Archives for category: Global Education Reform Movement (GERM)

Now that many Republican dominated states like Louisiana, Indiana, Michigan, and Wisconsin are enacting vouchers, it is a good time to look at the experience of vouchers in Chile. The Pinochet military dictatorship became infatuated with free-market ideas and imposed vouchers in the early 1980s.

To learn about the Chilean experience with vouchers, I turned to one of Mexico’s best-known independent researchers, Eduardo Andere.

Eduardo Andere writes:

“I began doing research about Chile in 2005. I was most struck by the fact that Chile is the country, perhaps together with New Zealand, that initiated a long and deep stream of education policy reforms since the 1980s . In the case of Chile, the reforms were imposed by a military regime and were very different from those adopted in New Zealand. The Chilean reforms were what is now often described as “neo-liberal”: decentralization of decision making, vouchers, standardized testing and accountability with league tables, teacher assessment or evaluation, privatization of school education services.

“The results of the reforms in Chile are: very low performance in PISA. At the last published PISA 2009 test, Chile was tied with Mexico as the lowest performing countries, among 34 members, in Math. Chile ranks about the same as Mexico but below the rest in Science and Reading. Chile has launched deep reforms; Mexico has not; and yet the two of them show very similar performance.

“The voucher system in Chile is very limited and only works partially for certain kinds of schools, i.e. private subsidized. There are three types of schools: municipal (for the poorest); subsidized private (for middle class); paying private (for the elites). Academic performance is highest in the last ones, which have no vouchers or public subsidy.

“With the new Chilean government, education is in the midst of deep institutional reforms: new agency for quality education with increasing power to supervise and rank schools, recurrent failing schools will be closed; a revision of the voucher system; the creation of a superintendent of education to oversee the use of resources; and a national council of education to set the national policies of education. The new government, in other words, is not abandoning the reforms imposed by the military regime, just fine-tuning them.

“So far, it is the same story for US, Mexico and many other systems: many reforms, few changes: or “much ado about nothing.’”

For another perspective on vouchers in international context, read Martin Carnoy here. This was published in 1996 but the lessons remain the same: Vouchers increase the gap between the haves and the have-nots.

This suggests the perverse genius of the corporate reform movement, led by right-wing think tanks, which tout vouchers as a way to “close the achievement gap” and to “save minority children from failing schools.”

How clever to market vouchers by promising to do what vouchers have never done and will never do. How clever to claim that the free-market, which produced our current income gap, will produce equity in schooling and equality of opportunity. The most astonishing aspect of this claim is the utter lack of evidence for it.

Andrew Hargreaves has some ideas about how education can improve and stop demoralizing those who work in schools. First, he looks for the good that Race to the Top may have accomplished. Then he looks at other nations’ experience and finds that those who are most successful are not doing anything that looks like Race to the Top. Hargreaves published two books in 2012: The Global Fourth Way: The Quest for Educational Excellence, with Dennis Shirley; and Professional Capital: Transforming Teaching in Every School, with Michael Fullan.

Hargreaves writes:

Now that the bickering and backbiting of presidential electioneering is over, we have a new opportunity to look at the future of American education with fresh eyes. Many of us, especially Diane Ravitch in this blog, have been critical of the US Race to the Top Strategy and of No Child Left Behind before it.

But suppose, at this moment, even if through gritted teeth, we concede what the work of RTTT has perhaps accomplished. The rise of charter schools has prompted many districts to question the bureaucratic hierarchies and inflexibilities that have strangled innovation and improvement in the past. The new performance-based reward agenda has undoubtedly brought teachers unions to the table to set aside some of their old blue-collar mentality and engage in different conversations about professional quality and recognition. The emergence of online alternatives for learning may be opening more teachers’ minds about the ways that technology can enhance their teaching. Suppose RTTT advocates have been at least partly right when they have insisted that the system had to be broken before it could be fixed.

What does that now mean for the next four years?

First, let’s acknowledge one of the key lessons of Change 101: in any change process, the strategies that get people to one point are rarely the same ones that will get them further. Charismatic leaders can fire people up, but they often have to be followed by more inclusive leaders who are able to distribute wider responsibility for the long-haul of change. No-nonsense leaders may be able to impose immediate order on chaos, but they usually need to be succeeded by leaders who can build collective responsibility for lasting improvement.

