Archives for category: Education Reform

There are two ways to go wrong in scoring student essays. One is to have them graded by computers. The other is to have them graded by the low-wage slackers hired by testing corporations.

There is only one way to go right in scoring student essays. That is to have them read by teachers in the building or district where the student is enrolled.

Massachusetts is pondering turning over the grading of student essays to computers. Les Perelman, a retired professor of writing at MIT, has demonstrated how dumb the computers are when it comes to understanding what students have written. The computers like long sentences; big words; and long essays. But the computers have a serious defect: They can’t tell truth from falsehood. He told a New York Times writer, Michael Winerip, that a computer would not care if a student wrote that the War of 1812 began in 1945. Computers are not fact-checkers. That is why they can score thousands of essays in less than a minute. If you happen to think that knowledge matters, don’t have essays scored by computers.

If you think that it is better to ask Pearson or ETS or any of the other testing companies to have essays graded by humans, think again. Read Todd Farley’s book “Making the Grades: My Misadventures in the Standardized Testing Industry,” where he describes himself as a scorer who was in it for the hourly wage, surrounded by others with little or no interest in the quality of writing or the fate of students. In recent years, we have heard of ads placed on Craigslist, seeking essay readers at $11 an hour, no experience needed. Read the last paragraph of Farley’s book to know why mass-grading of student writing doesn’t work, why parents should fight it with every fibre of their being.

Who should read and assess student work? Teachers who work in the building or the district. At least then one can be certain that teachers are doing the grading, not unemployed and inexperienced college graduates who are expected to read and grade 100 essays an hour or more.

Dan Patrick sees the flurry of school shootings as a symptom of America’s moral rot, not a consequence of having 300 million guns around. Maybe if we prayed more, there would be fewer shootings. Tell that to the good folks at the First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs, Texas, that got shot up last November. Twenty-six people died for no reason. They were praying. They were God-fearing citizens trying to live good lives.

Dan Patrick thinks that the solution to school shootings is to have fewer doors.

Dan Patrick despises public schools. He has been trying to get voucher legislation passed so that every student can go to a religious school, but the Legislature has not agreed with him.

Just listen to the drivel that comes out of him, and you will wonder if we live on the same planet.

He makes me embarrassed to be a Texan.

Do not normalize school shootings as an everyday occurrence caused by too many doors, video games, Ritalin, or other inconsequential things.

CNN reports that the U.S. rate of school shootings far outpaces all other major industrialized nations combined.

“There have been at least 288 school shootings in the United States since January 1, 2009.

“That’s 57 times as many shootings as the other six G7 countries combined.”

See the graph.

At some point, the politicians will have to see that the problem is not theoretical. It is not Ritalin or video games or abortion or something else.

It is too many guns, easily obtained, easily accessible. Available to any teen who is depressed or angry or has a grudge. Instead of settling scores with a fist fight, he comes to school and kills people.

Larry Cuban is usually skeptical about technology but he visited Sal Khan’s experimental schools and came away impressed.

He compared them to John Dewey’s Lab School at the University of Chicago, where age-grading was abandoned and teachers had autonomy.

See here and here.

He concludes with what might be considered a caveat:

The tradition of challenging the dominant structure of the age-graded school and its “grammar of schooling” continues to this day with micro-schools in Silicon Valley and elsewhere illustrating anew that such reforms to the traditional “machinery of instruction” have resided, for the most part, in private schools where tuition runs high and students bring many economic and social advantages school. In a profound way, the high cost of these private schools and the resources available to their founders in experienced teachers, aides, technologies, space, and materials show clearly the prior conditions necessary not only to operate such schools in public venues but also what is needed to contest the prevailing “grammar of schooling.”

Larry Lee is running for school board in Montgomery, Alabama, on the Republican line. I hope that many people vote for him and elect him. He is passionate about improving schools for all children. He is very well qualified to serve on the school board and would be a champion for students and teachers.

The school board election is June 5.

Larry Lee is a native of Alabama who is dedicated to helping public schools. Larry headed a rural education group and traveled the state to identify high-performing public schools where principals, teachers, and parents in rural schools are doing their best to help their children get a good education despite meager resources.

Since he announced his candidacy, Larry has been harshly criticized by some key figures in the Republican Party.

Larry believes in public schools. That’s where the kids are. Larry knows that charters and vouchers don’t solve the problems of the children or the schools.

