Nicholas Kristof is a columnist who is terrific on many issues but consistently wrong when he writes about education. As far back as 2009, I criticized Kristoff for a column in which he called American education “our greatest national shame,” citing Eric Hanushek’s since-discredited work on teachers (the best get students to produce high test scores, bad teachers don’t). Peter Greene took Kristoff to task in 2015 for being an educational tourist, making quick visits and issuing pronouncements that are wrong. I also chastised him in 2017 for endorsing for-profit schools in Africa.
Now, he has outdone all of his previous gaffes. He has discovered the amazing, miraculous, astonishing transformation of Mississippi.
Based on the impressive rise of 4th grade reading scores on NAEP, Kristof proclaims that Mississippi has lessons for the nation.
With an all-out effort over the past decade to get all children to read by the end of third grade and by extensive reliance on research and metrics, Mississippi has shown that it is possible to raise standards even in a state ranked dead last in the country in child poverty and hunger and second highest in teen births.
In the National Assessment of Educational Progress, a series of nationwide tests better known as NAEP, Mississippi has moved from near the bottom to the middle for most of the exams — and near the top when adjusted for demographics. Among just children in poverty, Mississippi fourth graders now are tied for best performers in the nation in NAEP reading tests and rank second in math.
Its success wasn’t because of smaller classes. That would cost money.
It wasn’t because of increased funding.
It wasn’t because Mississippi reduced child poverty.
It wasn’t because of desegregation.
It was because Mississippi embraced the “science of reading,” strict discipline, relentlessly focusing on test scores, and using behavioral methods that sound akin to a “no excuses” charter school.
In 2000, Mississippi received a gift of $100 million from a Mississippi-born tech entrepreneur to launch a statewide reading initiative. In 2013, the legislature invested in full-day pre-K, where children got a start on letters, numbers, and sounds.
The 2013 legislation also enacted third-grade retention. Any child who didn’t pass the third-grade reading test was retained. Most researchers think retention is a terrible, humiliating policy. But Kristof assures readers that failing students get a second chance to pass. 9% of students in third grade flunked. He considers this policy to be a great success, inspiring third graders to try harder, citing a study funded by Jeb Bush’s foundation (Florida also practices third grade retention, which lifts its fourth grade reading scores on NAEP).
Kristof writes:
“Mississippi is a huge success story and very exciting,” David Deming, a Harvard economist and education expert, told me. What’s so significant, he said, is that while Mississippi hasn’t overcome poverty or racism, it still manages to get kids to read and excel.
“You cannot use poverty as an excuse. That’s the most important lesson,” Deming added. “It’s so important, I want to shout it from the mountaintop.” What Mississippi teaches, he said, is that “we shouldn’t be giving up on children.”
The lessons: it’s okay to forget about poverty; forget about segregation; forget about funding. Rely on “the science of reading” and third-grade retention. It’s cheap to follow Mississippi’s lead, which Kristof considers an advantage.
But!
Kristof minimizes Mississippi’s eighth-grade scores on NAEP. He writes: “One challenge is that while Mississippi has made enormous gains in early grades, the improvement has been more modest in eighth-grade NAEP scores.”
That’s an understatement.
Eighth grade reading scores in Mississippi have gone up over the past two decades, but scores went up everywhere. In the latest national assessment (NAEP), 37 states had scores higher than those of Mississippi on the NAEP eighth grade reading test. Only one state (New Mexico) was lower. The other 13 were tied. In Mississippi, 25% of the state’s students in 2019 (pre-pandemic) were at or above proficient, compared to 20% in 2003. Nationally, in 2019, 29% of students were at or above proficient*.
In 2019, 42 states and jurisdictions outperformed Mississippi in percentage of students at or above proficient in eighth grade math, eight were tied, and only two scored below Mississippi. 24% were at or above proficient in 2019, a big increase over 2009 when it was 15%. But Mississippi still lags the national average, because scores were rising in other states.
Has Mississippi made progress in the past decade? Yes. Is it a model for the nation? No. When impressive fourth grade scores are followed by not-so-impressive scores in eighth grade, it suggests that the fourth grade scores were anti Oakley boosted by holding back the 9% who were the least successful readers. A neat trick but not an upfront way to measure progress.
It seems fairly obvious that the big gains in NAEP in fourth grade were fueled by the policy of holding back third graders. Jeb Bush boasted of the “Florida Miracle,” which was based on the same strategy: juice up fourth grade scores by holding back the lowest performing third graders.
In 2019, fourth graders in Florida scored 7th in reading and 5th in math on NAEP, by scale scores. However, Florida’s eighth grade scores, like those of Mississippi, are middling, compared to other states. Florida eighth graders ranked #35 in eighth grade math. In eighth grade reading, 21 states and jurisdictions ranked higher than Florida, 21 are not significantly different, and 10 were below Florida.
Florida’s eighth grade reading scores have been flat since 2009; so have its its eighth grade math scores. Florida is a state that has gamed the system. Mississippi is following its lead.
Mississippi has made progress, to be sure. But it is not a national model. Not yet.
What’s worrisome about this article is that Kristof asserts that poverty doesn’t matter (it does); funding doesn’t matter (it does); class size doesn’t matter (it does). In his account, states that want to improve test scores can do it without raising teachers’ salaries, without upgrading buildings, without spending a nickel to improve the conditions of the schools or the well-being of children. Children who are hungry, lack medical care, and are homeless or ill-housed are not likely to learn as well as those who have advantages.
Does this explain why so many rightwingers love “the science of reading”? Publishers are rolling out new programs. Education can be reformed in the cheap. Can’t expect taxpayers to foot the bill, can you?
Kristof’s fundamental error is his determination to find miracles, silver bullets, solutions that fix everything. He did it again.
The U.S. Department of Education appends this disclaimer to every NAEP publication.
*NAEP achievement levels are performance standards that describe what students should know and be able to do. Results are reported as percentages of students performing at or above three achievement levels (NAEP Basic, NAEP Proficient, andNAEP Advanced). Students performing at or above the NAEP Proficient level on NAEP assessments demonstrate solid academic performance and competency over challenging subject matter. It should be noted that the NAEP Proficient achievement level does not represent grade level proficiency as determined by other assessment standards (e.g., state or district assessments). NAEP achievement levels are to be used on a trial basis and should be interpreted and used with caution. Find out more about the NAEP reading achievement levels.
Thank you so much for writing this response to Kristof.
A friend asked for my thoughts on it and I told her it sounded like Jeb Bush’s policies had finally hit Mississippi. Anyone who has followed the discredited ed reformers over the past 20 years would be able to spot the holes in this column a mile away.
My extremely well-informed friends, who don’t follow education closely, sent me this column and called it “fascinating.” It’s easy to be fooled if you don’t have context.
Thank you. I may have to start skipping the NYT op-ed page except for Charles Blow. I’m still looking for the Tums after reading this, will likely have to head to drug store soon. What this post does not convey is the placement and space the paper gave the hard copy. You and NYCPSP have been warning us about them for years. But this whole article is a big middle finger to anyone who cares about and has a modicum of understanding of what public education is and what its ultimate purposes are. Astonishing, the depth of arrogant, self-assured ignorance. About one of the THE fundamental issues of our time. What a way to cloud over a sunny summer day.
