Uri Tresiman of the Dana Center at the University of Texas spoke to the annual NCTM conference about the true needs of American education.
This is an important speech in which he shows how shallow current reforms are and how deeply poverty affects children’s performance in school.
I intend to post this speech twice this week. It is that powerful.
I may post it more than twice.
It meant a lot to me because Dr. Treisman agreed with what I have been saying. We will not narrow the achievement gaps unless we act to reduce poverty. He does not say–nor do I–that schools don’t matter. We agree that schools and teachers matter very much. But so does poverty.
A few days ago, I wrote that if we halved the child poverty rate–now a scandalous 23%–then achievement would score. A faithful reader and blogger who works for a conservative think tank wrote offline to disagree with me. He said that we don’t know how to reduce child poverty, and he doubted that it would matter much even if we did. He countered that if we increased the number of charter schools, then achievement would soar.
I challenge him to watch Dr. Treisman’s speech. Pay particular attention to his evidence about the effects of charter schools.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
When did people start using the word equity instead of terms like equal access, equal opportunity, equal protection under the law, and so on? I realize that one of its meaning is simply fairness, which is fair enough, but I sense a semantic shiftiness in the offing, as if students are some kind of chattel.
“Equity” is indeed a weasel word. I think its usage as a replacement for “equal” started off with the best of intentions, but it has been twisted from those intentions by some in the time since.
Yes, that is my sense of it. I keep expecting to hear it used in the same breath with human capital and return on investment.
Or maybe I already did …
Probably because equity has more than one meaning. Those with the most of meaning #3 are the ones who care the least of the meaning of #1:
Definition of EQUITY (from MW online)
1
a : justice according to natural law or right; specifically : freedom from bias or favoritism
b : something that is equitable
2
a : a system of law originating in the English chancery and comprising a settled and formal body of legal and procedural rules and doctrines that supplement, aid, or override common and statute law and are designed to protect rights and enforce duties fixed by substantive law
b : trial or remedial justice under or by the rules and doctrines of equity
c : a body of legal doctrines and rules developed to enlarge, supplement, or override a narrow rigid system of law
3
a : a right, claim, or interest existing or valid in equity
b : the money value of a property or of an interest in a property in excess of claims or liens against it
c : a risk interest or ownership right in property
d : the common stock of a corporation
All humanities academics must be fluent in Newspeak.
IS there some way to access the visuals in this presentation?
When I watched the video of Dr. Treisman’s speech, the visuals were embedded in the video.
Try this version of th video. I know it has the visuals.
http://blog.mrmeyer.com/?p=17047
“…even on PISA, if you control for child poverty, we [the US] pretty much are at the top of the world. So the PISA data mask the fact that the child poverty rates were the principal factor in performance, not the particular structures of the countries’ education systems that NGA, Achieve, and the Chief State Schools officers believed were actually the causes of the differences in achievement.” (Treisman, 13:13 into his speech.)
“Now, who learns to apply math? PISA is about applying math in unfamiliar situations. Advantaged kids have opportunities to learn how to use math in the world. Poor kids basically learn math only in school. And that explains this distribution.” (Treisman, 14:40 into his speech.)
After reading this post and the Atlantic story by Tierney this weekend, I would like to offer this TED talk http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson.html as support for needed changes.
Rather, we have a poverty problem. The fact is that kids in resource-rich public school systems perform near the top on international measures. However, as David Sirota has reported, “The reason America’s overall scores on such tests are far lower is because high poverty schools produce far worse results — and as the most economically unequal society in the industrialized world, we have far more poverty than our competitors, bringing down our overall scores accordingly.” Addressing poverty and inequality are the keys to serving America’s educational needs. From http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/04/the-coming-revolution-in-public-education/275163/
Those who say child poverty doesn’t matter haven’t seen, much less taught, students who struggle with living in poverty. They don’t understand how great an effect hunger, homelessness, and loneliness has on a developing mind and body. They’ve never felt what it’s like. The first step to solving child poverty (and it’s effect on American schools) is to admit that it is a problem and that it can be remedied.
well said!