The campaign to stop Larry Lee turned vicious. In the closing days of the campaign, he was called a racist. Larry Lee cited his deep support in the black community, and he denounced the charges as “more trash.”

Behind the attacks on Larry is the Business Council of Alabama, which supports privatization of public schools.

Larry wrote,

“There is a battle going on for the heart and soul of our public schools. And really for the heart and soul of Alabama.

“So that battle has now landed on District 2 of the Montgomery School Board. A few square miles of east Montgomery are now a microcosm of what is taking place from Bayou La Batre to Bridgeport and from Smith’s Station to York.

“Last night I sat in a packed auditorium of a Montgomery elementary school while the 5th grade performed their own version of a Broadway musical. It was delightful. Mamas and daddies clapped and took pictures and beamed when Johnny or Mary had a featured part.

“This was Alabama at its best. This is what public schools are all about. About teachers who work tirelessly to teach some very awkward young man how to “dance” or some shy young lady to step to a microphone and recite lines with 500 pair of eyes staring at her. It’s about the PTA giving the principal a check for $25,000 to be used to make her school better.

“It’s about the smell of popcorn and five-year old little sister squirming on the floor at the front of the room while big sister sings and dances.

“I know that. It’s sad that others don’t. That instead, they think a school board election is only about bending others to their own will.

“I am glad the battle continues.”

Larry Lee is the real thing. He is running for the school board to fight for better schools. I hope the people of his district elect him to stand up for their children and their public schools.

If you wish to donate to Larry’s campaign, here is the link. He would be grateful for a donation of any size. It is time the children have an advocate on the school board.

I won’t summarize Mike Klonsky on “KIPP and Kopp” and the boycott idea. Suffice it to say that nothing’s going to happen on that front.

From Politico:

http://go.politicoemail.com/?qs=a8819ffdba886e83b7c4b7e9447e0f614494b9994482676291400987dd143413eed42ba36463da19708686f05a958978

Former Obama Education Secretary Arne Duncan endorsed the notion of pulling all public school children out of school until gun laws change. Duncan’s former aide, Peter Cunningham, tweeted on Friday: “Maybe it’s time for America’s 50 million school parents to simply pull their kids out of school until we have better gun laws.” Duncan said it’s a “brilliant” idea that’s “tragically necessary. What if no children went to school until gun laws changed to keep them safe? My family is all in if we can do this at scale. Parents, will you please join us?” (The Twitter links are in the post.)

Now, they know that nothing happens quickly in Congress. They know the NRA controls the Republican majority. Even if Democrats won both houses of Congress (a big if), Trump would veto anything bill that offended the NRA? Are they suggesting that schools should close for a year or two or three or four or five?

Should we take this seriously? Or is it grandstanding from a guy who was Secretary of Education for 7 years and said nothing (that I remember) about gun violence?

This article by Amadou Diallo in The Hechinger Report describes schools in Philadelphia that rely on project based learning rather than standardized testing. Unlike many such articles, it acknowledges the differences between schools with selective admissions and those that accept all applicants.

A snippet:

An unqualified success for these new schools would be results like those at Science Leadership Academy, a magnet school that is home to the district’s longest-running project-based learning program, which opened in 2006. The school combines rigorous research with student-driven projects that have impact beyond the school building. One student project involved putting on a city-wide Ultimate Frisbee tournament. In the 2016-17 school year, 99 percent of its seniors graduated, and 84 percent attended college immediately afterward. Algebra, Biology and English literature proficiency scores at the school are more than double the district high school average.

“Projects are really hard, collaboration is really hard.”

“As a magnet school,” said Science Leadership Academy principal Chris Lehmann, “we need to be able to prove that the learning we engage in here shows up on the test … without falling into a teach-for-the-test problem. It’s a balancing act. It always has been.”

It may prove difficult for other schools to replicate Science Leadership Academy’s performance, however. As a magnet school, it has selective admissions and attracts students from a wider range of socioeconomic backgrounds (fewer than half its students receive free or reduced-price lunch, for example) than the city’s other project-based learning schools.

Lehmann acknowledges the inherent advantages at a school that’s able to choose its students — applicants must meet minimum grade requirements and sit for an interview — but, like his counterparts at Philadelphia’s nonselective project-based learning schools, he argues that we need to be taking a more holistic view of school performance. “How you judge a school is an incredibly nuanced thing,” he said. “The way that we take care of each other and the way that we learn are intertwined.” There may not be a quantitative metric to assess whether students are being provided with meaningful work in an environment that lets them know they are cared for, but Lehmann believes that without those components, grades and test scores become an end unto themselves.