“Kristof’s fundamental error is his determination to find miracles, silver bullets, solutions that fix everything. He did it again.” This is again indicative of the American Disease and why it is something that unknowingly affects us all. The American Disease is the fundamental need to rank and quantify — with unquantifiable methods for unquantifiable acts — everything. It is a fundamental ingredient of justifying superiority for any political conviction or ideology.
I again go to Victor Klemperer in the early 1940s who observed “National Socialism adapts Fascism, Bolshevism, Americanism, works it all into Teutonic Romanticism.” Americanism, i.e., the American Disease is essential to extreme forms of fascism. The need to be “the best,” “the most powerful,” or “the city on the hill” and justify it fundamental to American identity. And if there can be a best, if it can be quantified a la US News-style, that logically leads to the conclusion superiority leads to simple, all-encompassing solutions. And it can lead to cheerleading replacing individual political thinking. As anyone can see, this type of thinking can underscore any emotion tied to baseball, apple pie, VE Day, or even MAGA rallies. There are simple, absolute solutions to complex ideas that involve human beings is their ultimate conclusion. This is an other example of why things on a political spectrum should not be visualized as a straight line, but as a circular line where the extremes overlap. The American Disease makes it easier for them to do so. See the Idiot and the cult he has created for further proof.
” to find miracles, silver bullets, solutions that fix everything. He did it again.” This is again indicative of the American Disease and why it is something that unknowingly affects us all. The American Disease is the fundamental need to rank and quantify — with unquantifiable methods for unquantifiable acts — everything. It is a fundamental ingredient of justifying superiority for any political conviction or ideology.”
The underlying concepts of that American Disease are the xtian religious faith beliefs of so many, the main one being that people need to be “saved”, in their mind, by Jesus. That humans are fundamentally “bad”. Tis a sad theology to be based on such nonsense.
I would generally agree with you Duane, but I see religion as a symptom of the Disease, not the cause of it. Because regardless of the religious sect, motivation, or act, each is based on the notion that their way of seeing the world is superior in some, if not all, ways. Under this way of thinking, democracy and pluralism are threatening and should be resisted if not outright eliminated. Giving them voice only threatens the order we know is superior, we can quantify it! Corralling them into controllable spaces with little-to-no voice is a great compromise.
I am with Duane on this one. Christian missionaries have joined the Freedmen’s Bureau to help newly freed slaves and they have fought to preserve slavery because they feel slavery “saves” the benighted African race. This latter mentality permeates modern conservatism in a pernicious way. From modern Christianity, which I attempt in my own cumbersome way, I see fewer and fewer people willing to give of themselves for others the way my parents did.
Greg,
Wise observation.
I have always been a skeptic. Whenever I wasn’t, I lived to regret and recant.
Over the years, when I’m engaged in chit-chat with people whose native language is not English, I often ask if concepts like “best” when applied to nation, lifestyle, music, whatever, exists in their languages. They unanimously say no, and if it does, it’s an Americanism that has creeped into the language and popular consciousness. The idea of saying, for example, Beethoven is “better” than Mahler, or one style is “best” is fairly common in American English. We do it with virtually everything, the most obvious and ridiculous is have people who don’t play college football decide who is best. But this literally exists in virtually every corner of the nation, regardless of politics. And the less experience they have, the more sure they are. It’s similar to the old cliche, the top expert in a subject is the only one who really understands how little they know. Or the conceit of a “hall of fame” in anything. In other nations, anything close to that have been, until very recently, called museums and they don’t rank their contents.
This is a truly American trait, one we have given the world and of which we are all mostly unaware. Every American has a degree of it, even the most liberal person in the nation, and it is catching on slowly. It feeds nativism and its discontents worldwide. And because we pay attention to what’s being done to public education in the vain search for all-explaining “methods” through things like standardized testing, as well as all the history and consequences it brings with it, cause us to make quantitative judgments in public policy that are qualitative and not absolute.
Ah yes, the eternal search for the G.O.A.T. until he becomes and old goat…
Last word on American Disease, excerpt from biography of John Quincy Adams:
Brilliant.
Americans are being choked from a “bootstraps” mentality of individualism. It has resulted in a tendency to rate and rank everything, particularly since billionaires and corporations have stuck their collective noses into education.
That ranking system leads to large numbers of students labeled as failures year after year, ignoring their untested talents.
Greg,
I did not see the hard copy version.
I am utterly shocked, stunned that Kristof thinks that poverty is not a problem, that funding for schools is no issue. The simple answer is almost always wrong. In this case, it’s devastatingly wrong. I can see what the rightwingers love the science of reading. No new taxes. Poverty is ok.
If you get one, sit down and if you have heart and/or blood pressure medication, take it at least a half hour before opening it. Otherwise, I take no responsibility for the consequences. Perhaps I should have you sign a waver first.
Think September 11-level op-ed placement.
Kristoff and far too many across the political spectrum assume that inequity and resource scarcity are the normative unalterable condition. So, if they actually care about education outcomes for kids who are not upper middle class or wealthy they look for silver bullet and teacher blame. In addition, they fail at empathy. They may be sympathetic but they can’t imagine or identify with what it is like to live with persistent insecurity and its effect on learning. Finally they’ve succumbed to the notion that standardized test scores are a valid measure of what’s important to learn.
Kristoff is a war-mongering neocon dog with a big platform.
“Has Mississippi made progress in the past decade? Yes. Is it a model for the nation? No. When impressive fourth grade scores are followed by not-so-impressive scores in eighth grade, it suggests that the fourth grade scores were anti Oakley boosted by holding back the 9% who were the least successful readers. A neat trick but not an upfront way to measure progress.”
Simple math was not part of the Job interview at the Times. Nor obviously was intellectual honesty a requirement. Sadly it is not limited to Education. I long for the days that we can criticize the media that has never been Liberal, without playing into the hands of fascists
I need some of whatever the people who claim Mississippi is a model for anything positive that this nation should emulate are taking. There’s a reason the state with four crooked letters in its name is the birthplace of the Blues.
You got me. . . what is the reason?
OK, stay with me here. It’s a crooked place. The meaning of the word crooked is a play on one it’s connotation’s synonyms like criminal, devious, nefarious, threatening, and so on. The Blues were borne out of a way to express the misery of what it was like to be Black in Mississippi ante- and postbellum using the musical means and experience they had available to them. So I thought it would be a cynical joke to use the word “reason” in conjunction with both of those ideas.
Look, no state is going to vault itself into the international spotlight through retention or policies that require a completely retrained teaching force. A focus, in general, on early reading has however proven to be a way to improve elementary reading scores. Pundits love to grasp at straws when surveying the landscape. And Kristof nearly got certified for a run for public office. Like anyone is that situation he is convinced that political pressure is a tool that can get results. Generally it does not shake out that way. The wind cone from incremental policy on the ground just as often I’d not more often. But the politicians refuse to go away, and are convinced we can remake the teaching profession at will. Good luck. It is best to look at Kristof as a politico-wannabe than as a true pundit at this point in his career. He writes eloquently on small town woes, and I appreciate that voice. He would do well to bring that humility and small town perspective to anything he writes about education. But alas his appetite outpaces reality as it goes for almost all politico-wannabes.