Too many people – willfully or simply ignorantly – conflate being poor with poverty. Hence, we hear the Joel Klein-type stories from people who claim that they came from poverty and – because of a super-teacher, of course – they were able to achieve greatness.
But as we know, Joel Klein (and the rest) was nowhere near poverty. He may have been poor (although really closer to working class), but he always knew where he’d be sleeping and where his next meal was coming from. He wasn’t in constant fear for his life from gang-bangers and drug dealers. He didn’t have a father or step-father or some random man beating him or his mother. His parents weren’t on drugs.
He, like many others, fails to recognize that true poverty is life-threatening and, as such, chemically and physiologically alters the brain as the individual lives in a constant state of fight-or-flight survival mode.
The “poverty rate” is usually measured as a set percentage of median income — i.e. it measures “being poor,” not homelessness, hunger, or drug abuse.
Presentations such as these serve a two-fold purpose, imho:
1) They provide a statistical and common sense link between poverty and academic failure.
2) They dispel the myth that the entire public education system in the US is broken and needs replacement.
Point 1 is not an easy fix by any stretch of the imagination.
Point 2, on the other hand, would be very easily remedied with the proper media coverage.
I’m so glad that this information is coming to light. I’ve long suspected a serious juggling of the numbers in the comparison of our system with others in the world. The Guiliani administration did it with the NYC state test scores in the ’90s. We ranked dead last in the state and the pressure was intense to fire the teachers, disband the union, and bring in private vouchers and charter schools. It was later disclosed, however, that we were the ONLY city that included special ed test scores in the averaging process. Without those scores we ranked 3rd in the state.
Considering the immense leverage that the architects of school “reform” have in the media and political arena and the large amounts of money they’d stand to lose if their efforts were proven to be a sham, I’m afraid that it would be naive to expect proper media coverage regarding the magnitude of this hoax that’s been perpetuated on the American public.
We need a widespread grassroots initiative. Flyers. Neighborhood and town meetings. It won’t be easy to regain the trust of the people after decades worth of smear campaigns. But what other options do we have? These guys are playing hardball.
“What does this graph show? Each bar shows a full year of learning [for 8th grade low income children, free and reduced lunch.] … Twenty-two years difference in learning according to what state you live in. And when you do more refined controls for poverty level, you get exactly the same distribution.” (Treisman, 21:40 into his speech.)
The best way to assure equity is not not try so hard to assure equity. All deliberate and pro-active attempts to assure equity function by offering a kind of counterbalancing favoritism, as if history were some kind of zero-sum game. It’s not. The best way to assure equity is just to teach, and teach well, and teach all of your students, and don’t second-guess policy because of some politically correct misplaced guilt or angst.
The very question, “How can we assure equity…” suggests a de facto focus on the differences between and among our students. How about an educational focus that instead looks at what UNITES them, not what separates them: “In a rush to engage the 21st century learner – modern, multicultural, multilingual and multiethnic, technologically savvy members of the Twitterati – we have forgotten the extent to which we are all in fact the same, and the extent to which we share the same basic human needs: I refer to the needs of young people to be engaged, challenged, given a sense of deliberate purpose, and to feel pride and a sense of value. This is true for students of ALL colors, creeds and backgrounds” (http://askingquestionsblog.blogspot.com/2013/03/normal-0-false-false-false-en-us-x-none.html).
Oh baloney – this is just another version of “a great teacher can fix it all”. Poverty matters. If you don’t believe that, I’d suggest you try it sometime. And then see if you can respond the same in class as your non-poverty peers.
Or try teaching in a class of children from a background of poverty. From neighborhoods where guns and drugs rule.
Honestly, I believe that AK and many others are coming from a place of caring and searching f
…for answers.
I think that the disconnect comes at the point where the teacher is accused of making excuses for his or her incompetence. That’s a very damaging,sweeping statement. Though there’s dead wood (in and outside of the teaching profession), the vast majority of the teachers I’ve worked with have been hard working professionals.
