Archives for the year of: 2013

There have been many debates since the promulgation of the Common Core standards about the appropriate balance between literature and “informational text.”

The writers of the Common Core think that American children spend too much time reading fiction, not enough time reading “informational text.”

But the New York Times reports a new study, published in the journal Science:

“It found that after reading literary fiction, as opposed to popular fiction or serious nonfiction, people performed better on tests measuring empathy, social perception and emotional intelligence — skills that come in especially handy when you are trying to read someone’s body language or gauge what they might be thinking. 

The researchers say the reason is that literary fiction often leaves more to the imagination, encouraging readers to make inferences about characters and be sensitive to emotional nuance and complexity.”

Outside experts concurred with the study’s importance.

The article says, “The study’s authors and other academic psychologists said such findings should be considered by educators designing curriculums, particularly the Common Core standards adopted by most states, which assign students more nonfiction.”

David Coleman, the architect of the Common Core, once famously said, that “[A]s you grow up in this world you realize people really don’t give a s–t about what you feel or what you think.”

The latest research says he is wrong. Reading literary fiction teaches you how to interact with people in the world, how to understand how they are reacting to you, a skill that is highly valued and necessary if you want to advance or be hired. People do care how you feel and what you think.

I received an email from an anonymous teacher in Eva Moskowitz’s charter chain called Success Academy (formerly known as Harlem Success Academy until Eva decided to move into other neighborhoods in New York City).

When everyone else in the state bombed on the Common Core tests, Eva’s schools had high scores.

I asked the teacher about what happens inside these hallowed halls. The teacher said the typical work day is 7 am-6 pm at school, plus work at home. And here are the methods:

“Focus on English Language Arts and Math. We spend the vast majority of class time teaching ELA and Math all year long. Kids have several blocks of each daily. We do not teach history or foreign languages in elementary school. We do have a good science program. They have a Specials period every day too. Aside from that, it’s reading, writing, math from 8:00AM to 5:00PM. Obviously the extended day and extended school year helps in terms of sheer volume of time.

“Put the best teachers in testing grades. During the first few months of school, teachers and assistant principals are shuffled between grades and even schools. The goal is to put the strongest teachers in grades 3 and up. So a strong Kindergarten teacher might suddenly find herself teaching fourth grade.

“Test prep starts in November: ELA test prep starts in November for two periods a week. After winter break, we have daily hourlong ELA test prep. Then we add math. By late February, we spend several hours a day on it. The last few weeks are almost all day test prep.

“Custom Test Prep Materials: I think many schools use practice workbooks from publishers like Kaplan, etc. We have people whose job it is to put together custom test prep packets based on state guidance. Much more aligned to common core and closer to the test than the published books I’ve seen. Also, teachers are putting together additional worksheets and practice based on what we see in the classroom. Huge volume of practice materials for every possible need (and we use it all, too). Also many practice tests and quizzes that copy format of the test.

“Intensive organization-wide focus on test prep: For the last months and weeks before the test, everyone from Eva on down is completely focused on test prep. Just a few examples….

“We have to give kids 1/2/3/4 scores daily. Kids are broken up into small groups based on the data and get differentiated instruction. If they get a 1, they stay back from recess or after school for extra practice.

“Thousands of dollars spent on prizes to incentivize the kids to work hard. Some teachers have expressed concern about bribing them with basketballs and other toys instead of learning for the sake of learning. The response is “prizes aren’t optional.”

“We get daily inspirational emails from principals with a countdown, anecdotes about the importance of state tests, and ever-multiplying plans for “getting kids over the finish line” (these get old fast).

“Old-fashioned hard work: Teachers are working nonstop during test prep. Literally pour 100% of yourself into it day in and day out. We work hard all year, but test prep brings the hours and workload to a new level. I think the same is true of all staff in schools and at Network.

“I think those are the main points. We do not cheat on the tests, as some critics speculate. But we do devote an extraordinary amount of resources to them each year, arguably at the expense of actual learning. The justification I’ve heard is that these tests can determine our kids’ futures and we owe it to them to make sure they’re prepared. Obviously we as an organization are judged by them as well, so we make it a priority. What I find most disturbing is that we claim that the test scores are a result of our excellent curriculum…no mention of test prep. If we have faith in the curriculum, why not allow us to teach it and skip the test prep?

