Who will be Secretary of Education?

by desertjim

The incoming Obama administration made lots of news last week by naming the economic team that will be taking over at the end of January. Other probable appointments like Tom Daschle for Health and Human Services and Bill Richardson for Commerce have been leaked to the press. However, the choice for Secretary of Education seems to be very much in doubt. The number of possible candidates listed in TIME magazine, on Yahoo, and in the political blogs is lengthy.

For those of you who haven’t been paying attention, here is the list I cobbled together:

Howard Dean, former governor and chairman of the Democratic Pary
Joel Klein, chancellor of the New York City schools
Linda Darling-Hammond, education advisor to the Obama campaign
Arne Duncan, CEO of Chicago Public Schools
Wendy Kopp, founder and chairman of Teach for America
Michelle Rhee, chancellor of the Washington, DC public school system
Christopher Edley, Jr., Dean of the Law School at University of California, Berkeley
James B. Hunt, Jr., Former governor of North Carolina
Caroline Kennedy, member of the Obama campaign’s vice-presidential search committee
Johnathan Schnur, Chief executive of New Leaders for New Schools

There are probably other names floating around out there, but these seem to be the most commonly mentioned. Janet Napolitano (governor of Arizona) was on earlier lists, but she will be taking over as head of Homeland Security. Former Secretary of State Colin Powell was also mentioned, but he has stated clearly that he has no interest in further service in DC.

Whoever takes over will be only the ninth Secretary of Education. Education was promoted to cabinet rank during the administration of Jimmy Carter. As educators, should we be looking for an educational administrator like Klein or Rhee, an education reformer like Kopp or Darling-Hammond, a college educator like Edley, or a politician like Dean?

Labels:

Creationism is still not science

by desert jim

Yesterday was the 149th anniversary of the publication of Charles Darwin’s The Origin of Species. It was also a day that science teachers and concerned residents (this time in Texas) had to plead with their State Board of Education not to confuse public schoolchildren by watering down the teaching of evolution.  Once again, anti-evolutionists on a state board want teachers to teach the weaknesses or limitations of evolution.

Evolution is the unifying principle that explains all scientific observations of the diversity of life. It is as basic to our understanding of biology as the atomic theory is to our understanding of chemistry. At the same level, the theory of tectonic plates explains earthquakes and vulcanism and the germ theory explains communicable diseases. The only weakness or limitation that any theory could develop would be if it was unable to explain actual observations or data. That is not the case for evolution.

The most recent effort by creationists is to argue that they are proponents of academic freedom. They argue that teachers should be encouraged to, “Objectively present the scientific strengths and weaknesses of Darwinian theory.” This approach was developed after a judge in Pennsylvania ruled that teaching intelligent design in the public schools violated the constitutionally mandated separation of church and state. I reiterate here my main point - evolution currently explains all available scientific observations and data. It has no more weaknesses than atomic theory or any of the other generally accepted scientific explanations of our universe.

The government in the United Kingdom has had enough of the creationists. New guidelines make it clear that creationism or its recent euphemism “intelligent design” do not belong in science classrooms. The guidelines state clearly, “Creationism and intelligent design are not part of the science National Curriculum programmes of study and should not be taught as science.” The guidelines go on to point out that, “In science [theory] means that there is a substantial amount of supporting evidence underpinned by principles and explanations accepted by the international scientific community.” By that definition, creationism is not a scientific theory.

149 years after Darwin made clear the way life has diversified on our planet, it is time to put the controversy between evolution and religion to rest, at least in our science classrooms

Labels:

Will Merit Pay Make a Comeback?

by desertjim

In the summer of 2007, Senator Barack Obama stood in front of the National Education Association (NEA) convention and told the assembled teachers that he was in favor of paying teachers more if their students perform well on tests or if they take on added duties. This year, as the presumptive Democratic nominee for president, he repeated his support of merit pay. “I know this wasn’t necessarily the most popular part of my speech last year,” he said, “but I said it then and I say it again today because it’s what I believe.” Both conventions booed his suggestion.

Last week, the head of the American Federation of Teachers, Randi Weingarten, said there is a role for raises based on how well students learn. Weingarten said, “If an innovation is collaborative and fair, teachers will embrace it, and it will succeed.” Teachers unions in some cities, including New York City, have begun to accept performance pay. In New York, teachers in 128 of 200 eligible schools are getting bonuses for improving student achievement.