What does this mean for the next phase of RTTT?

Are we going to face four more years of breaking up the system into more and more charter school pieces, staffed by teachers with barely one or two years experience? Should educators be confronted with another unrelenting era of fear, threat and cut-throat competition?

In the short-term, fear and threat can create a sense of urgency and grab people’s attention. In the long-run, however, states of perpetual fear and threat just drive all the best people away. Just look at the exodus of top educators who have fled Wisconsin after their grueling battles with Governor Scott Walker.

We believe it’s time to build a new platform on which we can bring our schools back together, strengthen communities of teachers, inspire the educational profession, and keep the best young people in teaching instead of seeing them cycle in and out of the system as if it were a rapidly revolving door. This isn’t just a matter of our personal preferences and beliefs. It’s what the international evidence on high educational performance is clearly showing us.

In our new book, The Global Fourth Way: The Quest for Educational Excellence http://www.sagepub.com/books/Book235155, we describe our research evidence on some of the highest achieving schools and systems around the world such as Finland, Singapore, Alberta, and Ontario.

The first thing that is striking is what we don’t find in all these high-performing systems. We don’t find governments pushing charter schools, fast-track alternative certification programs, and salary bonuses for teachers who get the test scores up.

We don’t see systems testing all students in grades 3 through 8 on reading, writing, and mathematics with a national Department of Education setting the goals from afar, year after year.

We don’t come across governments setting up escalating systems of sanctions and interventions for struggling schools and endless rotations of principals and teachers in and out of schools that erode trust and destroy continuity.

What do we find instead?

We do find a lot of leadership stability and sustainable improvement at the system level, that establishes a platform for innovation to take off in districts and schools.

We do find educators who have gone through excellent university-based preparation programs that are also backed up by extensive practice in schools, and who study research and bring a stance of inquiry to the work they do with their students every day.

We do find a highly respected profession along with a public that lets and expects these trusted professionals to bring their collective talents to bear in their work.

We do find testing that is applied in a couple of grades, not all of them; or to a representative sample of students rather than an unnecessary census of everyone.

And we do find turnaround strategies that rely on connecting struggling schools with higher performers who are tasked with helping them, rather than on parachuting in intervention teams from the top.

In high-performing systems, there is a strong teaching profession backed by powerful and principled professional associations that are in the forefront of educational change. These professional associations are not afraid to challenge government when necessary or to collaborate with them whenever they can. Over 50% of the resources of the Alberta Teachers’ Association, for example, goes to professional development for its members; whereas just 5% or so of teacher union budgets are currently allocated for these purposes in the US.

If you want to improve as a teacher, it’s important to learn from teachers who are doing better. If you are trying to turn around as a school, look to a higher performing school that can give you clues about the best way to proceed. The same is true for the US and other nations.

If, like the US, you are languishing far below the leaders in the international rankings of student achievement, then look, with open eyes and no excuses, at what the highest performing countries are doing instead. Their path is clearly the opposite of what has been pushed on American schools.

Let’s concede that districts and unions may have needed shaking up a bit, if America’s education system was to move forward. But shaking things up isn’t the same thing as improving them. Real and lasting improvement, rather than a few triumphant turnarounds here and there, is going to need something else. High performing counterparts from around the world provide some of the best ideas about what this might be.

If the United States is going to be the world-leader in education that the country’s national wealth and international status lead everyone to expect, what might it do in the next four years to move to the next level? Here are five big changes that can make a huge difference based on the international evidence:

  • Test prudently, in two or three subjects in a couple of grades, not pervasively in almost every single grade all the way up to Grade 8.
  • Shift the focus from fast track programs into teaching itself, to strong pathways that retain the best teachers in the profession.
  • Redirect half of the resources from top-down intervention teams whose impact is temporary at best, towards strategies for schools to assist each other in raising achievement results across district boundaries and even state lines.
  • Commit everyone to exploring how technology can enrich teaching wherever it is truly needed, rather than insisting it replace teachers at every opportunity.
  • Invest more resources in public services as a whole – in housing and infant care, for example – so that educators don’t always have to pick up the slack.

