Archives for category: On-Line Education

Everyone talks about high school graduation rates, but no one-including me–has any idea what they mean and what they really are.

We operate from the assumption that 100% of students “should” graduate from high school and excoriate the schools when the numbers are anything less. The assumption–which is wrong–is that we used to have high graduation rates but now we don’t. This is simply wrong. Over the course of the 20th century, graduation rates started from a very low point–less than 10% of young Americans finished high school at the beginning of the 20th century–and the rate rose steadily until it reached 50% in 1940. By 1970, it was 70%, and since then it has inched up.

Today, it is difficult to know what the graduation rate is because there are so many different ways of counting. If you count only those who graduate in four years, then it is about 75%. If you include those who graduate in August, after four years, it goes up. If you add those who took five or six years, it goes up more. If you add those who received a GED or some other alternate degree, it is up to 90%. (Aficionados of the issue can have fun poring over the latest federal data here).

These days, politicians play with the graduation rate to make themselves look successful (never mind the students). They lament the “crisis” in dropouts when they enter office, then crow at every uptick once they are in office to demonstrate “their” success.

Unfortunately, the pressure to raise the numbers typically overwhelms the standards required for attaining a high school diploma. When teachers and principals are sternly warned that their school will close unless they raise their graduation rate, they usually manage to raise their graduation rate without regard to standards. The usual gambit these days is called “credit recovery,” a phenomenon that was unheard of twenty years ago.

Credit recovery means simply that students can earn credits for courses they failed by completing an assignment or attending a course for a few days or weeks or re-taking the course online. As I wrote this week in Education Week, online credit recovery is typically a sham, a cheap and easy way of getting a diploma that was not earned. Students sit down in front of a computer, watch videos, then take a test that consists of multiple-choice questions, true-false questions, and machine-graded written answers. If they miss a question, they answer again until they get it right. Students can”recover” their lost credits in a matters of days, even hours. I wrote about online credit recovery as academic fraud in my EdWeek blog this week. Students realize quickly that if they fail, it doesn’t matter because they can get the credits in a few days with minimal effort. In this way, the diploma becomes meaningless, and students are cheated while the grown-ups fool themselves into thinking that they succeeded in raising the rates.

In this way, Campbell’s Law applies. When the pressure is raised high to reach a goal, the measures of the goal become corrupted.

The same number may be used either to bemoan a lack of progress or to claim victory. For example, the recent “Blueprint” created by a business strategy group for the school district of Philadelphia lamented that “only” 61% of its students attained a high school diploma in four years. At the same time, Mayor Bloomberg in New York City was delighted to report that the graduation rate was up to 65.5%, a figure that included summer school plus a heaping of credit recovery. The state of New York, which did not include summer graduates, put the actual figure at 61%, no different from the rate in Philadelphia. The state says that only 21% of students are “college-ready,” and the City University of New York–where most of the city’s graduates enroll–reports that nearly 80% require remediation.

So what is the real high school graduation rate? I don’t know.

A reader sent me a wonderful editorial from a newspaper in Idaho. I liked it because it called out State Superintendent Tom Luna for his self-promoting campaign to replace teachers with online instruction. Idaho is a red state where there is not a lot of diversity of opinion, but whether you are red or blue, you should have common sense when it comes to education. The crucial ingredients in education are always the same: the student, the family, the teacher, the school, the curriculum, and the community. When all those factors work together, students tend to get a good solid education. When they don’t, education suffers and students don’t learn much.

Technology can’t take the place of any of the essential ingredients. It is certainly a delightful thing to have computers and smart boards in the classroom. Teachers do amazing things with computers, and students can use them for research and individual projects. But no computer can motivate a student who is unmotivated. Or take the place of a family who makes sure that the student is well fed and healthy. Or replace a teacher who knows how to teach and loves her subject. Or take the place of a community that puts a high value on education. Or compensate for a school that lacks adequate resources and a strong curriculum and good leadership.

All these elements make a difference.

Tom Luna is now on the Romney education team. He has a long history of collaboration with software corporations. The children of Idaho would be better served if he built collaboration with teachers and parents and communities, not the online corporations that helped to put him in office.

Idaho is ga-ga for computers and online learning. State Superintendent Tom Luna has made online learning the centerpiece of his “reform” agenda. Tom Luna has close ties to the for-profit online industry.

Teachers welcome computers and technology in the classroom, but Luna takes it to an extreme. He views technology as a cost-saving device, so he is (paradoxically) investing heavily in hardware and software, on the assumption that in time there will be need for fewer teachers. Teachers are an old-fashioned, expensive, near obsolete technology. Teachers need health care and pensions; computers don’t. Teachers are ornery and they often have thoughts that don’t coincide with the state’s agenda; computers don’t.