Then came this email:

Ms. Ravitch,

I wrote to you earlier about Success Academy’s forced march. I apologize for remaining anonymous. I’m sure our PR team monitors all media outlets and I am really worried about losing my job.

It seems the news on the mandatory march is all over the web now, and I have an internal email to share, written by one of our directors, Jim Manly, in response to the backlash. It is copied below. To justify the march and everything else, senior management focuses on the positives and completely ignores the negatives. Eva employs the same techniques (one of her emails to teachers started, “When I walk through your classrooms, and see the incredible work that you are doing with our scholars, I just can’t understand how someone could try to oppose it. Why would anyone work against your tireless efforts to provide our scholars with a world-class education? How could science 5 days a week, and chess, and art, and sports, and raising the bar in math and reading be controversial? But it is.”)

Here is Jim Manly’s email:

Inspiration

“Why are we under attack?”

Eva asked this question at the leader-training day and it got me to thinking. Why do so many people, whose politics on many issues are described as progressive, have such a problem with charter schools? Consider the work we do each day and the families we serve who have been too long denied a realistic shot at upward social mobility in this country. Consider the failure factories that so many of us have worked in that produce absolutely abysmal results for the children they serve. Consider our results – truly the most outstanding in the state when demographic factors like income and parent education levels are considered. We are a true public policy success – proving that there is a solution to the issue of dysfunctional urban public schools that plagues our country and our educational establishment.

The honest answer to this question is clearly complicated. Part of it revolves around the very success that makes us so proud to work here. Many families who see our scholars clad in their orange and blue, in gorgeous classrooms, with high performing teachers get frustrated that this opportunity is denied their child. To them it doesn’t seem like their kids are possibly receiving the same amount of money and care that is being bestowed on our scholars. From this perspective the teacher’s union uses this apparent inequity to drum up suspicions that our schools operate beyond the public domain and are money machines created by big business. The fact is that teacher’s unions, with their huge bureaucracies and incredibly generous pension benefits, have so driven up the cost of public education that there is little room to spend on scholars and the resources they need to succeed. In addition, the job protections that have safeguarded teachers and principals alike are not as ironclad in our model and that is scary to those who fear that management will act capriciously and terminate employees without cause (in the most generous description of this fear). Politicians also fall in line because the unions have clout – they have money that is generated from mandatory dues and a motivated membership who remains politically active. Because charter schools serve such a small number of scholars it is easier to side with the majority rather than take a position that will embitter a well-funded and motivated supporter.

That leaves us at Success feeling like we work for Morgan Stanley. If you dare go on Gotham Schools’ blog you will see an outpouring of anger aimed at our work. While some of the questions are legitimate ones that we wrestle with everyday, the majority are either exaggerated examples of one scholar or teacher or completely fabricated hysteria designed to fire our opponents up. So despite our strong commitment to serve every scholar who walks through our doors, we are defined by the few who leave. Thus we cannot engage in the debate, like every public school, about the dilemma of how far we can go before we risk an entire class’ education in order to (poorly) serve a student with more severe needs who would benefit from a more appropriate setting. Unfortunately valid debates like this are lost in the noise about corporate privatization, rampant greed and other wild-eyed accusations that are the domain of the radical left and right. The rhetoric on the blogs is worthy more of conspiracy theories and tabloid journalism, not legitimate public policy debate. The sad truth is that the majority of the country simply doesn’t care enough about urban poverty and public schooling to rally around a cause that that is being fought on the fringes. So despite our incredible results we find ourselves characterized as the enemy by those with something to lose if we succeed.

The trick for our movement is to take the argument out of the fringes and in to the light of day. Success has built a better educational mousetrap that is reversing an endemic pattern of failure that haunts our urban public schools. We have shown that the staggeringly poor results of schools that serve predominantly poor children are grossly over-inflated. While there are educational issues that still require debate, the fundamental myth of destiny by tax bracket that lies at the heart of our country’s educational system has been exposed. So we must march. We need to take our case out to the mainstream and let them see that the only truly successful school in the city is going to have to pay rent. They need to understand that the way our city will reward a blue ribbon school in Harlem is by forcing it to cut its funding by 30%. We need to make people uncomfortable with the thought that under the name of progressive policy we are trying to close the only doors to opportunity that are available to children in poor communities. It would be easier if we didn’t have this burden and could just focus on teaching and learning. This work was never about our convenience however – it is about standing up for what is right. I look forward to standing with you on October 8th.”

That leaves unanswered this question: If a public school principal closed his or her school to conduct a political march, what would be the consequences?

I spoke at Stanford on September 30, and afterwards there was a panel discussion with Stanford’s Linda Darling-Hammond and Hoover Institution economist Eric Hanushek, moderated by veteran journalist Peter Shrag. There was a commentary afterward by doctoral student Channa Mae Cook, who had been a charter principal in New Orleans.

I have known all of the panelists except for Channa Mae Cook for many years. Rick Hanushek and I became good friends at the Hoover Institution, but not we are on opposite sides of the fence. He thinks the nation is in terrible trouble because of our international test scores; I don’t. From my perspective as a historian, I recall 1983 when “A Nation at Risk” issued dire predictions about the future because our international scores were so terrible. I think our biggest problem is our indifference to poverty. The nations that outperform us have reduced their child poverty rate, and it shows in the well-being of their children, as well as their test scores.

It was a good discussion, and Rick was a good sport, knowing that it was basically two against one. He held his own very well.

Linda is fabulous. She has an amazing grasp of teaching and learning. I have been urging her to learn how to tweet and to start blogging, but thus far to no effect.

Since my earlier post of Jim Horn’s thoughtful review contained an incomprehensible autocorrect error, I am reposting here. Haste makes errors. My stubborn insistence on doing everything on my own comes with a price. My apologies.

Jim Horn has been a thorn in the side of the know-nothings for many years. He’s smart, he’s tough, and he has a long memory.

In this review of “Reign of Error,” he reminds me of my own long sojourn in the wilderness of bad ideas. Now, I am happy to say, he welcomes me into the fold as an ally in the fight to preserve public education.

He generously concludes:

“It took a long time for Dr. Ravitch to break clear of the corporatist influence that has controlled the increasingly antiquarian version of education reform since the coming of Ronald Reagan in 1980. Whether her conversion in 2007 resulted from the gentle persuasion of researchers like Richard Rothstein or from the fierce prodding of researcher-advocates like Gerald Bracey and Susan Ohanian, Diane has made up for lost time since regaining her sight after being struck blind on the road out of DC. Whatever happens over the next ten or twenty years in education policy, her place is secure, just after six years of battle, as the single individual who most influenced the eventual outcome if parents and teachers and students continue to heed the call for the restoration and renewal of public schools free of high stakes tests for all children who choose a high quality and free education. Ravitch has brought the word—now it is time to act.”

Mercedes Schneider has been meticulously scouring the Gates website to see which groups are being paid to research, support, promulgate, evaluate, study, review the Common Core standards.

This is her sixth post on the subject. There will be more.

After you go through her posts, the question you might reasonably have is: Who was NOT funded to development, implement or advocate for the Common Core standards?

Should we call them the Gates Common Core standards?

Blogger David Chura, who blogs at Kids in the System here reviews Reign of Error. This is what David does and has done: “For the last 40 years I’ve worked with at-risk kids, kids “in the system”–foster care, group homes, homeless shelters; psych hospitals, drug rehab; special education, alternative high schools.”

When he picked up the book, he expected to hear more bad news.

But this book is not a lament. Instead, in lean, measured prose Diane Ravitch addresses the many erroneous claims made by the “education reform” movement and then presents a realistic and humane plan for true educational improvement.

Ravitch doesn’t, however, just say that the reformers’ claims are wrong. That’s too easy, and Ravitch refuses the easy way out. She recognizes that the public is confused. For over a decade, it has been told by the government that our children’s schools are in a dangerously sorry state. The Bush Administration’s major tactic in presenting education reform (among other issues) was to repeatedly insist that something was “fact” despite solid contrary evidence until the public believed it. Unfortunately the Obama Administration has continued this same tactic in its education agenda.