It’s time to look elsewhere for inspiration again. America has always learned from other countries. It adapted Harvard College from Cambridge and Oxford in England, imported the kindergarten from Germany, and adopted the Suzuki method of violin instruction from Japan. The same spirit of curiosity and inventiveness that has served Americans so well in the past can and shoud serve the nation once more.

Stephen Krashen is an expert on linguistics and literacy. He read Arthur Levine’s scathing criticism of US test scores on the PISA exam and decided to do his own analysis. He decided Levine was far too negative.

Krashen decided that: “the US does quite well, controlling for SES. And maybe American scores are ‘just right.'”

He writes:

“In a recent article in the Wall Street Journal, Arthur Levine discusses the performance of high socio-economic status (SES) students on the PISA math examination, thus controlling for the effect of poverty (the PISA is an exam given to 15 year olds in countries throughout the world). Levine concludes that high social class American students fall in “the middle of the pack” in PISA mathematics.

“Levine’s definition of high social class was having at least one parent with a college education. After reading Levine’s article, I decided to do my own analysis. I used a different measure of SES: the PISA index of economics, social and cultural status. I looked at reading scores for students in 66 countries who were at the 75th percentile of this measure, in other words the upper quarter of socio-economic status.

“According to my calculations, students in only 12 “countries and economies” scored significantly higher than American students on PISA reading and students in 44 “countries and economies” had significantly lower scores. Levine says the US scored in the “middle of pack” in math. Controlling for poverty, they certainly did not score in the middle of the pack in reading but were well within the upper quarter. (See note 1 below; I was unable to find the data necessary to do an analysis of mathematics scores controlling for SES in this way.)

“Yong Zhao of the University of Oregon has reported that countries that score high on international tests score low on measures of “perceived entrepreneurial capabilities.” This result is consistent with research cited by D. K. Simonton in his book Genius, Creativity and Leadership: an optimal amount of formal education is best for creative accomplishment in science and the arts and humanities – not too much and not too little. Simonton also concludes that that those who achieve high scholastic honors do not always attain eminence in their work.

“Maybe US scores are just right.”

Note 1: American students scored 569 on the PISA reading test, with a standard error of 4.6. As mentioned, 12 “countries and economies” scored significantly higher (i.e. their scores fell outside the 95% confidence interval around the US’ score, 560 to 578).

Of the 12 scoring higher than the US, several were not countries. Shanghai is a city, with 23 million people, about 1.5% of the population of China and is a clear outlier: Even Shanghai students in the lowest quartile in socio-economic status scored 500, close to the overall average for all OECD countries.

Singapore is considered a “city-state” and has a population of five million. Hong Kong is a “special administrative region (SAR)” of China with a population of seven million. Both Singapore and Hong Kong have fewer people than Los Angeles County, states of Michigan or Georgia, all around 10 million.

Thus, only nine actual countries did better than the US. Note also that other countries doing better than the US also have small populations: Finland, 5.5 million, New Zealand, 4.5 million, and Belgium, 11 million.

Sources:

Levine, A. 2012. The Suburban Education Gap. Wall Street Journal, November 14, 2012.

Simonton, D.K. 1984. Genius, Creativity and Leadership. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

PISA 2009. Overcoming Social Background. Programme for International Student Assessment. http://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/pisa2009/pisa2009resultsovercomingsocialbackgroundequityinlearningopportunitiesandoutcomesvolumeii.htm

Zhao, Y. 2012. Flunking innovation and creativity. Phi Delta Kappan 94 (1): 56-60.

The scores: (from: Table 11.1.1, PISA 2009, p. 152).