A veteran teacher decided that enough is enough. She did something she never dreamed she would do. She wrote an opinion piece for the local Idaho newspaper. She disagreed with the order to devote 49% of instruction in world history to computer time. Education is not simply imbibing facts:

Successful students must learn certain values such as patience, hard work, self-discipline, honesty, respect for others, etc. Teachers instill those values, not computers. Teachers serve as positive role models and successful learning requires positive human interaction. In training we were informed by a district official that “with the incorporation of this program you will not even have to interact with your students.” For those who do not understand how such an approach to teaching can damage a student’s education, there is no reason to explain further. You will never understand.

She realizes that the changes now being imposed from the top come from people who know little about students or teaching or education:

I now see individuals taking over decision-making positions in education who have no classroom experience, implementing programs that have made the classroom critically vulnerable to their destructive impact and counterintuitive to education. There is too much noise regarding the state of education that is distracting and destroying the true nature of education, which should center on the student. Students learn best when they have caring and reputable teachers. And we have them in the Coeur d’Alene School District. However, this is changing and if left unopposed will destroy our quality of education leaving our students, our community and our state to pay for these mistakes.

This teacher put her own job at risk by speaking out. With hundreds, nay, thousands of voices like hers, the public will begin to understand what is being done to their children and to our nation’s schools.

Diane

An article in a publication called “The Financial Investigator” took a close look at K12, the for-profit online “education” corporation whose growth had made it a darling of Wall Street. The article paid particular attention to the “churn rate” at K12 online schools. That is, how many students left in a given year. In the Ohio Virtual Academy of K12, a staggering 51% of students turned over in a single year. That helps to explain why the name of the game for the for-profit online academies is recruitment. So long as the corporations can keep their numbers up, they will collect tuition money from the state, usually double their real costs.

The more the for-profit academies churn, the more they earn. And every dollar they collect comes right out of the public school budget. In Pennsylvania, where nearly half the school districts are in financial distress, the diversion of dollars to for-profit academies is harming the great majority of children who attend regular brick-and-mortar schools. And bear in mind that the online charters–whether they are for-profit or not–get terrible results.

Last week, I had a debate about education entrepreneurs on Twitter with Justin Hamilton, the press secretary for Secretary of Education Arne Duncan. I made clear that I was referring to for-profit schemes like online academies. I am very dubious, no, actually, I am opposed to spending taxpayers’ money on for-profit education management organizations or for-profit charter schools. I kept pushing Justin to say that he agreed, or the U.S. Department of Education agreed. He would not. They choose to stand silently by while corporate suits target children as profit opportunities.

It seems to me that the U.S. Secretary of Education should denounce for-profit education. It wastes money; it supplies bad education; it gets terrible results. But as we have seen in relation to for-profit higher education, high-priced lobbyists work Congress and state legislatures to protect their industry. For-profit higher education is a $30 billion industry, and it has the wherewithal to call off the regulators.

As the expose of K12 in the New York Times reminds us, the highest goal of for-profit corporations is profit. Not education. Not the development of young people. Not character. Not the good of society. Profit.

Diane

When I spoke at NCTM, I talked about the common thread that unites mathematicians and historians: We believe that evidence matters. No matter how much we speculate, or theorize, or predict, what matters most is: Show me your work, where is the evidence.

There is no “reform” these days that has less evidence to support it than the expansion of cyber-charters. This is the (usually for-profit) business that enrolls students, provides them a computer and textbooks, then teaches them online while they sit at home in front of a computer. Both the New York Times and the Washington Post have published exposes of the for-profit cyber-charter corporations.

I don’t doubt that there are some students who benefit by being able to take their courses at home. Some special-education students, some incarcerated youth, some others. But as a replacement for regular schools, the cyber-charters have a very poor record. Various academic studies, including those by the National Education Policy Center at the University of Colorado have documented the poor results of the cybercharters. One of the best is the CREDO study of Pennsylvania cybercharters.

If we look at the studies and investigations, these findings stand out: students in cyber-charters get lower test scores, have lower graduation rates, and are likely to drop out and return to their local public school, leaving their state funding behind with the cyber-charter.

The bottom line on these “innovations” is that they produce worse education but generate large profits for their investors and owners.

The Michigan state legislature just voted to increase the number of cyber-charters in the state and the number of students these schools could enroll. No doubt, the for-profit corporations hired lobbyists to make their pitch.

If evidence matters, this would not be happening. If legislators and policymakers actually cared about education and our nation’s future, they would not be expanding a sector that has such a poor record.

Legislators and policymakers who ignore evidence should look in the mirror when they seek a reason for the state of education today.

Diane