Draft legislation of the updated version of No Child Left Behind included a proposal to give bonuses of up to $10,000 to “outstanding teachers”. The proposal doesn’t spell out who would be eligible for the extra money, although test scores would be a factor. NEA president Reg Weaver rejected the idea during last year’s hearings, saying that level of detail should be bargained locally, not spelled out by Congress. In fact, the local NEA affiliate in Denver has accepted a limited merit pay plan.

So, is merit pay back on the table in local negotiations? For six years in the 1960s, the district I worked in had a limited merit pay plan. Teachers received $200 increases in pay based on the principals’ decision. It was a whimsical system. Few women received the bonus, men almost always got it. I received the bonus every year I was eligible except the year I headed the NEA local that negotiated our first collective bargaining agreement. The unfair bonus system was one of the first items we bargained to get rid of once we had a labor contract.

I have no problem with programs which offer higher pay for extra duties or extended years. Teachers who become department heads, team leaders or curriculum developers need to be reimbursed. I fear any new merit pay system that is even partially based on student test scores. We have evidence that the scores are not measuring student ability to succeed after high school.

Teachers who receive underachieving students in September can not reasonably be expected to raise them to acceptable test levels by March. Would such teachers be penalized? Would teachers in schools with high percentages of special education students, or English as a second language students be cut out of the system? If tests are not part of the criteria for awarding merit pay, what would replace them? How can merit pay be made fair to all the teachers?

Labels:

Is “Reading First” a Failure?

by desertjim

The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) education act was premised on three goals. To focus on low-performing schools, to beef up the federal role in education and to promote teaching methods backed by “scientifically based research”. The centerpiece of the research-based approach was supposed to be Reading First. However, for at least two years, questions have been asked about an apparent push to adopt reading programs based on campaign contributions rather than on research. In 2006 the Inspector general found that states were pressured to approve materials from only a handful of preferred publishers including SRA/McGraw-Hill, whose CEO has been a major Republican fund-raiser.

In spring of this year, the Federal Department of Education released a report that indicated the reading comprehension of children participating in Reading First wasn’t growing as fast as that of children in a control group. Defenders of Reading First questioned the study’s methodology. Reid Lyon (former head the Child Development and Behavior Branch of the National Institute of Child Health and Human development) said that the report’s findings are, “Not a cause for ... political opportunism, but a cause for deliberation and careful consideration of all the possible explanations - ineffective treatment, poor implementation .. and many other factors.”

Well, the careful deliberation has taken place. The final report of the Reading First Impact Study, released today, shows no effect on reading comprehension in participating schools. The study gave reading proficiency tests to 30 to 40 thousand students, one-half of whom were in Reading First programs. The $6 billion spent on Reading First has helped more students to identify letters and words, but has not had an impact on reading comprehension among 1st, 2nd or 3rd graders. More time is spent on reading instruction in schools that received Reading First grants, but students are no more likely to become proficient readers.

Since NCLB was supposed to be based on research, the current Reading First program would seem to be a prime candidate for the ash heap. Perhaps a new iteration of the program could actually be based on science instead of cronyism, but that decision will rest with a new administration and a new Congress. I am not a reading teacher, so I cannot claim expertise in the field. Perhaps TEN readers who have experienced the effects of Reading First can react to the new study. What should be done to improve reading instruction for current 1st, 2nd and 3rd graders?

Labels:

Test scores improve, but is that helping students?

by desertjim

The Chicago Sun Times recently reported that, while increasing numbers of Chicago students are meeting state standards, the standards are inflated and Chicago Public School kids are not grasping the complex skills they need. The Sun Times quotes a report from the Consortium on Chicago School Research that says the average eighth grader who easily passed the state math test later scored only a 17.5 on the ACT college entrance exam. That is far below Chicago’s districtwide goal of 20 (which would give a student a shot at a minimally competitive college).

There seems to be a disconnect between the state standards and national tests such as the ACT. Does teaching to the state tests result in students deficient in the analytical skills they will need to compete in college? An extensive analysis by the Harvard Civil Right Project of scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) concluded that, “No Child Left Behind (NCLB) has not caused achievement to improve significantly, nor have gaps been narrowed”. A study by Policy Analysis for California Education shows similar results. Bruce Fuller (University of California at Berkley) said, “A lot of governors and a lot of state school chiefs have...claimed significant progress in terms of reading and math achievement, [but] in many cases...state officials seem to be exaggerating progress that has been made in children’s basic reading skills.”

Even the conservative Wall Street Journal says that, “NCLB is beyond uninformative, it is deceptive.” Referring to the same Harvard analysis mentioned above, the Journal says that NCLB has failed to raise test scores and instead pushes classrooms toward relentless drilling and holds good students hostage to the performance of the least talented. This is occurring, according to the Journal, when the economic future of the country depends more than ever on the performance of the most talented.

A study that indicates an actual improvement in reading and math scores comes from the Center on Educational Policy (CEP). But according to the report’s authors, the results do not indicate cause and effect relationship between NCLB and the improved scores. CEP states, “It is impossible...to determine the extent to which these trends in test results have occurred because of NCLB.” The National Education Association in reporting on the study claims that any improvements in test scores may have come in spite of NCLB rather than because of it. We are all aware that districts are devoting more class time to reading and math and are even spending time teaching students how to take standardized tests at the expense of providing a more broad-based education.

If state test scores are going up, but students are less prepared for college at the end of high school, what is the benefit of the testing? If even the most favorable study can’t demonstrate that NCLB is successful, why should the law be continued?

Labels:

What can educators expect from the Obama administration?

by desertjim

Now that Barack Obama is the President-Elect, I thought it would be a good time to look in more detail at his education policies.

The campaign website has considerable detail on the priorities of the incoming Obama administration. The three top education priorities are to reform No Child Left Behind (NCLB), invest in early childhood education and make college affordable for all Americans. NCLB reform will be based on the premise that, “Teachers should not be forced to spend the academic year preparing students to fill in bubbles on standardized tests.” A comprehensive “Zero to Five” plan is intended to assist states in moving toward voluntary, universal preschool. Finally, an Obama administration will push to create a college tuition tax credit that will cover two-thirds of the tuition costs for public universities for students who agree to community service.

The President-Elect has promised to add $10B a year to federal preschool funding, recruit an army of new teachers, double federal funding for charter schools and find funding for the scholarships to those who agree to pursue careers in teaching. It is not clear at this time which of these education proposals will take priority. The massive federal budget deficits will certainly have an effect on any new spending for education. Some may be part of the overdue renewal of NCLB. Others, such as early childhood education may be introduced as separate bills.

The Wall Street Journal (which is no longer an unbiased source under Rupert Murdoch’s ownership) is reporting that the new president may put education on the back burner, due to the financial crisis he is inheriting. This opinion seems to be based wholly on an interview in October in which he listed education fifth in priority after the economy, energy independence, health-care overhaul and tax cuts for the middle class. I would argue that the economy, energy and tax cuts are all so intimately related that they count as one item and that education is absolutely necessary to creating a technologically able work force that will create and maintain energy independence.

Chicago Public Schools CEO Arne Duncan disagrees with the back burner assessment. Duncan said that education has been pivotal to Obama’s personal story and he predicted, “A very strong, aggressive and comprehensive strategy...this is something that is hugely important to him.” It will be important that the education community pay attention to what happens in the first 100 days of the Obama/Biden administration. The campaign emphasis on improved education must be continued and turned into actual legislation as soon as possible.

Labels:

The joy of voting

by desertjim

I spent Tuesday working as an election judge in southern New Mexico. I found out that I am really getting too old to work 14 hour days anymore. I also found out, however, how exhilarating it can be to see people cast their first votes. In the precinct I worked, over 45% had voted early or absentee. As a result, we had plenty of time to observe the 200 or so who came in to vote on election day.

Just like the rest of the nation, about one in 10 of our voters were new to the process. Many still showed their temporary voter registration cards. They had registered so recently that there hadn’t been time for the permanent cards to reach them. It was clear that they took their duty as voters seriously. Several came in with friends who had just voted at other precincts, or were going to vote at the next stop in their travels. (Friends make sure friends vote?) They had sample ballots in their hands and had obviously thought out their choices ahead of time. I noticed that they all took the time to vote on the state constitutional amendments and bond issues on the back of the ballot - something many of our older voters skipped.

But the smiles were the thing that all the election workers and poll watchers commented on. When the ballot went into the box, and the counter showed that the vote was recorded, each new voter lit up and walked out with the smile of a kid with a new puppy at Christmas. There were even a couple of high-fives from the accompanying friends. It was a joy to behold.

I’ve been voting for a long time now. I never miss a chance to vote, whether it’s for school board members, city council or president of the United States. I consider it a duty and a privilege of my citizenship. Tuesday’s new voters reminded me and my fellow poll workers just how great it is to be able to cast our own ballots. I have a feeling that those young voters will continue to vote. They aren’t going to easily forget the feeling that accompanied participating in our democracy for the first time.

Labels:

Read more in the archives»