” [Regarding college readiness and poverty in Texas schools] Notice nonlinear, downward sloping phenomena. Low income children on the left, many schools, half the kids are college ready at a minimum level. Look at 80% or more poverty, there’s no school where a quarter of the students are college ready. There’s been no school last year, the year before, the year before that, or the year before that. So you would think that charters would fix this…. Almost all the charters in Texas– this is Texas-produced KIPP, Yes-Prep, Harmony, IDEA– the strongest national charters. Almost all the charters produced ZERO percent of students who are college ready. There are a few of them– one KIPP, one Yes-Prep, one IDEA, one Harmony– that are pretty good. Most of them are well below the public schools. So this theory– of Achieve, NGA, CCSSO, Race to the Top– that charters were the answer– not so clear when you actually climb into the numbers. The reverse looks true.” (Treisman, 27:57 into his speech.)
Why does the DOE think equity will be obtained through non-research based methods? In fact, “piloting” methods is not even considered AND we are ignoring the ongoing evidence of failure!
This DOE report shows what we are doing in every state is totally flawed! Page 7: “How to evaluate whether an educational intervention is supported by rigorous evidence: An overview” by the US Dept of Education.
“Our hope is that this Guide, by enabling educational practitioners to draw effectively on rigorous evidence,can help spark similar evidence-driven progress in the field of education”
Click to access rigorousevid.pdf
to me, as an 8th year high school math teacher in Seattle – cheering this guy is like cheering Rahm because Rahm isn’t a troglodyte on race, gender and women’s health.
the math ‘reformers’ and their … ha ha ha …’higher order thinking’ curriculum like Everyday Math and Connected Math (CMP) have done more to hurt kids without resource$ than all the liars from Broad, Gate$ and the charter racket$.
When we step away from ivory tower battles and look at the REAL job market (table 616, Statistical Abstract of the United States, 2012, “Employed Civilians by Occupation…” ) and really look at what tens of millions do – your prospects for rising above that enormous bottom of the pyramid are zilch when the mechanical basics of manipulating fractions, percents and decimals is a mystery.
Oh yeah, and when we look at table 706, Household Income – Distribution by Income Level, and we see that appx. 22.1 million of 113.6 million households have income over 100k a year, we might be able to figure out why so many in the higher reaches of ed policy are so completely out of touch with the economic and working realities of tens of millions of regular ‘ol working stiffs. NO Skills = NO Shot, about 99% of the time.
There are some tactics I applaud the math reformies on. (aside – I was a cook for 15 years … cutting onions and garlic bores the hell out of me AND I still have to do it!) Given that developing foundational skills to some kind of mastery can be dull, IF you ignore those skill gaps when you set up your group-cheat work, AND, IF you don’t test for those skill gaps, THEN the pretty posters the kids make and kids hug each other over can be defined as an accomplishment !!
AND math reformie administrators can run non-reformie math teachers out of their jobs!
This guy and his crew really wear me out, and, I have no interest in sharing a stage with them.
rmm
There are comments about Treisman’s NCTM speech on the Mathematics Teaching Community at
https://mathematicsteachingcommunity.math.uga.edu
specifically at:
https://mathematicsteachingcommunity.math.uga.edu/index.php/540/thoughts-on-uri-treismans-nctm-speech
Incredible clarity in his address…a must listen for everyone interested in the role of education in promoting democratic principles, where we are, where we need to be, and a few ideas on how to get there.
Does anyone know how the effective tax rates of the US (both personal and corporate) compares to countries with lower poverty rates?
I realize that my comments don’t carry any power, but I am going to go ahead and say what I have been thinking for 18 years. The only way to “fix” or “improve” education in the United States is to deal directly with the students who need the assistance. If we want to give everyone the same chance, we have to stop thinking that “redistribution” of wealth to help educate those less fortunate is somehow “robbing” the middle class.
By trying to avoid the fact that urban and rural schools were having difficulties, the statewide testing process (in Ohio in any case) merely wound up ranking all schools and reveali ng that the lowest scores were generally in the poorest districts. Instead of pouring all that money into testing all students, in my opinion, the education process would have been better served by focusing on those in the most need.
Rather than wasting the money on the mechanism of testing for all students, I believe it would have been much better to deal with class size, food programs, and parenting classes in the areas with the most need. It makes little sense to me to be wasting time and money transporting students all over a city to private schools, charter schools, etc. that have waiting lists. Tackle the issue by putting no more than 10 kids in a class in the primary grades and until they show signs of having learned the foundational knowledge needed to begin applying their skills to applications and deeper understanding.