Shanghai
613 (2.8)
Finland
597 (2.2)
Singapore
597 (2.1)
New Zealand
595 (2.8)
Korea
595 (3.4)
Hong Kong
592 (2.5)
Japan
590 (3.0)
Canada
588 (1.7)
Australia
584 (2.7)
Belgium
583 (2.2)
Netherlands
575 (5.4)
France
572 (4.0)
Switzerland
569 (3.0)
USA
569 (4.6)
Norway
568 (2.9)
Germany
567 (2.8)
Iceland
567 (2.0)
Poland
565.(3.2)
Sweden
565 (3.2)
Ireland
562 (2.8)
UK
561 (3.2)
Liechtenstein
560 (4.5)
Estonia
559 (2.8)
Hungary
559 (3.6)
Italy
556 (1.7)
Taipei
555 (2.9)
Israel
554 (3.4)
Denmark
554 (2.8)
Portugal
551 (3.4)
Greece
550 (3.1)
Slovenia
550 (1.7)
Luxembourg
547 (1,7)
Austria
545 (3.3)
Czech Rep
545 (3.3)
Austria
545 (3.3)
Czech Rep
545 (3.3)
Slovak Rep
543 (2.7)
Spain
543.(2.0)
Latvia
541 (3.3)
Leichtenstein
541 (3.3)
Macao-China
540 (1.4)
Croatia
539 (3.1)
Dubai
536 (2.4)
Lithuania
530 (3.1)
Turkey
522 (4.5)
Russian Fed.
519 (3.2)
Bulgaria
512 (6.5)
Serbia
501 (2.5)
Trinidad/Tobango
496 (2.3)
Uruguay
495 (3.1)
Romania
488 (4.7)
Mexico
485 (1.9)
Brazil
474 (3.9)
Argentina
473 (7.1)
Columbia
473 (3.9)
Thailand
469 (2.6)
Indonesia
468 (3.5)
Tunisia
462 (3.4)
Albania
458 (4.8)
Kazakstan
452 (4.2)
Qatar
450 (1.4)
Indonesia
447 (4.6)
Peru
437 (5.2)
Panama
436 (7.7)
Azerbaijan
413 (4.0)
Kyrgystan
377 (4.2)

The conservative British government is hurrying to convert its state schools to academies with private sponsors, akin to our charter schools. In the mad rush to expand the academies, so much was spent on them that there will be deep cuts in the budget of state schools. This works to the advantage of the academies as the state schools tighten their belts, cut programs, increase class size and become less attractive.

One of the bloggers I admire most is G.F. Brandenburg. Compared to me, he is a veteran blogger. He has been chronicling the foibles of “reform” since 2009. His blog revealed that Michelle Rhee’s claims of having been a miracle teacher were bogus. He has followed her career since she left D.C.; do a search on his site and you will discover an interesting number of blogs about inflated claims in D.C.

I don’t know Brandenburg but I do know he is a retired math teacher, which means he insists on evidence. Assertions and spin and bold promises don’t make it past his rigorous scrutiny. He demands honesty and transparency.

So I am happy to say that this morning, he advised his readers to follow this blog. That means I passed his test. That’s harder than the SAT or the ACT or PISA.

Thank you, Mr. Brandenburg.

Robin Alexander, who headed the Cambridge Primary Review in England, has been reading the posts on this blog. He was especially interested in our faux reformers’ love affair with paying teachers and schools to get higher test scores. He thought we might want to learn about the UK experience with “payment-by-results”:

Payment by Results
– or ‘prizes for success in teaching the rudiments’

Reading Diane’s blog is instructive and depressing both for what it chronicles about the wanton political and commercial abuse of a national educational system in the name of standards and accountability and for its many resonances with what has been happening in the UK (especially England) during the past decade or so – and indeed in other countries infected by GERM.

But there are historical resonances too, and perhaps these should be more frequently exposed in order to demonstrate that these glitzy new policies are usually not new at all, and when they were tried before they frequently failed or caused such damage they had to be abandoned. But then since history begins the year that politicians are elected it has nothing to teach them.

So try this. The drive to link teacher pay to high stakes tests as advocated by Michelle Rhee, Jeb Bush and their ilk and castigated in so many of Diane’s blogs resembles nothing so closely as the system introduced in England in 1862 – yes, 1862 – for making the level of grants to elementary schools conditional on children’s performance in literacy and numeracy tests.

What was this eerily familiar system called? Payment by Results, or ‘prizes for success in teaching the rudiments’. What were its consequences? The great Matthew Arnold – poet, essayist, defender of culture against the philistine hordes, and as it happens also a school inspector – showed how Payment by Results narrowed the curriculum, forced teachers to teach to the test, bored children, intimidated teachers and in many other respects did exactly what high stakes tests always do. He warned, and he was proved correct for a few years later the scheme was abandoned, that Payment by Results ‘will not do what it proposes to do, and even if it were to do what it proposes, the means by which it proposes to do this would still be objectionable.’

