Category Archives: Uncategorized

Cartoons and Stories of Students and Lawyers

For this month, I am combining those often repeated howlers that students write  on tests and say in class with a selection of actual back-and-forths between trial lawyers and witnesses. I wed these student stories/cartoons with courtroom exchanges to show that both children and professionals err and miscommunicate creating humor as they do. Enjoy!

284C1E2100000578-3067033-Joyce_even_wrote_God_a_letter_thanking_him_for_her_baby_brother_-a-42_1430741911861.jpg

 

e2c26cf6b2b9576ca38c875018c1eaae--good-names-teacher-funnies.jpg

 

9fe17c021a40e1fb73341dd339fa6821--funny-kid-notes-kids-notes.jpg

 

97f0a37bf8c3f01cf8e117e9c26eb1cb--why-tumblr-users-shouldnt-be-parents-child-art.jpg

 

c6c1d43e56fcd90378defbf49b481fd0--picture-day-the-day.jpg

 

817a5ac67aa26ec0b437452d29a34545--funny-pics-images-funny-kid-pictures.jpg

 

83731700.jpg

 

The following excerpts are from Charles Sevilla, Disorder in the Court: Great Fractured Moments in Courtroom History (1999). These exchanges between lawyers and witnesses have been taken from court documents.

q: : what was the first thing your husband said to you when he woke up that morning?
a: : he said, “where am i, doris?”
q: : and why did that upset you?
a: : my name is susan.

 

q: : And where was the location of the accident?
a: : Approximately milepost 499.
q: : And where is milepost 499?
a: : Probably between milepost 498 and 500.

 

q: : Trooper, when you stopped the defendant, were your red and blue lights flashing?
a: : Yes.
q: : Did the defendant say anything when she got out of her car?
a: : Yes, sir.
q: : What did she say?
a: : What disco am I at?

 

q: : Do you know how far pregnant you are now?
a: : I’ll be three months on November 8.
q: : Apparently, then, the date of conception was August 8?
a: : Yes.
q: : What were you doing at that time?

 

q: : Do you recall the time that you examined the body?
a: : The autopsy started around 8:30 p.m.
q: : And Mr. Dennington was dead at the time?
a: : No, he was sitting on the table wondering why I was doing an autopsy.
q: : Doctor, before you performed the autopsy, did you check for a pulse?
a: : No.
q: : Did you check for blood pressure?
a: : No.
q: : Did you check for breathing?
a: : No.
q: : So, then it is possible that the patient was alive when you began the autopsy?
a: : No.
q: : How can you be so sure, Doctor?
a: : Because his brain was sitting on my desk in a jar.
q: : But could the patient have still been alive nevertheless?
a: : It is possible that he could have been alive and practising law somewhere.

 

A carpenter was giving evidence about an accident he had witnessed.
q: : How far away he was from the accident.
a: : The carpenter replied, “Twenty-seven feet, six and one-half inches.”
q: : What? How come you are so sure of that distance?
a: : Well, I knew sooner or later some idiot would ask me. So I measured it!

 

q: : I show you Exhibit 3 and ask you if you recognize that picture.
a: : That’s me.
q: : Were you present when that picture was taken?

 

Q: How old is your son-the one living with you.
A: Thirty-eight or thirty-five, I can’t remember which.
Q: How long has he lived with you?
A: Forty-five years.

 

Q: What gear were you in at the moment of the impact?
A: Gucci sweats and Reeboks.

Advertisements

4 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Atlanta Educators Reflect on Lessons From Personalized Learning Initiative (Jenny Abamu)

This story appeared in EdSurge August 11, 2017.

“Jenny Abamu is an education technology reporter at EdSurge where she covers technology’s role in both higher education and K-12 spaces. She previously worked at Columbia University’s EdLab’s Development and Research Group, producing and publishing content for their digital education publication, New Learning Times. Before that, she worked as a researcher, planner, and overnight assignment editor for NY1 News Channel in New York City. She holds a Masters degree in International and Comparative Education from Columbia University’s Teacher’s College.”

Five years into a massive transition to a personalized learning model, educators at Fulton County School District in Georgia say they’ve learned a lot about what personalized learning is—including that it’s not about technology.

