Why Connecticut's Schools are Lagging

I'm re-posting from an excellent Westport Patch article going through the litany of why CT fares so much worse than residents believe.  You can find it here: Why Connecticut Schools are Lagging.

To the extent readers don't think that CT residents are delusional on this point, I point to our town budget hearing of two weeks ago. The President of the local PTO stood up and said she couldn't believe her luck in moving to town, because the schools just keep getting better and better. Even those opposed to the budget kept their comments focused on the need to cut spending and keep taxes down while maintaining the excellence of the schools. No one ever says out loud in public that the schools are not all they are cracked up to be.

The Westport Patch article is spot-on. My only complaint is that it misses two of the most critical reasons as to why our CT schools lag.  The first -- horrible curriculum foisted upon us through the State DOE through vague state standards and state consultants that actually recommended poor curriculum to local districts. Any parent that has ever complained about the use of Everyday Math has heard the same justification that I have: it meets the State Standards. The State actually insists that we use this wretched curriculum, despite its short-comings, despite the parents' opposition to it and despite the rather weak research background of the program. The same goes for the  whole language and balanced literacy that has largely replaced phonics and grammar.

The second reason that CT will continue to fail is the poor quality of our schools of education. Add to this, the difficulty teachers have crossing from state borders. A certified teacher from another state (with higher standards) must jump through hoops and incur expenses to teach in CT. Because we have a very small state, we should not be slamming our doors at the border to good teachers wishing to move in. The inability to easily move between states means that CT is overly reliant upon teachers graduating from our own in-state teacher colleges. That would be okay if those colleges were producing top-notch teachers, but that is simply not the case.

Anyway, from the Westport Patch, Nathan Allen says this about the Achievement Gap:

The fact is, poor and minority students are better educated in Florida and Texas than in Connecticut. Connecticut’s poor and Hispanic students are outscored by Moldova, and Connecticut’s black students barely beat Egyptian and Palestinian student scores. Our poor and minority students can’t outscore students from developing nations with 1/20^th the per-capita income.

And on our best students:

Internationally, Connecticut’s highest scoring 8th graders score behind Slovenia, Estonia, and Poland in math on the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). And these are our best students. 

Parents and Coaches -- an interesting interaction for education

I'm sharing a video that  my daughter's gymnastics coach  pointed out to me yesterday. It is rather long, but hilarious if you've ever watched the progression of little girls through the levels. The parent and coach in this are extreme caricatures, to be sure, but there are a couple of points that are relevant to any discussion of education.  

First, the "coach" doesn't blame Suzie for a lack of talent or ability to learn the kip and move to level 5. In fact, the coach insists that hard work, persistence, patience, and a commitment to the sport will pay off. But skipping practice and negative feedback have Suzie in a downward spiral.

Second, the bar coach spent much time explaining exactly what the component parts of a kip are, she explained the progression of each element that makes for a successful kip -- muscle, flexibility, and timing. Each part must be ready before the kip will work. There really is no short-cut and kids will work on this one stunt for months before they get it.

Contrast this with much of the discussion we see in public education -- when students aren't performing at grade level you almost never hear about the importance of foundation skills, the building of knowledge, the identification of weaknesses, the importance of hard work, persistence, and patience. 

Instead, the National Education Association has page after page of stories from teachers explaining that the kids they have just don't have the ability to work at grade level. Such as this:

"I watch their little faces get confused and even sad at times because they just do not have the abilities that other students have . . . ."

 or this:

"There is nothing worse than watching a student of yours struggle and not being able to help them. It is even worse when you know that they are going to become overwhelmed, and you still have to sit back and watch."

These stories are most heart-breaking because the teacher does not have a plan to build the foundation and teach the skills. They are willing to write off students that just aren't smart enough. It's even sadder when you see other schools and teachers making great progress with the hard to teach kids -- those from poverty without English spoken at home.

When I read the NEA webpage stories, I feel very sorry for those kids that don't have teachers with a strong curriculum and strong skills and an attitude of hope. I wish we could get every kid a strong teacher and a cumulative progressive curriculum that builds the foundation skills the kids need. I wish they all had a teacher like the coach in the video.

Do Parents Deserve a Choice?

I just read an excellent review of Diane Ravitch's book "The Death and Life of the Great American School System." The book has been out for a little over a year. At the time it was published, it sent shock waves through the education establishment -- Ravitch had "switched sides" from a pro-NCLB, pro-testing, pro-school choice, to anti-all those things.

I read several reviews of the book, and even joined Diane Ravitch's facebook page. However, I haven't finished reading the book. Maybe a snowy day like today would be a good time to start.

But getting back to the good review of this old book (old in the internet sense that it has been hashed over pretty well and there isn't much new to say about it.)

Katherine Beals, the Out In Left Field blogger, and author of Raising a Left-Brain Child in a Right-Brain world (and a newly converted homeschooler to boot), has written one of the most insightful reviews and worth relooking at some old news.