A slightly convoluted and very Victorian riposte to throw at Bush, Rhee and today’s other self-appointed US educational heroes, but an apposite one. Try it sometime. They may not understand it, but it will be fun.

If you want to hear more about the more recent impact of a variant on this regime on our side of the Atlantic, read the evidence assembled by the massive and wholly independent Cambridge Primary Review http://www.primaryreview.org.uk or since the Review’s final report is very long, try this summary of England’s 1997-2010 ‘standards drive’ – http://www.primaryreview.org.uk/downloads/Alexander_Miegunyah_lecture_FINAL.pdf . Or with your Presidential election now imminent, register the 11 policy priorities which we extracted from the Cambridge Primary Review and presented to our own political leaders before the UK elections in 2010: http://www.primaryreview.org.uk/downloads/revised_2011-02/POLICY_PRIORITIES_BRIEFING_REVISED_2_11.pdf .

One of them was this:

Stop treating testing and assessment as synonymous. Stop making Year 6 [grade 6] tests bear the triple burden of assessing pupils, evaluating schools and monitoring national performance. Abandon the naive belief that testing of itself drives up standards. It doesn’t: good teaching does. Initiate wholesale assessment reform drawing on the wealth of alternative models now available, so that we can at last have systems of formative and summative assessment – in which tests certainly have a place – which do their jobs validly, reliably and without causing collateral damage. Adopt our definition of standards as excellence in all domains of the curriculum to which children are statutorily entitled, not just the 3Rs. And understand that those who argue for reform are every bit as committed to rigorous assessment and accountability as those who pin everything on the current tests. The issue is not whether children should be assessed or schools should be accountable – they should – but how and in relation to what.

Alongside Payment by Results, perhaps this and some of the Review’s other policy priorities will strike a chord in the US.
Robin Alexander
University of Cambridge, UK

You may have thought that the biggest problems facing the world were things like war, terrorism, poverty, and growing inequality. If you thought that, you are wrong. What is really needed in every country is an organization prepared to recruit a few dozen smart college graduates and groom them to take over the nation’s education system. From their positions as leaders, they can advance an agenda of testing and privatization. And then, one day all children will get an excellent education, and all the other problems will be solved. Just as we have done in the US in the past twenty years.

The people of Michigan have received the report of the “Oxford Foundation” on the future of education in that state.

The authors of the report have nothing to do with Oxford University or Britain.

They are not part of a foundation.

They are Republican operatives carrying out the wishes of Governor Rick Snyder to destroy public education in Michigan.

The ideas the report advances are Governor Snyder’s plan to make education “any place, any time, any where, any how, any which way but up or down.”

The basic plan is that anyone can supply education. It is not a public responsibility.

What we now call public education will disappear, if Rick Snyder and the “Oxford Foundation” has its way.

It’s into the free market, with spoils and riches for all!

Good education for those who can afford it.

Boot camps for the rest.

 

Pat Buoncristiani raises interesting questions about what can be learned from PISA.

Some nations see the international tests as a giant race, and their leaders all want to be number 1. This leads to more and more testing, but not the kind of thoughtful education policies that prepare young people to live in the world. There are no jobs that require bubbling-in skills.

If we could forget the horse race, we might learn what top-performing nations do and sort through it.

Pat is alarmed that New York State is blowing away $32 million on testing. How do you think she would feel about Texas spending nearly $500 million for the same testing?

Yong Zhao is an amazing educator who knows why our current obsession with testing is bad for American society. He spoke recently in Michigan, where he explained why we should focus on creativity and innovation, not test scores. He also explained why we should not be awed by Shanghai’s high test scores, because the Chinese educators are not.

This article in the New York Times may be related: well-educated professionals are fleeing China to live where there is greater freedom, greater opportunity, and a more stable future.

Aiming for higher and higher test scores is a narrow and stupid goal. What we should concern ourselves with is sustaining and building a better society, where innovation is nurtured and where young people see hope for a better future.