Back in 2012, ambitious district officials in Fulton County revealed a five-year plan. Through a special-purpose local option sales tax, the district hoped to raise over $200 million to add 65,000 devices in schools by 2017. There was a catch, however: school leaders had to commit to implementing personalized learning models as a prerequisite to receiving laptops and iPads. District leaders even went so far as to dub the hardware “personalized learning devices.”

“At first we thought this was just going to be a hoop we have to jump through in order to get these devices,” admits Daniel Hodge, a personalized learning coach at Barnwell Elementary School in Fulton County, echoing the concerns and confusion shared by other Fulton County educators in an interview with EdSurge. Hodge says his work was originally focused on the tech. It was even in his job title—instructional technology support. “But as we started to do things, we realized it was so much more,” he says.

Working with the consulting organization, Education Elements, the district identified seven tenets of personalized learning: varied strategies, direct just-in-time instruction, choice and voice, mastery-based assessment, choice for demonstrating learning, flexible pacing, and co-plan learning.

District leaders then divided schools into five groups and set them up with coaches. Before teachers could receive the devices, they needed to work with the coaches to adopt at least three of the seven principles into their school model. These principles would guide the school’s professional development and curriculum.

Many teachers hoped that transitioning to this new model would cause students would take ownership of their learning since students had more choices about the pace of a lesson and the content they chose to learn.

But the students in Hodge’s school seemed less engaged. “They were supposed to have more ownership,” Hodge says, but instead, learning looked more passive. Testing scores dipped. “We were wondering why students were just not getting it. They were supposed to have ownership of their learning,” says Hodge. “We were like, wait a second, students chose this, and they’re giving teachers less quality than when teachers were leading them,” he says.

Educators were also confused about what personalized learning was supposed to be.

“A lot of teachers thought [personalized learning] was going to mean taking the teacher away from the front of the classroom and de-emphasizing direct instruction,” Hodge says. They expected inquiry-based learning over direct instruction; adaptive software instead of say, worksheets. “We were expecting those things to bear a lot of the weight” of instruction, he adds.

Chanel Johnson, a STEM program specialist in Fulton County, echoes Hodge’s concerns, noting that many of the teachers saw personalized learning as a type of technology that would replace the work of teachers in the classroom.

“We talked about personalized learning, and then we talked about devices, so teachers had the impression that personalized learning meant technology,” says Johnson. “It should have been communicated better that personalized learning is a pedagogy, a way of instructing children—and not a way to use technology better.”

Hodge’s “ah ha!” moment came when he realized the most important “tool” of personalized learning was, in fact, a much older education concept: the “gradual release of responsibility” model, something articulated in the early 1980s and based on theories that go back to Jean Piaget. “It doesn’t matter if you’re standing up in front of the class and giving kids packet of worksheets,” or if you use adaptive software, he says. Instead, the key to personalized learning “is the idea of the teacher transferring ownership of learning to students so they can become self-directed learners.”

The district paid for Hodge to take a six-month course on personalized learning, but he stresses that there are no experts. “When someone says they’re an expert in ‘personalized learning,’ you have to look at their background. People use [PL] as a noun—that’s super detrimental. It’s not a package or end game—it’s a process, a verb. It’s something that’s done. You personalize learning.”

To combat these misconceptions both Hodge and Johnson are working to reconstruct their message by separating technology from the pedagogy with teachers, a difficult task with the two ideas tied together at the district level. However, Hodge says he will remain on his “soap box” until teachers in his schools understand that they must gradually transition students into self-directed learning, whether or not they’re using technology.

“In order to effectively personalize students’ learning the teacher at some point must transfer ownership of learning to students,” says Hodge.

Hodge says he is willing to open up his school so people can come in and learn from their mistakes. Hosting what he describes as “Learning Walks,” Hodge invites parents, teachers, administrators into his teachers’ classrooms so they can offer feedback and support—hoping his transparency can encourage others to share their successes and failures.

“I think a lot of people are scared of letting people know that it didn’t work for them. That is our biggest weakness in all of this,” says Hodge. “Personalized learning has great sound bites and images, but when they try it, and it doesn’t work, they get very insecure about it. What I have learned and what is going to strengthen our work moving forward, has come from iteration and talking about what’s not working.”

Two years into the journey, Hodge feels upbeat about the directions he sees. “School’s just starting. I feel like this year, we’re in a really solid place. Our understanding is better. And it’s a better time to roll it out on larger scale because we know what we’re talking about.”