One of the best points raised by Beals is that Ravitch is quick to cast blame on easy targets - politicians and businessmen (i.e., Bill Gates), but fails to acknowledge the insidious damage done to the education system by the insiders -- most particularly, ed schools. While Ravitch claims to care deeply about content-rich curriculum, the schools of education have done the most to eliminate almost all of the actual content in the classroom.

A case in point -- students "learn" geography by making soup in a high school class. One of the most frustrating things about the Diane Ravitch flip flop is that she makes good points, but fails to see how the education insiders she favors (ed school professors) have created a generation of teachers that don't know how to teach content. Or don't see the value in it. From Katherine Beals:

"Ravitch devotes four chapters to the failed experiments of politicians and business people and another to NCLB. Not one chapter focuses on the power brokers inside the education establishment. Somehow, in the years since Left Back, Ravitch seems to have convinced herself that the nation's education schools, superintendents, and school boards have a reasonable track record in comparison with politicians and businessmen."

 And when we get to Charter Schools, we see Ravitch's position to be flimsy at best. Ravitch would strictly limit the choices parents and students could have. This is one of the biggest flips Ravitch makes from her past, and Beals addresses it head on:

"The most immediate way around this is to let parents vote with their feet; to give them what Ravitch, who doesn't include parents as part of the solution, no longer supports: school choice. But true choice requires schools that are accessible to everyone (i.e., local and publicly funded or vouchered) and that present meaningful alternatives in curriculum and pedagogy (i.e., reflecting parental demand and what's known about effective instruction).

 Ravitch rightly describes charter schools as falling short on both measures, and as not, on average, providing a better alternative to public schools. What she doesn't admit, however, is that these shortcomings aren't inherent to charter schools per se, but largely result from the obstacles placed in their way by state governments and the education establishment. Since most states require that most charter school teachers be certified, it's hard for charters to avoid hiring teachers who haven't been indoctrinated by education schools.

LYNN: It Isn't the Culture, Stupid

In a timely commentary written by a long time education reformer at EducationNews.org,  the argument that the US lacks the proper "culture" to score well on international exams is given a thorough thrashing by Barry Garelick. Barry's article, "It Isn't the Culture, Stupid" is spot on and a good read.  Barry, like me, leans to the political left, which is why I feel this post goes into the lefty column of the blog. Take that, Rosemary!!

But seriously, Barry makes an excellent point (well, of course he does!! Barry has made many an excellent point in the past and I'd expect nothing less from him now. I'm going to have to dig through Barry's past articles and post them in the future.)  But I digress.

The point Barry is making now, if I may paraphrase, is that when you blame the "culture" of the US for poor international performance, you need to include more than just our societal woes of too many video games and athletics and parents that might complain about homework load, or students that are unmotivated.  I don't doubt that those things exist and make top notch performance difficult for teachers facing unmotivated students with parents that don't care and spend all of their time watching TV and playing on the XBox.

But the schools and school boards and the entire school institution is a very big part of the culture that they blame. Schools that refuse to adopt demanding curriculum materials that build skills and concepts in a logical manner (i.e., Singapore Math) and instead give water-downed programs that spiral around without expecting mastery (Everyday Math, Investigations, Trailblazers) are part of the culture of low expectations.

Homework at the middle and high school level that consists of time consuming artsy projects with little or no academic content are a part of the culture problem.

Teachers that expect the bulk of the academic work to occur at home at night, but waste the school day through poor classroom management skills are a part of the culture problem.

ROSEMARY: We're NUMBER 10! We're NUMBER 10!

After attending the Connecticut Forum at the Bushnell in Hartford last Thursday night, I have to admit – my head is spinning. The topic: Our Great Education Challenge.

Norah O’Donnell of MSNBC was the moderator, while the panelists were: Lily Eskelsen, Vice-President of the National Education Association, Deborah Gist, Rhode Island Commissioner of Education, Jon Schnur, Education Reform Pioneer and CEO of New Leaders for New Schools, Davis Guggenheim, Director of the film Waiting for Superman and my favorite panelist, Joel Klein, Chancellor, New York City Schools. Their bios can be seen by clicking on the link above.  The idea for the title of this post came from Mr. Schnur's remarks about how education in the U.S. has not gotten any worse (even though we have fallen from top place to number ten among industrialized nations in less than a generation), it just hasn't gotten any better.

The applause pattern at the event was most unusual.  It rippled around the Bushnell like a sort of Doppler Effect, mapping approval. The five panelists had distinct styles and often overlapped on ideas as often as they did not and all five had sympathizers in the audience.  So, depending on which of the panelists was responding to one of Ms. O’Donnell’s questions, one would hear either clapping, murmuring or grousing.  There was even a whoop or two.  And no matter who spoke, or who responded, I was dogged with this uneasy feeling that the point of our education challenge was never really addressed.  Kids do not need help with learning.  It’s what they do.  They are learning every waking minute and they are probably even learning in their sleep.  All environments are learning opportunities.  What they need help with is precisely the environment - the people, places and things that make up the culture of a school.  And the most important aspect of this environment, this culture is: WHAT are they learning? What constitutes the curriculum, and how are those decisions made?  How come there weren't any of the big textbook publishers on the panel?