My exposure to Kristoff tells me that he is in many ways a simpleton like so many who go to schools of journalism and later declare themselves experts in any field they cover.
Helping students decode is a relatively rote and routine process. I served on a team the pored over and analyzed standardized test scores in my diverse school district post NCLB. It is easier to raise poor students’ scores on a third grade test than a sixth or eighth grade test. In the first three years of schooling the emphasis is on learning to read. By the end of elementary school emphasis shifts to reading to learn. Even though poor students can master the sound-symbol relationship by third grade, they will still lag behind their peers because they have a much smaller linguistic and experiential base than middle class students. As students move into upper elementary and middle school, the cognitive load of the curriculum becomes greater, and the lack of exposure to cognitive language and general content is a much greater challenge for poor students. This lag has nothing to do with the innate ability of these poor students. They simply have a lot less exposure to language and experiences that put them at a disadvantage when curricula becomes more complex and demanding. Also, these poor students rarely have parents that can support and help them. The above is how I explain the reason for the middle school gap.
Kristoff’s opinion is an over simplification of the issue. His parents were college professors. He was obviously well-prepared for school, and he attended Harvard. He had access to health care and good nutrition. His parents likely provided him with many enriching experiences. He never lived with the relentless insecurities of food, health and shelter that poor young people face. Kristoff’s conclusions are oversimplified, IMO.
Kristoff: your wise men don’t know how it feels to be thick as a brick
Thank you, I am now enjoying a Jethro Tull ear worm..https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9bk2MrMGaA
The so-called middle school lag has nothing to do with the ability of the teachers as in happens in many school districts across the country. We need to stop accepting standardized tests as some type of faux gold standard. They should not be used to deny students opportunities to learn. Many poor students with mediocre test scores can graduate from high school, some with an academic diploma, and many graduate from college. We need to focus on educating and stop the testing obsession that is used to rate, rank and ultimately privatize public education, an essential component of democracy.
We need to get SDP to write the “Middle School Lag” with a Scott Joplin melody.
SDP
Alas!
It’s been awhile
Since SDP
To great extent
That bothers me
cx: Kristof
retired teacher,
Again, your words ring TRUE!
Thank you.
No wonder Kristoff believes its not about money…
As a geography teacher, I see this background knowledge gap all the time. Because of the relentless focus on ONLY reading and math in elementary school (because most of the feeder elementaries to my school are Title I), students have essentially NO background knowledge to use in classes in middle school. I have to teach all of the background that students used to get in elementary school. This is basic content, such as the number and names of continents and oceans. I have to teach so much basic content that I cannot dive deeper, and their writing shows it. Since I obviously teach in a poorer area, most students aren’t getting experiences to help them build background knowledge, and with “standards based grading,” very little background knowledge comes from English classes anymore. So when the students encounter tests that require and assume heavy levels of background knowledge, they are stuck. And don’t let anyone fool you: those tests are NOT about skills, they demand background knowledge and the kids just don’t have it.
I often tell a story of my son and a friend in after school care. My son, who sought every way possible to avoid homework, did well on tests with mediocre grades. His friend got great grades through his diligence and hard work, but could never pass the standardized tests. In the fifth grade, all of that student’s teachers and most of the school staff were pulling for this young man to pass. After his second chance, he left the testing with his head hanging. When asked what was wrong he said he just couldn’t get the hummingbirds. Growing up, my son frequently visited his aunt whose hummingbird feeders hung all around her house. We would just sit and watch the hummingbirds flit and joust. My son’s friend grew up in the inner city rarely getting to experience nature. It’s pretty obvious what the deficits are.
Well said. Those of us that have taught poor students understand why it is difficult for them to show their real intelligence on bubble tests. That is one reason why formative assessments are far better than summative assessments. aka, standardized tests.
Ironically, students have no appreciation of the things they are “supposed” to know. Often they end up hating them because all the poetry (figuratively speaking) has been taken out to achieve meaningless metrics.
Was just a matter of time:
https://crooksandliars.com/2023/06/bibles-removed-utah-school-district
That’s in the district in which I teach, Greg, and for a good reason: it was to protest the other books being banned. Just this afternoon, a challenge was filed for The Book of Mormon.
The Broadway play “The Book of Mormon” is blasphemous and hilarious.
TOW, wonderful and creative.
“Also, these poor students rarely have parents that can support and help them.”
NO! NO! NO!!
I have to thoroughly disagree with that thought. Having taught for nine years in a rural poverty district there wasn’t a lack of support and help from the parents but rather a lack of outside of school experiences that hinder a fuller development of the student. When parents are working multiple menial paying jobs, it’s almost impossible to provide those experiences that middle class and wealthy parents can provide. Lack of time and $$ make it impossible to do so.
I agree that most poor parents care deeply about their children, but many of them do not have enough education or resources to help their children in school. For example, when my ELLs were assigned making a diorama for a classroom project, I had to give these children a shoebox, construction paper and magazines to cut out pictures because these students had none of these ordinary items at home. Some of my foreign parents had very little education. I even had a few parents that signed their name with an X. Even ignoring the language differences, these parents could do little to help their children with academics. That’s why we had a homework center for them. I was not trying to imply that poor parents do not care about their children. In fact, my experience is the opposite. These parents care a great deal.
when I read this yesterday I assumed it would find its way to this blog. What is obvious is that the New York Times and other corporate media outlets have bought into the Holy Grail of the “Science of Reading.” What we should learn is that our ongoing search for magic solutions always result in failure or disappointment. Perhaps the most eye opening aspect of this option piece was the response in the comments section (Yes, I know. Avoid the comment section). The vast majority of responses were basically hailing this a some kind of miracle. Too many are drinking the cool aid which makes deeper research ineffective when challenging the perspective. Another thing that strikes me, is that just like Hanford, Kristoff reveals his bias against the teacher as professional by assuming that being led by the nose from class to class by those who would benefit from his narrative makes him an expert on a very complex topic. Almost an assumption that teaching students to read isn’t that hard after all. I must confess that I commented in the New York Times and here was my response:
“Phonics is important, but it is only a piece of the reading continuum. What most testing reveals is that increased fluency is achievable, but comprehension is a much tougher task. You cite that Mississippi has poorer results with the eighth grade NAEP. This is also true in Florida. Many cite the third grade retention policy as the culprit. Third grade retention results in a fourth grade with higher achieving students. Once this washes out by 8th grade, positive results are harder to come by. Don’t get me wrong. Mississippi’s efforts are laudable. I was an elementary principal in Alabama when they began to get notice. Having leaders who are about lifting up rather than seeking blame makes a difference. You mention that Mississippi has done all of this without reducing class size, yet why do independent schools use small class size as a recruiting tool? You say funding might not be so important, then why are wealthy families willing to spend $30,000 to send their kids to schools that almost guarantee access to college and well paid employment? It’s obvious that the New York Times has bought into what they call the “science of reading.” But reading is just the ground floor. The next step is to provide learning environments that encourage student inquiry through experience. When the Federal government and State governments are willing to invest in this we will truly see positive improvements in opportunity.”
Seems like a good time for a sociology/civics lesson:
Spot on!
Can’t turn it on, Greg.