 

8 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Cartoons on Beginning of School Year

 

Yep, it is that time when children and youth return to school. This month’s cartoons celebrate that momentous time celebrated every year by parents and cartoonists. Enjoy!

 

f67b79ffd7dd92ff280aa167b133a47c--calvin-and-hobbes-fall.jpg

 

images-1.jpg

 

Back+to+School+Boston+1970+4.jpg

 

ph-ho-cf-editorial-1215-20161215.jpg

 

2016152ef53c3284254521928c2760a1--the-far-side-classroom-humor.jpg

 

440581.png6a0105369e6edf970b01b7c74c3bfc970b-800wi.jpg

 

1343537568412_9814932.png

 

067fd68d97d0f815df6aaa241dce3dbe--math-comics-math-cartoons.jpg

 

f06f7af4f47ce106132d00c66c9263f8--teacher-cartoon-teacher-comics.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

4 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Apple Classroom of Tomorrow: A Glimpse into the Past

Apple Classroom of Tomorrow (ACOT) began in 1985 with three classrooms in which every student had access to a desktop computer at school and at home. This 1:1 ratio in a classroom at this time when most schools had 125 students per computer was not only innovative but rare.  As the head of the Apple-sponsored research said: “we set out to investigate how routine use of technology by teachers and students would affect teaching and learning.”

While much has been written about the pluses and minuses of ACOT after it shut down a decade later (see here, here, and here), a glimpse inside one of those classrooms in its first year is like seeing a fossil preserved in amber.

Researcher Jane David described her visit in May 1986 to a fifth grade classroom in Blue Earth school (then a K-12 school housing all students in the rural Minnesota district). One of three initial classrooms chosen to participate in the experiment, David’s description of  her two day visit to the classroom raises questions that in 2017 are just as relevant about routine use of devices in the nation’s classroom. Here is, in part, what she had to say.*

The ACOT classroom is one of three fifth-grade classes in Blue Earth’s only school, a K-12 school with roughly 1000 students and 250 computers.** The number of computers reflects the fact that Blue Earth has been in the forefront of computer use in schools even prior to ACOT….

The ACOT fifth grade class consists of advanced students who averaged in the 99th percentile on previous standardized tests and began the year with keyboarding skills ranging from 30-80 words per minute. These students were introduced to keyboarding in the third grade and participated in the Project Beacon classroom in the fourth grade [part of large, three-year state grant called the Beacon project]. Moreover, ACOT is enhanced by school leadership and hence a climate that encourages innovative uses of computers. From the classroom to the library, cafeteria, nurse’s office andcentral office, computers are am integral part of the daily routine.

The ACOT [fifth grade] teacher began teaching in 1980 with no computer background. Seeing computers at the school, he purchased an Apple and taught himself Appleworks. With $100 from Apple, he took a course in Logo.

In the ACOT classroom, the computers are arranged in five rows going away from the teacher’s desk; four of the five rows are adjacent (with monitors back-to-back). All computers are on three-shelf work stations, with storage beneath and monitors on top. A printer is located at the end of the double rows and a large monitor above a chalkboard in the front of the room and a second large monitor on one side wall.

The computers in the ACOT classroom are used roughly 50% of the time. Word processing is the main use, with applications ranging from daily journal writing to dictation in which students enter answers to oral questions and then reorganize the information into a story or poem. Students have also created a class newspaper using Newsroom and have personal dictionaries (databases which sit on the desktop)consisting of the words they have difficulty spelling (which they quiz each other on). The most advanced students use a math CAI program with a spiral of math skills….

David also looked at a classroom in Eugene (OR) and described that as well in her report to Apple. After summarizing the information she gathered from the two visits to these classrooms, she offered research questions that she felt needed to be answered when a full study of the half-dozen or more ACOT classrooms were done. The research questions covered the influence of computers on how teachers taught, how students reacted to computers, and how organizational and physical arrangements affect the use of computers.

These questions, I believe, are just as relevant for researchers to investigate as for practitioners to consider now as they were then. For example,

#Do computers change the way teachers teach?

#How are computers used instructionally?

#Do computers simplify or complicate teaching?