We, as teachers, already know when a child has difficulties with learning. Instead of worrying about labeling kids, we simply need to give students intense opportunities to learn at their own paces. The range of ages of students in any class is wide. Why would we assume that they have the same interests or abilities? But, the larger the number of students in a class, the wider the spread is in their abilities. Concentrating on a small number of students and assuring that they are ready to progress to the next level is the best way to success.
Why are we so unwilling to pay for education? Why do we put the “blame” on the teachers or the system? If it doesn’t work, it is because of the environment. If we’d only have the courage to allow teachers to teach a group of children rather than a herd of children, we’d not be spending so much money on “testing to prove they are failing or succeeding”. We’d be attending to their needs. I don’t understand why this idea is so novel. If teachers had only 10 students in a class, think of how much more time they’d have to analyze, prepare for, and attend to students’ lessons and needs. When the classes I taught increased from even 21 to 29, I essentially had 50% more work, which left me with less time to do what I wanted to do. Simply entering data into a computer to group students by needs or whatever else takes time away from the real art of teaching. Having 50% more grading, planning, conferences, behavioral needs, and individualization adds to the stress of teaching. That is passed onto the students. Putting all this pointless “testing” on students does not make learning fun or interesting.
Implementing a testing plan that does not test what or how reading, writing, and math have been implementing makes as little sense as testing me on how to build a motor or expecting me to compete in pole vaulting. I’d fail.
I agree with this post. I just wonder if we all are willing to take a hit in the pocketbook to make that a reality.
We are paying already and it isn’t getting to the kids who need it. $71 Billion dollars next year to the Fed DOE.
My point is that the money is there, but it is going to all the wrong places, then there is outrage that the schools aren’t improving. And, in the districts where the kids are doing great, the parents are sick and tired of the stress of testing. It isn’t necessary. It doesn’t make sense. This attempt for “one size fits all” is a pathetic failure.
If that same mone were put into the inner cities and the outlying communities with no tax base, lowering class size so that all students would have an opportunity to be given more attention and their needs met, there would be an improvement. Small classes of students with various needs, including gifted needs, would bring so much opportunity to these children. However, for some reason, people have the idea that teachers “only work 10 months and get paid for 12” just eats away at their idea of fair pay. The attitude was the same when teachers made only $6000 per year. People can’t seem to understand teachers are paid for the days they work. On the last day of work, they can demand the summer months’ salary right then. It is simply pay distributed over 24 or 26 pay periods, deferred earnings.
Because of that resentment towards teachers, some people are quite happy to dismantle the education system. It doesn’t make sense but it makes some people feel powerful.
To reiterate, small classes in all communities with difficulties (and small classes for kids having difficulties in otherwise successful successful districts) would go a long way towards alleviating the inequities.
Sometimes, I feel there is an undercurrent of some people that really DON’T want ALL kids to do well. They want to be separate and “recognized”. Just go watch the movie “The Help” and digest all that it has to say. It cuts way beyond race and slavery. It points to what I believe is the true attitude of “entitlement”. I just think some don’t wan tto lose THAT.
My point is that the money is there, but it is going to all the wrong places, then there is outrage that the schools aren’t improving. And, in the districts where the kids are doing great, the parents are sick and tired of the stress of testing. It isn’t necessary. It doesn’t make sense. This attempt for “one size fits all” is a pathetic failure.
If that same mone were put into the inner cities and the outlying communities with no tax base, lowering class size so that all students would have an opportunity to be given more attention and their needs met, there would be an improvement. Small classes of students with various needs, including gifted needs, would bring so much opportunity to these children. However, for some reason, people have the idea that teachers “only work 10 months and get paid for 12” just eats away at their idea of fair pay. The attitude was the same when teachers made only $6000 per year. People can’t seem to understand teachers are paid for the days they work. On the last day of work, they can demand the summer months’ salary right then. It is simply pay distributed over 24 or 26 pay periods, deferred earnings.
