts show gap closing. Perhaps the other two have something to learn. I would call that imperfect rather than ambiguous (the folks at Rand are no slouches).

2. Districts have made access difficult; and,

3. (previous posts) We need better data systems to evaluate educational policies (which most of us call accountability).

Get back to me when you have something specific to cite from the Chicago studies (your comments are awfully ambiguous), because when I read them I find they are similar to Rand.

In response to: AASA to After-School Teachers: "You're Fired"

john thompson [Visitor] — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 14:00:17 +0000

RAND reported that SES participation

"has increased substantially since NCLB began in 2002. However, only a small proportion of eligible students actually participated in the NCLB educational options, and a number of problems remain, including inadequate communication with parents about NCLB options and the lack of robust data systems that would enable rigorous evaluations of the effectiveness of the NCLB educational options."

Supplement their own words with Chicago evalution of their programs - and the reasons for the uneven reslts - and you get "studies of tutoring's effectiveness (that) are more ambiguous that you suggest."

In response to: AASA to After-School Teachers: "You're Fired"

Charlie [Member] — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 17:37:49 +0000

John -

I look forward to your refutation of the Rand study's conclusions.

--- Charlie

In response to: AASA to After-School Teachers: "You're Fired"

john thompson [Visitor] — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 16:17:26 +0000

Don't downplay the intellectual side. The studies of tutoring's effectiveness are more ambiguous that you suggest. And the "to do" list of administrators is longer than you seem to recognize.

Here's how I'd approach the problem. recognize that tutoring can be effective if a managable percent of the students require it. I've seen schools do great work with a few dozen kids every day after class. And the younger the students, the easier it is to remediate. But in a school where the overwhelming percentage require remediation, tutoring is impractical. My school, for instance, simply "can't get there from here" by remediation for 700 of our 750 secondary students.

Our poor kids need much more effective and engaging classroom instruction. Without bashing KIPP or charters, the more sustainable approach would be two effective teachers (or other effective adults) each putting in eight hour days. It would be difficult to administrator and staff a system where a second shift of educators takes over after 3:30, but that would be a challenge worth tackling and financing.