David also was sensitive to the organizational constraints teachers faced in using 1:1 devices within the confines of the age-graded school within a district and state that had its own requirements. For example, she says:

A number of ingrained characteristics of the existing system seem to run counter to a vision of students using computers as vehicles for exploration, independent learning, and individual pursuits.

-teacher-centered classrooms;

-curricular objectives required by the district or school;

-individual and school evaluations based on traditional standardized tests not sensitive to new kinds of learning;

-the need to ‘stay with’ the other classes in the school at the same grade level (pressure from teachers and parents);

-the need to prepare students in the way that the next grade’s teachers expect (and ultimately graduation requirements.

All of the above questions–there are more in her report–and the imperatives of the Blue Earth age-graded elementary school nested in a district and state in 1986 are, in my opinion, not only a glimpse into the past but also a pointed reminder that efforts to integrate computers into daily lessons must reckon with these questions and imperatives in 2017.

 

___________________

*Jane David is a long-time friend, co-author, and colleague. She provided me with a copy of her 1986 report to Apple from which I excerpted these sections.

**Blue Earth is now a district with three schools: an elementary, middle, and high school.

 

 

 

 

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Learning from the Past? An Analogy between Compulsory Public Schools and Health Insurance*

The U.S. Senate’s failure to either repeal or repair the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) means that the existing law, its strengths and flaws, will be around for the immediate future. A half-century ago, President Lyndon Johnson signed amendments to the Social Security law that the then Democrat-controlled House of  Representatives and Senate passed with large majorities. Thus, Medicare became the law of the land in 1965 for Americans 65 and older and Medicaid for the very poor. It was a single payer system of what was then called “socialized medicine.”

The first enrollee for Medicare was former President Harry Truman. Truman had initially promoted health insurance for all in 1945 and 1949 as had President Franklin Delano Roosevelt before him and President John F. Kennedy after him. So it took decades to get health insurance for the elderly.

 

Zelizer-Medicare.jpg

 

For those under the age of 65, however, health insurance was largely managed by private companies with prices set by the market. Even though most democracies in the world already had national insurance for all, the plans were funded differently (e.g., Britain, Netherlands, and Australia). Not until 2010–nearly a half-century later–when President Barack Obama signed the Affordable Care Act did the U.S. provide ways for millions of uninsured Americans under 65 to get health insurance.

The Affordable Care Act aimed at the 48 million Americans without health insurance in 2010. That number of uninsured Americans fell to 28 million in 2016, a drop (the highest ever) from 18 percent to 10 percent uninsured. Uninsured poor Americans in 31 states got Medicaid. Still there were defects in Obamacare that both Democrats and Republican legislators saw needed correcting.

Neither the bill passed by the House in 2016 and the bills that failed in the Senate in 2017 corrected the major flaws and even threatened to double the numbers of uninsured. With the recent Congressional debacle over health care bills, Obamacare remains intact but still millions of Americans under the age of 65 cannot afford market-driven prices for insurance.

To recap then: between the mid-1930s to 2017, nearly nine decades, old and young, economically comfortable and poor Americans have slowly gained health insurance in increments but Medicare for all or universal health care–is still in the distance. Although a majority of Americans polled (53 percent) say they want a single-payer plan, that would take a unified U.S. Congress and a determined President who could shove that ball yard-by-yard over the goal line. When that will happen, I surely do not know.

Affordable health care covering all Americans is, I believe, similar to the slow but steady incremental progress of tax-supported public schools that moved from private tutors, tuition-paying academies, and “Dame schools” in the 17th and 18th centuries to property owners being taxed, voters authorizing the “common” public school before the Civil War, and states later passing compulsory attendance laws in the late-19th and early 20th centuries (see here here, and here). Today, free public schools in the U.S. enroll over 50 million children and youth between the ages of 4 through 17 (depending on the state) in over 13,000  districts housing over 100,000 schools. The process of insuring that all boys and girls will go to school took many decades just as health care has in the 20th and early 21st centuries.

This is the analogy I use in this post. But historical analogies are dicey.

Uses of the Past

When policymakers, practitioners, and public school students ask about the usefulness of history they want guidance from the past to avoid making mistakes now; some even want predictions. Invariably, historians disappoint them.

Most historians believe that the past can surely inform current policy but extracting direct “lessons” and making confident predictions, while playing well on cable news, last little longer than the 24-hour news cycle and are often, there is no other word, wrong (see here and here).