Because of that resentment towards teachers, some people are quite happy to dismantle the education system. It doesn’t make sense but it makes some people feel powerful.
To reiterate, small classes in all communities with difficulties (and small classes for kids having difficulties in otherwise successful successful districts) would go a long way towards alleviating the inequities.
Sometimes, I feel there is an undercurrent of some people that really DON’T want ALL kids to do well. They want to be separate and “recognized”. Just go watch the movie “The Help” and digest all that it has to say. It cuts way beyond race and slavery. It points to what I believe is the true attitude of “entitlement”. I just think some don’t want to lose THAT.
Is there a cost analysis proving the money is available to have ten students per class?
I agree, ten kids per class. And I also agree to get the money to do that by bagging most of the testing. Thought expriment: Is it possible that some of those ten kid groups won’t learn much? How come? Then what?
I have no cost analyses. I am just throwing out my observations of education since 1974. I have taught in many kinds of districts and all grades 1 – 9 at one time or another. I have taught in rural, parochial, and suburband districts and had only some exposure as a sub with city schools.
As I read all of the studies, observations, deas for funding, reasons to test or not to test, unions or not, private, parochial, charter, or public, it seemst to me that the greater point is being missed. That point is WHO gets to decide about all of these things. And, most parents would prefer that their children were in smaller classes, not larger classes. When people vote against a levy, it isn’t because they approve of larger class sizes. Cutting back on teachers and increasing class sizes, adding tests that are based on concepts and styles that aren’t necessarily proven, and expecting success for all adds stress that honestly parents do not want.
Having smaller classes, well structured for success, handling specific needs and skills, in the primary grades would better prepare all student to have a better attitude about the upper grades, more confidence in their ability to learn, and alleviate that stress.
My thought is, knowing how much mone these testing companies syphon dollars out of the school budget for technology and training, I feel that money would be better spent on the smaller class sizes. I think there would be a lot lest parental objections if this took place in the schools that need it, and I feel that the schools who don’t need intervention should be allowed to proceed with doing what they already do so well.
There has been too much discussion of ways to test EVERYone because, somehow, that is the “only way” we can have “equal opportunity” to learn. I feel these approaches are quite wrong.
I would love to see high-stakes (and even low stakes, if it uses too much funds) testing go the way of the slide rule and the money put to better use. I also agree that people would need to be understanding and allow the students that need the extra support to have a small class size while others do not. However, I think there would be an outcry if that were to happen because a lot of people don’t seem to believe that they personally would benefit if more people in our society are literate and love learning.
This depends on the population you’re working with.
My basic premise is that there’s nothing wrong with our schools in the USA, as a whole. I think classes of 15-20 (even 25) are manageable so long as the basic structure of the class is sound and respectful to the teacher.
As far as classes of 10 for kids with special needs:
“Special needs” is not just one group. There are some that are going to be harder to reach than others. I’ve taught classes of eight with a paraprofessional assisting me that were unbelievably difficult. Fifth graders functioning at a kindergarten level. There were so many fights (physical and verbal) from period to period. Then the redirecting process.
I don’t know the answers…but I do know that the problems these kids face reach far, far from what classroom modifications, alone, can effectively alter in a meaningful manner.
For me, the beginning point to this is to stop bashing the teachers. Seriously. To get off of this, “We must change in order to compete” bandwagon. From there we can begin to address the larger area of poverty. To hear these people talk as though teaching higher order thinking skills is some kind of “new concept” is disgusting. It’s already in place and it’s insulting to hear otherwise.
It is of course important to keep compiling facts.
But it’s equally important to realize that fighting a Faith with facts is ultimately futile.
And the Faith in the Invisible Hand is yet another Faith that no mass of facts will ever defeat.
Jon, you are right. Facts don’t persuade people. Narratives do. What is our narrative? Profiteers using deceptive rhetoric are stealing our public schools, turning them into profit centers. Will lead to a dual system , bad for kids, bad for our nation. Follow the money.
My point was simplistic, yes. But, we need to stop making this educational process something different from what it is meant to be. If the process is not meaningful, people won’t buy into it. And, testing has not “done the trick”.
Smaller classes for children who are “behind” in any way, because of poverty, homelessness, health, or mental qualifications need to be given more one-on-one time with a teacher, not with a para that is just there to assist. The teacher needs to have enough time to plan correctly for these children and to meet their needs.
I don’t care one whit about my tax money going to help any child any place. I never did. I have always spend much of my money on the students and on school materials. Always. But, no human being can individualize well for 30 kids for years and years. Someone tossed in the number 21 or 24. Even 24 as opposed to 21 makes a difference. Teachers only have so many hours in a day.
I am not talking about all 13 years of schooling. I am talking about the early years having enough teachers to actually give the kids all that they can and to help them succeed and build background knowledge, language and math skills, spelling and writing skills, and engendering an interest in science.
Quite assuredly other kids can do much more and in small groups, they could explore topics of interest. By the time students were in 5th grade they would be ready to deal with more advanced skills. But, the first question is always money, and “studies” and data collecting and on and on … Meanwhile, the students are just kind of collateral entities in some cases. It is ridiculous.
The money is there, just allocate it to HELP the students become ready to learn, ready to cope with growing uip in a changing society. Driving them to stressful experiences is NOT encouraging them. And, we’ll have an even more two-tiered system as time goes on.
Sometimes, I don’t believe that many people actually want to give a chance to ALL students of ALL races and classes. Do they fear more competition for their own children’s futures? Do they really care about education? Or do they only care about their own families and localized communities?
I simply don’t think we are being honest with ourselves, let alone the students. We just need to grow up. We’ve had a great social experiment going on here for 250 years, and we have a lot of people with tunnel vision who want to focus on money more than people.
Thank you, Diane, for posting this.
Diane, I don’t know if these two article fit on your blog. Posted http://www.newswithviews.com/guest_opinion/guest232.htm today, titled Local School Boards Are Being Replaced, Stripped of Power.
These two article were initially published in 1993 in the Wisconsin Report, under “Politics of the Radical Center”. News recently republished an old article of mine “Our Children:The Drones”. I have just added notations to the old articles and apparently News changed the title. It is in two parts. Nothing has actually changed, just rushing ahead.
I am deeply concerned about Common Core and the methods being used. See the books “Voices” now being used in the state of Utah. I just saw two videos out of Utah, one a 36 minute one by a Mental Health Professional who was concerned about the methods being used in Common Core. It was on google. On this same web they presented a eight minute presentation out of Voices. The presentation on your blog by the math expert was excellent. The only place where I disagree with him is, we don’t want to correct Common Core, we want to rid this nation of it and return our schools to the people, teachers and parents.
“The only place where I disagree with him is, we don’t want to correct Common Core, we want to rid this nation of it and return our schools to the people, teachers and parents.”
+1 in a very big way.
There will always be poverty. This is reality. With the rapidly expanding population and limited resources it will probably expand especially with the total lack of financial controls now since Clinton signed the 1999-2000 Banking Deregulation Acts and with Obama putting this on steroids of destruction more than Bush.
You all praised Monica Ratliff. She works in one of those schools which supposedly cannot go ahead because of poverty and yet it has an 815 API score. This happens in Inglewood and Compton also in elementary schools. It is in middle and high that it goes to the trashpit. We cannot make those excuses. These children are as smart as the wealthy ones. They just need the proper help. When this is given it is proven to work. Do not make excuses. Just do it. Ratliff and the other dedicated teachers at her school have and I have seen it at other schools so what is everyone elses’ excuse?
George, your argument would be much stronger if you could point to a middle or high school with both background and outcomes that were similar to the Inglewood and Compton elementary schools you speak of (what were their names, again?).
If you can’t find ANY such schools — not even among the schools fed by the wonder schools you reference here — well, what does that mean?
It might mean that there aren’t any schools middle and high school levels whose teachers are as motivated and excellent as the ones you reference.
It might mean something else, though.
For some reason, I’m no longer getting your blog. Please advise!
I’m still not getting your blog! Can you think of a reason? AH
When that happens to me, it’s usually because I’ve been reading the blog from my phone, and my fumbly fingers accidentally toggle the tab off.
… the “Following” off …