Unbelievably, this was never addressed.  A lot of stuff about what children are not learning was bandied about, a lot of stuff about different classroom situations was put out there for discussion and a lot of stuff about what individual schools are “doing right” -creating a feeling of access and friendliness for parents and offering vibrant, rich classrooms - were offered up for pondering.  I only remember one remark addressing curriculum content: Mr. Schnur, on how important it is for us to make the transition from education based on the needs of the industrial age to education based on the needs of the information age. Oh, and Mr. Klein mentioned that some of the students in his schools would have liked to have taken an online AP level physics course, but it would not have counted since a real teacher would not be involved.  He even went to Albany to plead his students’ cause, but to no avail.  (The Chancellor of the New York City Public School system, which boasts more students than the entire population of the city of Albany, goes hat in hand to the seat of state government only to be told that what he was proposing would violate the terms of the contract with the teachers’ union.) Mr. Guggenheim spoke in that weird shaggy-headed Hollywood mix of humility and arrogance about the "hopes and dreams" of the children and parents in his documentary (why, they are just like any parent anywhere!) and added that, all things considered, he was more worried about global warming. Ms. Eskelsen did her best to defend the indefensible (tenure being the most glaring example) and Ms. Gist seemed to be constantly testing the vibe and found that picking on Ms. Eskelsen was her best bet as far as the sharing went.  And Norah O’Donnell deflected a little heat from the discussion by having everyone applaud all the educators in the audience and on the stage because Lord knows it’s a tough, important job.  She then undid that a bit later with a wisecrack about journalists not having tenure to protect them if they aren’t very good at what they do.

So what are many kids learning?  They learn that their learning doesn’t “count” if an educator isn’t the gatekeeper, and they then learn not to bother learning a subject if it won’t “count.”  They learn they can’t be trusted to learn on their own.  They learn that in some school systems, teachers are not allowed to stay late for enrichment opportunities.  They learn that if a teacher is not a good teacher, it doesn’t really matter.  They learn that if a teacher is a good teacher, it all comes to an end in ten short months and there’s no guarantee another good teacher will be waiting for them in September. The intention for students to learn these things is not explicit, but the way the system operates creates unavoidable consequences. Finland was offered up as an example of an admirable teacher training model featuring master teachers molding young teachers for pedagogical excellence, much as an attending physician leads around his or her gaggle of interns, residents or fellows.  (Apparently, the cream of the graduating Finnish university student crop goes into the teaching profession.)  Finland, however, is dazzlingly racially homogenous - where 93% of the population are Finns and 6% are Swedes.  Blondes and more blondes, but they do have that “Swedish as a Second Language” issue, so maybe the analogy can work. Ms. Eskelsen further expounded that Finland is doing right what "Teach for America" has backwards and then ...! She got an earful from Mr. Klein and Mr. Guggenheim, who apparently love "Teach for America."  Delving into the "Teach for America" dialectic beckons  to be fodder for a future blog post, but I have a feeling unions will be involved yet again.

My friend Lynn assures me that when Joel Klein alluded to the notion that the teachers’ unions might not be “in it for the children,” she sat up and took notice.  She told me that was about as radical a thing as she has ever heard in discussions of how we are to go about reforming education.  Lynn is quite sure it might be the beginning of a real dialogue on the subject.  I am not so sure.  I have done what Davis Guggenheim referred to as “take care of my own.”  I spent a good many years with children in the public school system, but in 1993 I began to homeschool.  Over the course of this blog, I hope to explain why I think the system itself is broken. 

In closing, here’s a quote from a true education reform pioneer, teacher John Taylor Gatto: "I've come to believe that genius is an exceedingly common human quality, probably natural to most of us … I began to wonder, reluctantly, whether it was possible that being in school itself was what was dumbing (my students) down. Was it possible I had been hired not to enlarge children's power, but to diminish it? That seemed crazy on the face of it, but slowly I began to realize that the bells and the confinement, the crazy sequences, the age-segregation, the lack of privacy, the constant surveillance, and all the rest of the national curriculum of schooling were designed exactly as if someone had set out to prevent children from learning how to think and act, to coax them into addiction and dependent behavior."

Educators may have “one of the hardest, most important jobs in the world,” but they also have the privilege of the company of our children for the best hours of the day, one-hundred-eighty days a year for six hours a day, doing work they love and have been trained to do. I contend that if we don’t admit that the focus on outcome is bogus when we won’t even talk about what our kids are learning, then the Great Education Challenge, or some permutation of it, will probably surface at the Connecticut Forum again, and in all likelihood, sooner rather than later.

To read the Connecticut Education Association's review of the Forum, click here  To read the Hartford Courant's assessment, click here. (And is it just me, or are there several grammar infractions in the first couple paragraphs of the Courant account? Tut tut.)