So historians of education, for example, (and I include myself in that group) argue that even if “lessons” cannot be extracted from the past, policymakers and practitioners can surely profit from looking backward when, say, earlier generations of well-intentioned reformers worked hard to improve schooling. These scholars say that they can aid contemporary policymakers by pointing out similarities and differences between previous and current situations (i.e., analogies). Finally, historians can alert policymakers to what did not work, what might be preferable and what to avoid under certain conditions.

In historians offering their knowledge of how previous generations approached the problems of the day and crafted solutions, they can inform contemporary, serious reformers as they wrestle with a different context from their cousins a half-century to century ago.

The Spread of Tax-supported Public Schools

Beginning in colonial years, proceeding through the Revolutionary decades and responding to the social and political reform of the early 19th century, funding public schools in a mostly rural nation was seen as crucial to the political, social, and cultural health of the new nation. Reformers such as Thomas Jefferson, Horace Mann, and Noah Webster in these years spoke often of creating Americans who knew and performed their civic duties, understood the Bible, could read and write to get jobs, improve their moral character, and create a republican society that Americans prized. Yes, more than two centuries ago, there were multiple (and conflicting) purposes for schooling the young (see here, here, and here).

Slowly, the idea of tax-supported public schools took hold in New England spread to the Midwest but barely penetrated the pre-Civil War South. In rural and urban areas, primary and grammar schools grew. After the Civil War, more and more parents voluntarily sent their sons and daughters–racially segregated, however, by law until the 1950s–to school (see here and here).

Not until the early decades of the 20th centuries had all states passed  Compulsory attendance laws mandating parents to send their children to school. The ever-shifting but crucial purposes for schooling the next generation in a democracy required everyone to pay taxes and send their children to school.

By the middle of the 20th century, kindergartens, junior high and senior high school had been added to the age-graded elementary school. Increased graduation rates meant that the high school diploma became common. While the purposes for public schooling shifted from time to time (e.g., dropping Bible study, increased attention to job preparation) and while a private school K-12 sector grew slowly–about 10 percent of public school enrollment now–going to school became the dominant experience for children and youth.

By the end of the century, reformers called for all students to go to college (although most of higher education both public and private required families to pay tuition) bringing into daily conversation the question of whether youth would go 16-plus years to tax-supported institutions.

The point of this brief sprint through history of tax-supported schools and their purposes in a democratic society is that much time was taken and incremental steps occurred to make tax-supported public schools a virtual right for every U.S.family.

I believe a similar process is at work in providing universal health care as well.

______________________

*I thank Beverly Carter for suggesting this analogy.

 

 

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Eighth Anniversary of Blog

Dear Readers,

This post marks my eighth anniversary as a blogger. I want to thank those readers who regularly read my twice-weekly posts, those who have dipped into them occasionally, those who have subscribed to the post, and finally those who have taken the time to write thoughtful comments.

For past anniversary posts, I have listed statistics for the years I have published the blog and why I continue to write year after year. For this year, however, I offer the principles that have guided my thinking and actions as a practitioner, scholar, and blogger about teaching, learning, and school reform.

My Guiding Principles

From time to time readers will ask me what I believe should be done about teaching, learning, and school reform. They usually preface their request with words such as: “Hey, Larry, you have been a constant critic of existing reforms. You have written about schools not being businesses and have pointed out the flaws in policymaker assumptions and thinking about reform. And you have been skeptical about the worth of new computer devices, software, and online instruction in promoting better teaching and faster learning. So instead of always being a critic just tell us what you think ought to be done.”

Trained as a historian of education and knowledgeable about each surge of school reform to improve teaching and learning over the past century, I cannot offer specific programs for school boards, superintendents, principals, teachers, parents, and voters to consider. Why? Because context is all-important. I know of no reform, no program, no technology that is context-free. The setting matters.

So suggesting this program or that reform for all math classes or urban districts or elementary schools is impossible. But there are principles I embrace that guide my thinking about teaching, learning, and reform. These principles set the direction yet need to be adapted to different settings. These principles come out of my five decades of being a teacher, administrator, and scholar. These principles come out of my school experiences and as a site-based researcher. I prize both experience- and research-produced knowledge. Most readers will be familiar with what I say. No surprises here. But these principles do steer my thinking about teaching, learning, and reform.