Try this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2c-X8HiBng&t=8s
You are totally correct. Comprehension is far more complex than phonics. Comprehension depends on an individual’s experience and linguistic base. Poor students without the advantages of a middle class background often score lower on standardized tests.
Based on personal experience, I totally agree. I taught myself how to read German, primarily through Asterix & Obelix comics and reading them over and over again. Having had a dodgy education in German, I still can’t write well in German. But reading comprehension or understanding people has never been a problem. Perhaps another reason I’m skeptical of the “science” of reading.
“What we should learn is that our ongoing search for magic solutions always result in failure or disappointment.”
Speaking of “magic solutions”. . . AI (fake smarts) is one of the current favorites. Here is an example of what AI (fs) can do:
Tennessee has just followed suit (Jeb Bush played this card). Soon the most regressive political machine in history will claim credit.
Color me non-plussed
I would, but I can’t find it on the Crayola color chart.
http://www.jennyscrayoncollection.com/2017/10/complete-list-of-current-crayola-crayon.html
Yeah, I don’t recall that color in the box of 64. LOL!
I just received an email from North Carolina, linked to a radio station. Among the featured stories was Kristof’s “message to America and North Carolina.”
When taken alone, maybe the test scores had, improved, but, compared to the, national average, it doesn’t, look like much, but, that is, based off of how those, heads of education departments want to, view the test scores, I think, first, the state need to, compate the scores to the previous years, and then, between school districts, and then, state wide, finally, to the, regional and national, averages, to get a, big picture of how much the ISDs had, improved or, hadn’t, then, make the policies in the various, subjects, accordingly. And, using the scores of one standardized testing, still does show a thing, because there are no, comparison, basis…
This is one of the problems with the high stakes regime. Any level of improvement is trumpeted as triumph by those who benefit economically or politically. From what I can tell our level of success with students in poverty over these last forty years has been minimal at best. While we continue to make little progress with student success we refuse to change course and implement strategies that enhance our teacher force and provide greater opportunity. The story of King Arthur’s search for the Holy Grail is meant to be a cautionary tale. Hyper focus on one thing brings destruction and disappointment. It turns out that the grail he sought was not the key to the Kingdom of Heaven after all.
The Stones did it better: 🫣
You can’t always get what you want but sometimes you can have Sympathy for the Devil?
Submission, not sympathy! I’ll admit to having sympathy every now and then, but would never submit. Where would the world be without some good Schadenfreude?
We did longitudinal studies of our scores over several years. In aggregate what we discovered was that scores varied within a few points because the scores correlate to the socioeconomic status of the students.
We should take high stakes off standardized testing or totally eliminate them. We need to put the emphasis on providing students with a rich, comprehensive educational experience. Grades in school are a better predictor of future endeavors than test scores. Unfortunately, testing has become another ‘industrial complex’ rife with lobbyists that want to keep funds flowing in their direction.
In standardized testing the result is always ‘the bell shaped curve’ regardless of interventions, and few poor students may defy their ranking, but most will not.
The bell curve never closes.
Standardized tests are always normed on a bell curve. The bell curve never closes. The bell curve produces gaps.
And people like Hanford and Kristoff get stuck in their preferred narrative while limiting opportunities to improve.
The bell curve never closes
It only justifies poses
Fairness, merit, bootstraps!
Policy with the order of hockey
But it’s really just jabberwocky
Apologies to SDP. This literally jumped into my brain as I read the comment and I will resist the urge in the future.
I miss SDP.
Not sure why he or she disappeared.
Hope they return soon.
Eliminate grades too.
I recently read longitudinal study on the middle school achievement gap. The results were “disheartening.” While some districts could elevate math scores somewhat, the language based subjects were harder to address for all the reasons I mentioned above. Our preoccupation with test scores is holding us back from providing young people with tools that a comprehensive education would provide. We need to focus on learning, not testing.
Kristof gets to not only sit around and pontificate on topics about which he knows nothing, but also get paid for it.
Surely that must beat working.
Great observation that actually applies to all of the deformers that have failed to deliver on substantive changes to most poor students. Cherry picking is not a solution to poverty.
Poor people need more money. The only way to make that change is to raise wages which billionaires and corporations pay politicians to keep low.
Oh, but they seem so proud of themselves for their altruism…
All I know is my math colleague would say, “You want numbers? How do you want them to look?” I remember we always had to “look at the data.” We analyzed it for days. I said, “I know they improved 10 percent, but overall the kids are still far below proficient. According to the data, the majority of students still struggle with reading (43%).” I was frowned upon. Also, the local Charter school “got great numbers” through some program. I researched the program and all it did was focus on “test taking.” As my colleague said, “Hey, if you make change all day and then again and again, you are going to get pretty good at making change.” She also went on to say that once the demographics changed (both parents at home; college educated, having an ‘advantage’) the tests scores would show a dramatic rise (and then the “suits” would think — See that program worked — glad we forced them all to use it. Blah, blah, blah, crap. At my school the kids didn’t know what the directions said and who cared? Meanwhile in Carmel, CA, they were saying “What test?” Get it? My kids had just spent the morning making lunch for papa, walking their siblings to school, and wondering if they would have heat. And then if they would have the energy to translate in court. So a test was the least of their concerns.
If you are beginning from a very low number, you can show dramatic gains, yet still be low-performing.
Diane — I get it. I just got tired of “everything about testing” and not about the “whole child.” I mentioned that once and got my head chewed off. I read transcripts for a living and the kids would tell me, “I really really tried this time and got a 59% — I still failed. I was happier not trying and still failing. One student aced exams, but failed Biology due to he didn’t do homework. Luckily, I always did what was best for the child. Our kids were far, far, below basic. And they felt it. It made them feel like “caca” because not many would find their diamonds. I did and exploited them.
Good for you, Rick!
Diane, the NAEP analysis here is incomplete and potentially very misleading.
For one thing, you can’t compare NAEP scores across states without considering the sometimes radically different student demographics now found across the nation.
I suggest reading the comments on Page 32 in the 2009 NAEP Science Report Card, which contain extra information about doing cross-jurisdiction comparisons of NAEP scores.
You also must consider the statistical sampling errors present in all NAEP scores that can, and often do, turn apparent small “wins” into just “ties.” The NAEP Data Explorer web tool has a handy set of statistical significance tools to see if differences are statistically significant, but I don’t see many people using these tools.
An additional problem with NAEP is that the US Department of Agriculture’s adoption of the Community Eligibility Program (CEP) for free and reduced cost school lunches has rendered use of lunch eligibility data in NAEP after around 2013 highly problematic.
Under the CEP, if 40% of the students in a school meet eligibility criteria, then the entire enrollment in that school can be eligible for school lunches. Even the children of wealthy families can thus show as lunch eligible.
In some states such as Kentucky, only true, needs-based eligibility continues to be reported in the NAEP data, but that isn’t universally true. My questions to NCES about this some time ago revealed the NAEP data isn’t identified by whether CEP or true needs based eligibility is being reported. Essentially, NCES has no idea what rules each state uses to report lunch eligibility for their NAEP student samples.
One more thought. Mississippi’s improvement on NAEP didn’t show up in Grade 4 Reading until 2019. Those students had not yet reached Grade 8 as of the 2022 NAEP, so maybe good results simply have not had enough time to bubble up to the higher grades. Of course, COVID now messes up a lot of things, and this might be an area that could be impacted for some time yet to come.
In any event, I have looked at the Mississippi situation a bit, and I think there was notable, but far from complete, progress — progress good enough that we need to pay attention, not out of hand discount.
Yet NAEP is the gold standard for those who want students sitting at their desk being taught by their laptop. One of the undergraduate psychology classes I work to forget is Test and Measurements, yet as I worked in this testing maelstrom it struck me that most, if not all, of our standardized tests ignored the rules for accurate assessment. I prefer recess.
Richard,
I did not dismiss Mississippi’s test score gains out of hand. I purposely used 2019 scores to avoid scores deflated by the pandemic in 2032. The state’s scores are unquestionably higher in fourth grade. Don’t you think that scores increase when you remove the 9% with the lowest scores?
Do you agree with Kristoff that American education can be fixed without doing anything about poverty, class size, or teachers’ salaries? If the “science of reading” is a cure-all, Texas should be the highest scoring state in the nation. George W. Bush and Reid Lyon led the charge for SOR and the National Readibg panel over two decades ago, and Texas has long been devoted to that approach.
Diane:
“Don’t you think that scores increase when you remove the 9% with the lowest scores?”
I would agree — if that was what happened.
In fact, a similar exclusion change is why I raised an issue with Kentucky’s 1998 NAEP Grade 4 Reading results, because when those scores were released in 1999 the accompanying data showed 10% of the raw sample NAEP wanted to test in Kentucky was excluded due to learning disabilities. In 1994, only 4% of the raw sample was excluded for the same reason. I think you were on NAGB at the time and might recall that.
But, I question if the MS situation is anything close to the dimensions of the Kentucky NAEP case from 1998.
Looking at Mississippi DOE reported enrollment figures, in 2018 the third-grade enrollment was 37,946. In 2019, the fourth-grade enrollment was 37,266, a drop of only 680 students, or about 1.8%, nowhere near the 9% figure you cite.
In fact, the Grade 3 to Grade 4 drop from 2018 to 2019 was slightly lower than the Grade 3 to Grade 4 drop from 2013 to 2014, before the Mississippi reforms really got going.
Others have examined the modal age data of NAEP participants in Mississippi and also find that there were no notable differences after the reform began.
In fact, a Fordham report that came out shortly after the 2019 NAEP results released, “Mississippi rising? A partial explanation for its NAEP improvement is that it holds students back,” also raised the retention issue. But, in August 2022 a disclaimer got added to that Fordham report that says in part, “Analysis of NAEP demographic data shows that retaining students was in fact not a major contributor to Mississippi’s improved fourth grade NAEP results in the last few years—at least not the way this article suggested.”
So, the Grade 3 retention issue doesn’t seem like much of an issue.
Regarding doing something about poverty, you should know that some high-poverty school systems in Kentucky’s poor Appalachian region have produced some eye-catching 3rd grade reading results despite poverty. This report will fill you in: https://bit.ly/3G2pMwA
Perhaps you have other information.
One other quick question. Have you ever had a chance to talk to Dr. Carey Wright, the former Superintendent of Education when the Mississippi reforms were getting under way. If so, what did you think?
I have not talked to Dr. Carey Wright.
I have reviewed standardized test scores on NAEP, state tests, and international tests. On all of them, family income accurately predicts which kids are at the top and which are at the bottom. We have dramatic income inequality in this country. To claim, as Kristof does, that poverty doesn’t matter and that spending on education doesn’t matter, is the height of irresponsibility or stupidity.
Do you think that child hunger and lack of medical care and homelessness don’t matter?
If they don’t, then test scores don’t matter.
Did you read the article by Sam Chaltain about the success of Finland? The Finns think child well-being matters more than test scores. I agree with them.
Again, I encourage you to read this: https://bit.ly/3G2pMwA
Using programs I think many in your blog would love to ignore, high-poverty schools are starting to overcome reading problems in my state.
Also, recall that correlation does not establish causation. Other factors, suich as teacher preparation, might be more important.
By the way, I ran some statistical significance tests for Mississippi out with the NAEP Data Explorer. In 2013, the year Mississippi passed its reform legislation, the state overall scored statistically significantly lower than 46 other states for NAEP Grade 4 Reading for all students. By 2019, pre-COVID, only 10 states scored statistically significantly higher. In post-COVID 2022, just 6 states scored statistically significantly higher than Mississippi for all students averaged together.
For white students only, in 2013 a total of 40 states statistically significantly outscored Mississippi. In 2019, for whites, only 5 states scored statistically significantly higher, and in 2022 it was just 2 states.
For Black students only, the numbers of states outscoring Mississippi by statistically significant amounts were 20, 0 and 0 for the same three years.
Thoughts?
Richard,
I wrote that Mississippi made reading gains in both grades, more in 4th grade than in 8th grade. The 4th grade gains are elevated by the state’s third grade retention policy. You say no one was retained under the retention policy. Kristof said 9% of low-scoring third graders were retained. What’s the point of a retention policy if no one is retained? None at all. That’s why I continue to believe that Kristof was correct, not you. If 9% of the kids were held back, the fourth grade scores look better. Same story in Florida.
Diane, I think a major reason for the retention policy is to motivate to get instruction better so few need to be retained.
And, the Grade 3 and Grade 4 data I sent earlier indicates that up to 2019 that motivation seems to have worked.
It’s a real shame that COVID messed everything up thereafter.
In any event, promoting kids who can’t read to Grade 4 seems really problematic given that the curriculum then is based around the assumption that students can read to learn. Non-readers promoted into that are going to have some real problems.
However, I do agree that holding kids back without giving them really good remedial help isn’t worthwhile, either. The key in Mississippi is that they are at least trying to get that K to 3 instruction better, remedial help included.
BTW, the Appalachian school systems I also mentioned earlier do have remedial programs, too. No one program works for all.
The impact of retention on a child is so much greater than the ability to take a test. I was retained voluntarily by my parents in second grade and my later success was determined by the support I got from my family and the stimulating environment that was around me. I had a school psychologist who I worked with who was adamantly against retention because of how it impacted students she followed and what the stat showed about those students and drop-out data. Her argument was that if we applied support mechanisms that allowed these students to move with their peers the likelihood of personal success would grow. Alas, the intelligentsia in education policy thinks it good to ignore the relational impact necessary for children to thrive.
Paul, it’s not the intelligentsia in education policy who ignore the negative impact of retention on children. It’s done at the command of politicians who want to juke the stats to show “progress.” New York State manipulated its test scores in 2009 to create the “New York Miracle,” which helped Bloomberg win re-election. After Bloomberg was re-elected, the state commissioned a study by Daniel Koretz and Jennifer Jennings, both outstanding academics, that showed that the tests were flawed, and the scores were inflated. The next year’s scores dropped significantly.
I should have been more specific than intelligentsia, what I meant were the policy makers who colluded with people like Bloomberg to paint a portrait that served their interests.
After Bloomberg and Klein were gone, I met the person in charge of NYC testing data at a social event. She was very uncomfortable meeting me. She avoided me. I had heard she was a very decent person. She could not talk about the things she knew.
The superintendent in Charlotte at the time was soon hired by Klein to work on Rupert Murdochs tablet plan for education. It was a colossal failure. I think education has the same problem many in the AI industry are worried about. Too many unethical executives just out to make a buck while hurting the general public.
“(if) we applied support mechanisms that allowed these students to move with their peers the likelihood of personal success would grow.”
I agree, but the overwhelming fact is that doesn’t happen very often, so something different is needed.
Some high schools near me got upset about the poor reading skills of incoming students and set up their own remedial programs to do something about it. They were advancing students on the order of 5 grade levels or more with just one year of the program.
But, this didn’t catch on elsewhere, and I don’t think the program is still running even in those schools. I’ve certainly not heard anything recent about it.
My point is the we should invest in such support. I would also disagree that this does not happen very often. It does in schools that have the resources to do this. There are public schools all over the country where this happens. Why, because they have resources that come with privilege. Putting students who don’t have resources at a small group table using decoding strategies for an hour at a time does not address the deficits that come with poverty. Contrary to popular opinion, poor kids don’t lack intellect, they are missing the stimuli that comes with an engaging environment. Focusing on reading at five won’t improve their circumstances. Research clearly points out that kids who come to kindergarten behind In prior knowledge get further behind because we hyper focus on fluency over experience. Contemporary brain research tells us this. Provide resources in the form of wrap around services for families, support for staff with significant autonomy, and facilities that match those with prominent PTAs and reading will flourish.
What troubles me is that Kristoff reported 9% as if that were insignificant.
Nicholas Kristoff said that 9% of the 3rd graders were not advanced to fourth grade. That means the lowest performing students in 3rd grade were not tested in fourth grade.
Regardless of where the 9% figure came from; it doesn’t look right.
Check the enrollment data I sent you.
I believe Kristoff. Why would he invent the number 9%? Clearly he got it from state officials.
Then how do you explain the Grade 3 to Grade 4 data I mentioned earlier.
Actually, retention and dropout data has always been kind of suspect, so there might be an issue with that.
Also, I find it curious that most participating in this discussion are really upset with the reporter’s story but somehow all want to accept his 9% figure without question.
Yes, I am outraged that Kristof says poverty doesn’t matter. And incredulous that he’s fine with underfunded schools.
But I have no reason to doubt his statement that 9% of third-graders were retained. What’s the point of having a 3rd grade retention program if no one is retained.
By the way, the overwhelming majority of scholars who have studied3rd grade retention say it is harmful to children. Being left behind their peers is an enormous blow. I was at a meeting of the National Association of school Psychologists when their president said that being left back is a tremendous blow to children’s self-image and leads to higher dropout rates. The only things worse, to a child, he said, was the death of a parent or going blind.
We’re not upset about the reporters story. We are frustrated by the ongoing application of failed instructional policy that is applied again and again while ignoring that the longitudinal data shows us that these policies do not work. If a rocket explodes on the launching pad because a particular O ring is not appropriately sealing the fuel tank, rocket engineers don’t continue to use the same O ring getting the same failed result. So why do we apply testing instruments, technology, and failed scripted instructional practices that have not worked for 30 years (Yes, despite the claims of Emily Hanford, we have been using the strategies she lauds for decades)? Mississippi has been underfunding their schools for decades. It’s great that they are making more progress now. My argument is that applauding gains for kids who remain behind their peers nationally isn’t good enough and that parsing discrete data is not going to help them catch up. The problems that continue to burden public schools such as teacher shortages and inadequate facilities remain while we pretend that minimal reading skills is a triumph. Einstein’s definition of insanity clearly articulates the inane data farming that simply has us running around in circles.
Agreement and Dissent: I agree that what has been used for the past multiple decades for reading instruction hasn’t worked. Just look at the way people misinterpret what others write in social media for some examples.
But, I don’t think what Hanford pushes has been in use very widely in the past 3 decades. A lot of teachers who get reinstructed on basic reading approaches often are upset that they never were previously exposed to this information, not in college, or in PD, either.
Also, averaged across all students, as of the 2022 NAEP, only 6 states statistically significantly outscored Mississippi on Grade 4 Reading.
For just white students, only 2 states scored statistically significantly higher than Mississippi while for Black students no other state scored statistically significantly higher.
It doesn’t look like Mississippi’s fourth graders are behind their peers, though they certainly were before their 2013 reform act was passed. In 2011 for all students 44 states scored statistically significantly higher than Mississippi. For white students, the number was 42 states scoring higher, and for Blacks it was 18 out of 45 with results scoring statistically significantly higher.
I served as a elementary school principal in two different districts and states, they were all about decoding and phonemic awareness. The more I read about other districts I see that these practices have been in place all over the country since at least NCLB. Even if this was not universal, we have enough data to show us that these efforts have not moved the dial in a meaningful way. Texas has been using SOR principals for quite some time. In other words, we have many ways to teach reading and none of them, including
SoR, have anywhere near universal success. There is no magic bullet. Teaching children who struggle with reading requires instructional hard work and persistence with a willingness to find the method that works best for a particular child. When I started to listen to Emily Hanford’s podcast it struck me as odd that she was talking about reading strategies that I have not encountered since the 1990s. The real difficulty I experienced in determining success for my students came as a result of the fact that my district was constantly changing our assessment tools and the companies who produced them. In one district we gave two different sets of tests on top of the state mandated assessment. Therefore, I am highly skeptical of any longitudinal data when justifying particular instructional practices.
Diane: “Nicholas Kristoff said that 9% of the 3rd graders were not advanced to fourth grade. That means the lowest performing students in 3rd grade were not tested in fourth grade.”
Presumably, the great majority of those who were retained for an additional year of 3rd grade then advanced to 4th grade and were indeed tested (with scores enhanced by the additional learning time).
Richard alluded to the Fordham August 2022 update…. that included:
“The average age of Mississippi’s fourth grade test-takers was almost identical in 2002 and 2017; increased retention should have raised the age. That suggests that Mississippi has long had a higher retention rate than most states, perhaps making its reading retention policy less controversial than in other places.”
https://fordhaminstitute.org/national/commentary/mississippi-rising-partial-explanation-its-naep-improvement-it-holds-students
I don’t typically look to rightwing think tanks for scholarship, nor to studies funded by Republican politicians with a conflict of interest.
When Kristof said that 9% we’re retained in 4th grade, that means that 9% of the lowest performing students did not get promoted to fourth grade and were not tested as fourth graders.
The effect of retaining the lowest performers is to elevate the scores of the fourth grade.
It’s not that complicated.
Diane: “When Kristof said that 9% we’re retained in 4th grade, that means that 9% of the lowest performing students did not get promoted to fourth grade and were not tested as fourth graders.”
You meant to say “retained in 3rd grade”. But that normally alludes to a single year retention not to being kept in 3rd grade for the rest of their lives or until they drop out of school… They progress to 4th grade and are among those tested. Apparently Mississippi retention rates have been very high both before and after the changes in reading instruction. And therefore improvements in reading skill seems neither a result of those less proficient not being tested in 4th grade (they are tested when they get there), nor as a result of their spending longer in grades 1-3, but most likely largely due to increased, and improved, reading instruction (plus more test prep). Right?
I don’t think Kristof was quite as dismissive of additional funding, carefully well spent, as you suggest.
He highlighted the gift of “$100 million to create a reading institute in Jackson that has proved very influential.”
and wrote:
“The 2013 legislative package also invested in pre-K programs, targeting low-income areas. Mississippi made the calculated decision to offer high-quality full-day programs, with qualified teachers paid at the same rate as elementary school staff members, rather than offer a second-rate program to more children
and:
“Mississippi is also striking for what it didn’t do. For example, it didn’t reduce class sizes: Officials weighed the evidence and concluded that while smaller classes would improve outcomes, spending the money on teacher coaching and student tutoring would help even more.”
Kristof writes that Mississippi did nothing to alleviate poverty or child hunger.
“Mississippi has shown that it is possible to raise standards even in a state ranked dead last in the country in child poverty and hunger and second highest in teen births…. Mississippi has achieved its gains despite ranking 46th in spending per pupil in grades K-12. Its low price tag is one reason Mississippi’s strategy might be replicable in other states.”
What does this say? Spending on education doesn’t matter. Reducing poverty doesn’t matter. A state can be one of the lowest spending in the nation and still get high test scores, defying the fact that high-scoring states like Massachusetts (where you live) consistently rank at the top of NAEP reading tests.
The message: forget raising school funding, forget child poverty and hunger.
If you didn’t read the words he wrote, I can’t help you.
Diane: “What does this say? Spending on education doesn’t matter. Reducing poverty doesn’t matter.”
No, neither of those necessarily followed from what Kristof wrote, which was not inconsistent with what what we find here:
“The Mississippi Legislature first began dedicating state funding to pre-kindergarten programs in 2013 through the Early Learning Collaborative Act. Under this act, state funds are provided to local communities to establish, expand, support, and facilitate the implementation of high quality early childhood education through collaborations between school districts and public and private childcare centers. In the 2022 Legislative Session, $24-million was appropriated for Early Learning Collaboratives. Currently, 30 collaboratives are serving approximately 6,000 children (16% of Mississippi’s four-year-olds). Also in the 2022 Legislative Session, new funding of $20-million was appropriated for public school pre-k programs that are not part of collaboratives and $1.5-million was appropriated for early learning coaches.”
[…]
“The Legislature has provided $15-million annually to the Mississippi Department of Education to employ reading coaches who work part-time in the lowest performing schools and to provide literacy training to teachers in kindergarten through grade three, both of which have been instrumental in improving reading scores. Additional funding is needed to provide literacy coaches in all schools.”
Click to access Fast_Facts_Ed_2022.pdf
Incidentally, one hypothesis for why MS NAEP 4th grade reading scores have improved more rapidly than the state’s NAEP 8th grade scores is that the 4th grade reading test more accurately measures useful reading capacity than the 8th grade test.
Another is that the 4th grade test is more readily influenced by test prep.
There are other plausible possibilities, but taking 5 question pop quizzes for reading at https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/nqt/
may be of interest to some here…
p.s. Can’t help mentioning that Aissatou who gave a H.S. salutarian address in this neighborhood earlier today, and will be the first from her family to attend college, said: “Success is not measured by our wealth or status but by the impact we have on the world around us.” Her good friend, Keiana, who was valedictorian, aims to become a teacher.
Stephen,
This is a ridiculous discussion and I won’t continue it.
Kristof said that Mississippi proves that poverty doesn’t matter.
“Mississippi has shown that it is possible to raise standards even in a state ranked dead last in the country in child poverty and hunger and second highest in teen births.”
Miss. ranks among the lowest states in funding its schools. Either next to last or fifth from last.
He said the big selling point of the Miss approach is it costs so little
From Kristof:
“Mississippi is a huge success story and very exciting,” David Deming, a Harvard economist and education expert, told me. What’s so significant, he said, is that while Mississippi hasn’t overcome poverty or racism, it still manages to get kids to read and excel.
“You cannot use poverty as an excuse. That’s the most important lesson,” Deming added. “It’s so important, I want to shout it from the mountaintop.” What Mississippi teaches, he said, is that “we shouldn’t be giving up on children.”
The revolution here in Mississippi is incomplete, and race gaps persist, but it’s thrilling to see the excitement and pride bubbling in the halls of de facto segregated Black schools in some of the nation’s poorest communities.
Mississippi has achieved its gains despite ranking 46th in spending per pupil in grades K-12. Its low price tag is one reason Mississippi’s strategy might be replicable in other states.
Kristoff is notably known for seeing low hanging fruit as triumphant. He frequently champions the world wide reduction in “extreme poverty”, seen as $1 per day, as a dramatic win for humanity while industrialized and autocratic nations increase the rolls of billionaires almost exponentially. Yes, this is a good step for Mississippi, and I hope the reading trend continues, but, as with our nationwide abuse of data, this is only a marginal change in reading proficiency with challenging statistical gymnastics avoiding the macro elephant in the room regarding comprehension that really drives student success. As a practitioner, I was always upset by the selective abuse of data as justification of education policy. What this really says about student reading is that we are unwilling to acknowledge that a real move in student success requires an instructional imagination that brings a variety of proven resources and strategies to the classroom to serve all students. SoR might bring marginal improvement, although that assertion is questionable when we take a deep dive into the quality of assessment data, but if we were really about improving outcomes, we would open our minds to what teachers actually face and take it head on. If my conservative friends really want to “Make America Great Again”, then its time to employ the American hutzpah that decides we can do this.
Your various comments and analyses of data are useless, particularly coming from a free-market think tank that wants government out of education.
Actually, my remarks and analysis are quite relevant. Tell me where I am wrong and I will consider that, but blanket dismissal only undermines your credibility, not mine. I hope our students are getting better instruction than that.
And, the Bluegrass Institute is interested in better public education systems, too. We want all options to be solid choices, not just some. You know nothing about us.
What I gather from all of your data and all of the data I have had to parse over the past 30 years an educator is that it really says very little. Think tanks were making the same sort of arguments about the “Texas Miracle” under George Bush and the “New York Miracle” under Bloomberg until, wait a minute, the data was deemed inaccurate albeit manuipulated. There was a popular book going around about 15 years ago called “90 for 90” where it was later revealed that most of the schools cited for 90% pass rates were fudging the numbers and keeping low scoring students from taking the tests. My point is this: None of the gains reported by Kristoff or you are adequate. You rely on testing instruments that are woefully deficient for the task of determining overall student progress. Reading scores do not reveal student readiness for content, college, or the work place. Since this statistical mania has been employed, scores have not moved significantly up or down. The way we tried to make the numbers look better in North Carolina was with a growth algorithm that was manipulated to create a positive. When, as an elementary school principal, I called the state department to get a better understanding of the algorithm I was told that was not public information. When I was in Alabama we changed our state testing provider 4 times in 8 years. therefore none of the data is dependable or particularly accurate. What NAEP actually shows us is that in the 30+ years of application we haven’t moved the dial with all of this statistical harangue. Don’t you think it is time to actually fund schools, support teachers, and establish programs to help young families instead of blaming the public schools for failed policies that come from the likes of corporate disrupters who have no idea how to even get to the nearest public school?
Lloyd’s (that’s me) formula for fixing k-12 public education.
FIRST: Do not pay attention to Nicholas Kristof and others that think like him when it comes to fixing public education. That list includes Bill Gates, the WalMart Walton family, ALEC, et al.
SECOND: Cold turkey stop all standardized testing of students. The only tests allowed would be teacher made tests that only teachers see and are never used for grading purposes.
THIRD: Support only the best teacher training programs. For instance, teacher training programs similar or the same as urban residencies.
“The UTRU model, residents train as part of a group, creating a collaborative learning community. The residency lasts about a year, during which time residents remain in the classroom with their mentors, gradually moving from an observational role to a lead teaching role.”
FOURTH: Since the United States isn’t Finland where most if not all parents teach their children to read starting at an early age so they are reading at or above grade level with then start attending public school at 7, the United States must fund early childhood education programs for children living in poverty but those programs must be open to all parents at all economic levels, starting ages 3 and 4,
FIFTH: All K-12 public schools are managed by teachers from the bottom up. Administrators are office managers that also offer support so teachers may teach. Administrators do not tell teachers how to teach.
SIXTH: Teams of teachers at each k-12 public school do the hiring. Not administrators. Still, an administer might be allowed on the teacher team that does the hiring as long as that administer cannot overrule what the teachers decide. The teacher teams interview teachers applying for jobs and decide who they hire. After hiring a new teacher, who is assigned to a support team of veteran teachers, the new teachers are monitored and supported for the first two to three years.
SEVENTH: Public dollars only go to real transparent public schools held accountable by legislation and/or laws as the state and federal level.
I could keep on, but I have other stuff I want to get done today.
RE: Your fifth and sixth suggestions
Kentucky started doing this decades ago with its school council law. Teachers were in charge of hiring — even the principal — and even had final say over curriculum to be used in their school.
It didn’t work out so well.
You need to check the history.
If I may ask? What work have you done in K-12 public schools?
I’ve been studying Kentucky’s education reform for just under 3 decades.
If I may ask, again? What work have you done in K-12 public schools?
To be fair, I taught Spanish-all levels for 21 years in public high schools. I’ve been reading, researching and analyzing education issues for three decades.
None, Duane. He’s a data dude from a free-market “think” tank.
As a principal, I insisted on interview teams of teachers and the vast majority of interviews resulted in agreement on the best candidates. It always provided insights that helped us think about fit and qualifications. This practice also gave the new hires a leg up getting on board and developing professional relationships. So yes, teachers should have a significant say in the hiring of colleagues.
Abundant research shows that “forced”improvement in early grades yields unambiguous decline in later grades. Most of your readers know the evidence.
And . . . It’s because the cognitive processes that yield long-term progress – play, active learning, curiosity, passion, freedom, individuality – are neglected and extinguished by Mississippi-style nonsense.
!
Time to remind all that any discussions about standardized test scores are, as Wilson states “vain and illusory” or as I state “mental masturbation.” Using invalid test scores can only result in invalid conclusions. Garbage in, garbage out or crap in crap out.
The last 20 years of the standards and testing malpractice regime has wreaked havoc in the teaching and learning process and has harmed ALL students through a paucity of instruction.
Putting Nicholas Kristof on Education up there alongside The Poetry of Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin: Life Coach
There’s an autocorrect typo here (since I’m reposting this commentary I thought I’d see if it’s correctable): Has Mississippi made progress in the past decade? Yes. Is it a model for the nation? No. When impressive fourth grade scores are followed by not-so-impressive scores in eighth grade, it suggests that the fourth grade scores were anti Oakley boosted by holding back the 9% who were the least successful readers. A neat trick but not an upfront way to measure progress.
Kristoff should have spent a few extra minutes looking at The NAEP data comparing students who qualify for the Federal School Lunch Program and those who do not (DNQ).
Here is a comparison between the two poorest states and the two most affluent states in the country.
2022 NAEP READING
At or Above NAEP BASIC
Mississippi
Grade 4
FSLP Eligible: 52%
FSLP DNQ: 83%
Mississippi
Grade 8
FSLP Eligible: 57%
FSLP DNQ: 81%
Louisiana
Grade 4
FSLP Eligible: 50%
FSLP DNQ: 78%
Louisiana
Grade 8
FSLP Eligible: 59%
FSLP DNQ: 81%
Virginia
Grade 4
FSLP Eligible: 39%
FSLP DNQ: 75%
Virginia
Grade 8
FSLP Eligible: 51%
FSLP DNQ: 79%
Colorado
Grade 4
FSLP Eligible: 47%
FSLP DNQ: 81%
Colorado
Grade 8
FSLP Eligible: 56%
FSLP DNQ: 82%
But, the federal lunch statistics reported to NAEP by each state are no longer consistent thanks to the Community Eligibility Program (CEP). Some states still report only true, needs-based students as eligible but others can report every child in a CEP school as lunch eligible, even children from wealthy homes.
The NAEP process currently doesn’t even capture which rules each state uses to report eligibility, and just try contacting a few states to see what rules they are using.
The percentages posted have no significant variation across all 50 states. That flies in the face of what you are suggesting. No one can argue that generational poverty is not a major impediment to school success.
That’s what I found so obnoxious about Kristof’s column. “Forget poverty!”
Actually, the percentages of students eligible for school lunches in the 2022 NAEP Grade 4 Reading Assessment vary dramatically. The NAEP Data Explorer says the highest eligible rate is 99% in Oregon (must have CEP in almost all their schools) to a low of just 22% in New Hampshire. 12 states have lunch rates statistically significantly higher than the national public school average and 30 have rates statistically significantly lower. Where did you get the idea that the lunch rates didn’t vary much for the NAEP samples in the various states?
Here’s a critical zinger targeting Kristof that seems like it may hit the mark:
https://slate.com/technology/2015/05/nicholas-kristof-eighth-grade-math-test-america-kids-are-performing-well-on-timss.html
But the belief that kids living in poverty can greatly enhance their reading skill if given effective assistance is not any rational person’s argument against alleviating poverty. Kristof has written passionately about the importance of enhanced funding for education and the damaging effects of poverty. See for example, his and his wife’s most recent book: “Tightrope: Americans Reaching for Hope” which offers “offer a host of proposed solutions, including the expansion of social programs, treatment instead of prison for drug offenders, universal health care and more early-childhood programs”
“https://www.npr.org/2020/01/14/795888008/tightrope-implores-america-to-make-changes-to-save-itself
Kristof’s views in regard to poverty and reading instruction seem well aligned with those of the American Federation of Teachers as expressed in its 2020 edition of “Teaching Reading Is Rocket Science, What Expert Teachers of Reading Should Know and Be Able to Do” https://www.aft.org/sites/default/files/moats.pdf
If any here disagree, I’d be curious for explanation.
(And, in any event, the riddles Kristof posed are fun if one follow links from the zinger.)
What is also likely in the “miracle” is not just the retention of students who fail; it is that the educational method – the SOR approach – jacks up scores in the short run but doesn’t address the complex factors in reading growth that create long term reading success. In other words, part of the spurious nature of the results is an educational methods problem. Rob Tierney and P. David Pierson just hosted an ILA webinar discuss the limits of the SOR claims – though it did acknowledge important points to come from the movement.
Mike, good comments. Eighth grade reading tests are obviously more demanding than fourth grade tests.
In addition, there is a long history of “movements” in education that overpromise and eventually fail. Kind of like revivalism.