“There’s no [statewide] assessment for being able to look people in the eye and speak clearly.”
Vaux Big Picture High School principal Gabriel Kuriloff

Tamir Harper is an 18-year-old senior at Science Leadership Academy whose passion is education reform: In 2017 he founded a nonprofit that advocates for quality urban education. He says that when he arrived at the school he was obsessed with grades. “I just wanted to know ‘How can I get an A?’ I didn’t care if I was learning, or comprehending,” he said. “Now I’m a student that wants to learn, and I don’t worry about the end result [grade]. I’m into the process.” He says a big part of that shift was the relationships he forged at school. “We’re not just project-based, we’re a community-driven school,” he said.

Fellow senior Madison Militello, 18, says her middle school was very strict, with no room for individual connections. “Here I don’t feel like the teachers are above me. I feel like we’re on the same level,” she said, noting that she’s still close with some teachers even though she doesn’t have their classes anymore. “You can’t teach a group of students you don’t have a connection with.”

That sentiment was a common refrain at Vaux, LINC and Workshop, each of which offer slightly different approaches to project-based learning in underserved communities. Educators at each are confident that the skills their students are acquiring — collaboration, critical thinking and problem-solving — will eventually manifest themselves in improved results on more traditional metrics like math and reading tests. More importantly, however, they believe that students will be much more prepared for the real world when they leave school. Whether project-based learning done on a larger scale can turn the tide in Philadelphia is another question.

“You can create the perfect school model and it’s still not going to solve American poverty,” Hauger said. “We’re moving the needle for every child who comes through the door and sometimes that doesn’t feel like enough.”

Carol Burris, executive director of the Network for Public Education, has fun comparing the boasts of reformers and their response to flat scores on NAEP.

They were so sure that the Common Core and charters would promote dramatic gains in testcscores. But they didn’t.

Read how reformers explain their embarrassment.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2018/05/20/what-they-said-before-and-what-they-are-saying-now/?utm_term=.e47fc51142a7

That choking sound you hear is me writing the headline for this post.

Just when you thought the charter advocates could not sink any lower in seeking rationalizations for privatization, they go lower yet again.

Writing for the National Education Policy Center, Julian Vasquez Heilig critiqued a University of Arkansas study that purports to show that charter schools are more productive and profoppduce a higher return on investment than public schools. The study under review is called “Bigger Bang, Fewer Bucks.”

What would you care about when comparing two sectors, one of which is staffed by professional educators, the other staffed mainly by TFA temps? Would you care about test scores? Parent satisfaction? Teacher turnover? Student projects? Graduation rates? College acceptance rates? Would you consider how the creation of a second sector affects the health and vitality of the first sector? Would you Permit the Second sector to cripple the first sector?

How about return on investment?

This is a mode of thinking with which I am not compatible. I’m reminded of reading I did in the 1990s, when I learned about efficiency experts who studied the curriculum. I was writing a book called “Left Back,” published in 2000. These scientific curriculum experts worked out a way to compare the cost and value of different subjects. They concluded that Latin was not worth teaching because the unit cost was too high. They would understand this new Arkansas study.

Heilig writes the abstract of his critique:

“A report released by the University of Arkansas Department of Education Reform contends that charter schools produce more achievement per dollar invested, as compared to public schools. This newest report is focused on city-level analyses in eight US cities (Atlanta, Boston, Denver, Houston, Indianapolis, New York City, San Antonio, and Washington D.C.) and uses cost effectiveness and Return on Investment (ROI) ratios. It concludes that charter schools deliver a weighted average of an additional 4.34 NAEP reading points and 4.73 NAEP math points per $1000 invested. The report also argues that that charter schools offer an advantage of $1.77 in lifetime earnings for each dollar invested, representing a ROI benefit of 38%. However, there are a variety of methodological choices made by the authors that threaten the validity of the results. For example, the report uses revenues rather than actual expenditures – despite well-established critiques of this approach. The report also fails to account for the non-comparability of the student populations in charter and comparison public schools. Three other problems also undercut the report’s claims. First, even though the think tank’s earlier productivity report included a caveat saying that causal claims would not be appropriate, the new report omits that caution. Second, the report’s lack of specificity plagues the accuracy and validity of its calculations; e.g., using state-level data in city-level analyses and completely excluding race and gender. Finally, the authors again fail to reconcile their report with the extensive literature of contrary findings.“