Although public schools are essentially conservative institutions committed to reinforce and pass on sanctioned knowledge and community values, they do change and have done so for decades. Schools are not fossils preserved in amber. Both change and stability mark the history of tax-supported public schools. They are “dynamically conservative” institutions that embrace change to maintain stability.

Change comes from both outside and inside schooling. Basically, public schools are political institutions totally dependent upon taxpayers and voters and therefore vulnerable to social and economic gusts of reform that blow across the nation. Those winds of reform, however, lose force as they settle into these conservative institutions. Administrators and teachers adapt organizational, governance, curricular, and instructional reforms and alter them as they move across classrooms.

No single way of teaching works best with all students. Because students differ in motivation, interests, and abilities, using a wide repertoire of approaches in lessons and units is essential. Direct instruction, small groups, whole-group guided discussions, student choice, worksheets, research papers, project-based instruction, online software, etc., etc., etc. need to be in the tool kit of every teacher. There are, of course, reform-driven policymakers, donors, and researchers who try to alter the how and what of teaching. Common Core State Standards, adding Computer Science and coding to the curriculum, the newest version of New Math, New Science, New History, or similar  inventions spill forth from local, state, and federal policymakers. When the reforms ask teachers to adhere to a certain best way of teaching (e.g., project-based teaching, direct instruction, “personalized learning”) regardless of context, I oppose such reforms.

Small and slow changes in classroom practice occur often. Fundamental and rapid changes in practice seldom happen. While well-intentioned reformers seek to dramatically alter how teachers teach reading, math, science, and history, such 180 degree changes in the world of the classroom (or hospital, or therapist’s office, or law enforcement or criminal justice) seldom occur. Over the decades, experienced teachers have become allergic to reformer claims of fast and deep changes in what they do daily in their classrooms. As gatekeepers for their students, teachers, aware of the settings in which they teach, have learned to adapt new ideas and practices that accord with their beliefs and what they think will help their students. Reforms that ignore these historical realities and the discretion that teachers exercise are ill-fated. I support those efforts to build on this history of classroom change, teacher wisdom of practice, and awareness of the context in which the reform will occur.

School structures influence instruction. The age-graded school structure, a 19th century innovation that is now universally cemented to K-12 schooling across the U.S., influences what happens in classrooms in expected and unexpected ways, depending on the context. Teachers adapt to this “grammar of schooling” in following a schedule as they prepare 50-minute (or hour-long) lessons in separate classrooms covering chunks of the required curriculum for that grade or subject. Age-graded structures harnessed to accountability regulations have demanded that teachers prepare  students for high-stakes annual tests. These structures require teachers to judge each student as to whether he or she will pass at the end of the school year. School and district structures (e.g., curriculum standards, professional learning communities, evaluation policies) like the age-graded school have intended and unintended influences on the what and how of teaching.

Teacher involvement in instructional reform. From the mid-19th century through the early decades of the 21st century, no instructional reform imposed upon teachers has been adopted by most teachers and used in lessons as intended by designers. The history of top-down classroom reform is a history of failed efforts to alter what teachers regularly do daily. I include new content and ways of teaching reading, math, science, and history over the past century. Where and when there have been deep changes in classroom instruction, teachers were involved in the planning and implementation of the reform. Examples range from Denver curriculum reform in the 1920s, the Eight Year Study in the 1930s, creation of alternative schools in the 1960s, the Coalition of Essential Schools in the 1980s, designed classroom interventions a’ la Ann Brown in the 1990s, and teacher-run schools in the 2000s. Reforms aimed at altering dramatically classroom instruction require working closely with teachers from the very beginning of a planned change and includes using their existing expertise and expanding their knowledge and skills. 

These are the main principles that guide my views of school reform, teaching, and learning. Using these principles permit me to sort through and make sense of reform ventures seeking to improve teaching and learning.

 

15 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

The Don’t Do It Depository (Morgan Polikoff)

“Morgan Polikoff is an Associate Professor of Education at the USC Rossier School of Education. He researches the design, implementation, and effects of standards, assessment, and accountability policies. His current research is focused on teachers’, schools’, and districts’ implementation of new college and career-readiness standards, including the Common Core. His research has been supported by the National Science Foundation, Institute of Education Sciences, and WT Grant Foundation, among other sources.”