In an effort to clear up some of the public’s confusion and to address the reformers’ accusations and claims, Reign of Error examines a wide variety of topics such as who constitutes what Ravitch calls “the corporate reformers,” the validity of high-stakes testing, the expanding achievement gap, charter schools and vouchers, and local school control. For each topic the book presents an exhaustive overview of studies, graphs and statistics that demonstrates why the reformers’ statements are false, oversimplified and in some cases, downright wrong thinking.

Yet behind all the statistics and the arguments laid out point by counterpoint, demonstrating the best of academic writing—no point left unsubstantiated—is a passionate and compassionate advocate for teachers, students and our public school system. Although the tone of Ravitch’s writing is professional, it is refreshing to see her own exasperation occasionally break through her usual cool demeanor when, for example, in writing about value-added assessment of schools and teachers she comments, “Stated as politely as possible, value-added assessment is bad science. It may even be junk science.” Having worked with at risk students my whole teaching career I couldn’t help but cheer that “dukes up,” “let’s take it to the parking lot” slam, and wonder if “bad science” was as close to “bullshit” as she (or her editor) could allow.

 

Some parents in New York have devised a creative way to protest the absurdly hard Common Core tests that most kids “failed” last spring. They are sending the scores back to the State Commissioner John King.

The word is getting out. The tests were designed to create failure. Test makers know exactly how each item will “function.” Whether the question is hard, easy, or in the middle. When they assemble a test, they know what proportion of students will faIl or pass. They typically design a bell curve. Why did New York commission tests that were supposed to make the public schools look bad? The joke was that the charters performed even worse than the publics!

Send ’em back.

Better yet, plan now to opt out in the spring.

Make this your watchword: Not with my child!

Michael Krasny is one of the best book interviewers in the nation. I love to appear on his show because he asks good questions. And that brings out the best in me.

This reader thinks you should listen:

“This might not be news to Diane’s readers, but I wanted to mention that her September 30 interview on KQED’s Forum with Michael Krasny is well worth a listen. You can find it on the NPR smart phone app or listen here: http://www.kqed.org/a/forum/R201309300900

“I liked this one especially because in addition to the powerful indictment of “reform” the world needs to hear, there were some fairly nuanced questions and answers.”

David Sirota says that the big winners under Obamacare are the big insurance companies.

Read this fast, as it will be online only for 20 hours, then goes behind a paywall.

Or copy it and save it.

Here is a sample from one of our great investigative journalists:

“In this made-for-TV cartoon series, the battle over the new law has been depicted as a fight between competing small guys. Bam! Democrats insist opponents of the law don’t care about the uninsured, even though the new law will leave millions of people without health coverage (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/06/07/obamacare-leaves-millions-uninsured-heres-who-they-are/) . Ker-pow! Republicans claim that proponents of the law don’t care about struggling businesses, even though America’s for-profit employer-based system puts U.S. businesses at a competitive disadvantage (http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2009-03-12/u-dot-s-dot-health-cares-competitive-disadvantagebusinessweek-business-news-stock-market-and-financial-advice) .

“Now, as a Wiley Coyote government hurtles toward another fiscal cliff (http://billmoyers.com/2013/08/28/hold-onto-your-wallet-fiscal-cliff-2-0-is-coming-soon/) and as cable news substitutes red-versus-blue prognostication for fact-based health policy reporting, few in D.C. bother to mention that Obamacare really isn’t designed with patients, most employers or even health care in mind. It is primarily designed to further enrich one tiny handful of businesses: health insurance corporations.”

Given that D.C. has become a Petri dish for Rhee-style reform, every test score release is treated as earth-shattering.

Matthew Di Carlo of the Shanker Institute says not so fast.

Reporting on test scores is far more complicated than it seems, and the public never understands that the setting of the cut scores is a decision made by humans, not a matter of scientific weights and measures.

He writes:

“Until the general public understands that cross-sectional proficiency rate changes are truly poor measures of student progress, and that raw changes, whether cross-sectional or longitudinal, cannot tell us much about whether policies are “working,” officials and advocates on both “sides” will keep firing empirical blanks at each other, in a battle that neither can actually win.”