This post appeared on the FutureEd blog July 24, 2017

 

We have known for quite a while that schools engage in all manner of tricks to improve their performance under accountability systems. These behaviors range from the innocuous—teaching the content in state standards—to the likely harmful—outright cheating.

A new study last week provided more evidence of the unintended consequences of another gaming behavior—reassigning teachers based on perceived effectiveness. Researchers Jason A. Grissom, Demetra Kalogrides and Susanna Loeb analyzed data from a large urban district and found that administrators moved the most effective teachers to the tested grades (3-6) and the least effective to the untested grades (K-2).

On the surface, this might seem like a strategy that would boost accountability ratings without affecting students’ overall performance. After all, if you lose 10 points in kindergarten but gain 10 in third grade, isn’t the net change zero?

In fact, the authors found that moving the least effective teachers to the earlier grades harmed students’ overall achievement, because those early grades simply matter more to students’ long-term trajectories. The schools’ gaming behaviors were having real, negative consequences for children.

This strategy should go down in the annals of what doesn’t work, a category that we simply don’t pay enough attention to. Over the past 15 years, there has been a concerted effort in education research to find out “what works” and to share these policies and practices with schools.

The best example of this is the push for rigorous evidence in education research through the Institute of Education Sciences and the What Works Clearinghouse. This may well be a productive strategy, but the WWC is chock full of programs that don’t seem to “work,” at least according to its own evidence standards, and I don’t think anyone believes the WWC has had its desired impact. (The former director of IES himself has joked that it might more properly be called the What Doesn’t Work Clearinghouse).

These two facts together led me to half-joke on Twitter that maybe states or the feds should change their approach toward evidence. Rather than (or in addition to) encouraging schools and districts to do good things, they should start discouraging them from doing things we know or believe to be harmful.

This could be called something like the “Don’t Do It Depository” or the “Bad Idea Warehouse” (marketing experts, help me out). Humor aside, I think there is some merit to this idea. Here, then, are a couple of the policies or practices that might be included in the first round of the Don’t Do It Depository.

The counterproductive practice of assigning top teachers to tested grades is certainly a good candidate. While we’re at it, we might also discourage schools from shuffling teachers across grades for other reasons, as recent research finds this common practice is quite harmful to student learning.

Another common school practice, particularly in response to accountability, is to explicitly prepare students for state tests. Of course, test preparation can range from teaching the content likely to be tested all the way to teaching explicit test-taking strategies (e.g., write longer essays because those get you more points). Obviously the latter is not going to improve students’ actual learning, but the former might. In any case, test preparation seems to be quite common, but there’s less evidence that you might think that it actually helps. For instance:

  • A study of the ACT (which is administered statewide) in Illinois found test strategies and item practice did not improve student performance, but coursework did.
  • An earlier study in Illinois found that students exposed to more authentic intellectual work saw greater gains on the standardized tests than those not exposed to this content.
  • In the Measures of Effective Teaching Project, students were surveyed about many dimensions of the instruction they received and these were correlated with their teachers’ value-added estimates. Survey items focusing on test preparation activities were much more weakly related to student achievement gains than items focusing on instructional quality.
  • Research doesn’t even indicate that direct test preparation strategies such as those for the ACT or SAT are particularly effective, with actual student gains far lower than advertised by the test preparation companies.

In short, there’s really not great evidence that test preparation works. In light of this evidence, perhaps states or the feds could offer guidance on what kind of and how much test preparation is appropriate and discourage the rest.

Other activities or beliefs that should be discouraged include “learning styles,” the belief that individuals have preferred ways of learning such as visual vs. auditory. The American Psychological Association has put out a brief explainer debunking the existence of learning styles. Similarly, students are not digital natives, nor can they multitask, nor should they guide their own learning.

There are many great lists of bad practices that already exist; states or the feds should simply repackage them to make them shorter, clearer, and more actionable. They should also work with experts in conceptual change, given that these briefs will be directly refuting many strongly held beliefs.

Do I think this strategy would convince every school leader to stop doing counterproductive things? Certainly I do not. But this strategy, if well executed, could probably effect meaningful change in some schools, and that would be a real win for children at very little cost.

13 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized