"Least influential of education's most influential information sources."
-- Education Week Research Center
"full of very lively short items and is always on top of the news...He gets extra points for skewering my high school rating system"
-- Jay Mathews, The Washington Post
"a daily dose of information from the education policy world, blended with a shot of attitude and a dash of humor"
-- Education Week
"unexpectedly entertaining"..."tackle[s] a potentially mindfogging subject with cutting clarity... they're reading those mushy, brain-numbing education stories so you don't have to!"
-- Mickey Kaus
"a very smart blog... this is the site to read"
-- Ryan Lizza
"everyone who's anyone reads Eduwonk"
-- Richard Colvin
"designed to cut through the fog and direct specialists and non-specialists alike to the center of the liveliest and most politically relevant debates on the future of our schools"
-- The New Dem Daily
"peppered with smart and witty comments on the education news of the day"
-- Education Gadfly
"don't hate Eduwonk cuz it's so good"
-- Alexander Russo, This Week In Education
"the morning's first stop for education bomb-throwers everywhere"
-- Mike Antonucci, Intercepts
"…the big dog on the ed policy blog-ck…"
-- Michele McLaughlin
"I check Eduwonk several times a day, especially since I cut back on caffeine"
-- Joe Williams
"...one of the few bloggers who isn't completely nuts"
-- Mike Petrilli, Thomas B. Fordham Foundation
"I have just three 'go to' websites: The Texas Legislature, Texas Longhorn sports, and Eduwonk"
-- Sandy Kress
"penetrating analysis in a lively style on a wide range of issues"
-- Walt Gardner
"Fabulous"
-- Education Week's Alyson Klein
"thugs"
-- Susan Ohanian
Smart List: 60 People Shaping the Future of K-12 Education
So the writer wants the OWS protesters to occupy school offices and union offices, but to demand what?
The tone of the article suggests that “Better Education for Poor People” would be an appropriate marching slogan. But, what specific school reforms does the author (or putative protesters) demand?
Absent identified school reforms, the article adds little to either the OWS discussion or the school reform discussion.
I’d like to second LaborLawyer’s point (I also didn’t see what Rotherham was suggesting that schools/unions DO to remedy the problem). In addition, I’d suggest that Rotherham read the Bell Curve (or similar books) which disentangles the poverty/SES/race/IQ etc. factors that people tend to lump together when discussing achievement.
For example, the Bell Curve contains data that suggests that poor people, on average, have lower IQ’s than wealthier people in America. It’s not simply that different people attend different schools — they are different in many other ways (again, on average — obviously each person is an individual and has individual characteristics). Trying to place all the blame for the problems of low-income individuals on teachers, schools or unions is completely off-base.
The leftist mindset *requires* someone or something to blame. Fifty years of Great Society dollars has only made education worse. All the fixes one might offer will not overcome the same gene pool that has been around for centuries.
LaborLawyer:
That criticism has been brought up against OWS in general; there are few specific, pragmatic demands the protestors have all agreed upon. “Immediate Forgiveness of All Student Debt” as a rallying cry seems just a bit whimsical.
And if you read somewhat closely, you’ll find a few examples of demands that could/should be voiced.
Attorney DC:
Citing The Bell Curve to further the idea that, as you’ve said before, “the main problem in low-income schools […] is the school culture and the students/families who attend the schools,” makes what you’re saying sound even more unconvincing.
Chris: Why is what I’m saying “unconvincing”? My basic position on student achievement is that main problem in low-income schools stems from the personal attributes of the students, rather than the influence of the school. This theory is supported not only by my own experience, but by studies showing that only about 20% of variance between students can be explained by in-school factors.
Because you’re arguing now that the achievement gaps are due mainly because of unintelligent poor people, truly a noble maxim that we all should rally behind. I’m curious: are you also arguing that black students are, on average, genetically inferior to their white counterparts?
Please also cite the study that suggests demanding changes to our schools and school policy will have no impact on improving public education. Or even the vague studies you reference above and where exactly they claim that in-school factors could not ever make a large impact on student achievement.
Attorney DC:
Also do us all a favor and go look up the theories of “malleable intelligence.” Carol Dweck is a good place to start. Genetics play a role on the tails, but nothing genetic or inhereted stops students from achieving at high levels.
I agree with Andy on this one. It’s time to stop the terrible inequity that exists in our schools. It’s time to end the disgrace of education by zip code. Teachers have been advocating for an end to this national disgrace for many years but there are powerful groups that lobby to keep the status quo of poor kids trapped in minority neighborhoods and all-black academies. There’s even a movement right now to privatize schools for the poor for the purpose of siphoning off tax money intended for the students. This is done by hiring young, inexperienced teachers to take the place of more experienced and expensive veterans.
As far as unions are concerned, we know that the highest acheiving states have the strongest unions, so perhaps we should legislate strong unions in every state. In this way, teachers, who are the strongest advocates for children next to parents, can insist on educational equity for all children. Who better to stand up for children than the people willing to care for them?
Because of the looming election, there seems to be a movement toward some of the improvements teachers would like to see for our least privileged children:
medical care
high quality preschool
small classes and two teachers per classroom
parent education
fully qualified and experienced teachers
public school vouchers (Yes, these children might apply to YOUR school)
before and after school enrichment and summer camp.
Let’s stop the shameful practice of segregating our children of poverty and color into separate schools. And keep Wall Street from profiting from these schools that have so little to begin with. These shameful practices are hurting us all threaten our democratic way of life.
The rich getting richer is the problem. Our schools will improve if and when we have an economy that supports families and provides a tax base that can pay teachers and everyone else a living wage. OWS is a movement, a way to raise consciousness that what we have going on now isn’t working. It’s stimulating conversations and questioning business as usual. It’s a place to start.
“I’m curious: are you also arguing that black students are, on average, genetically inferior to their white counterparts?”
Poor students have, on average, a lower IQ than middle class students. This is a fact. Black and Hispanic students have, on average, a lower IQ than white and Asian students. This, too, is a fact.
Are you seriously suggesting that any particular level of intelligence denotes genetic superiority or inferiority?
Or are you just a liar?
“So the writer wants the OWS protesters to occupy school offices and union offices, but to demand what?” Read his earlier articles. Start by abolishing archaic, failed, immoral policies like tenure, seniority rules, better teacher evaluations, greater flexibility to hire and fire, merit pay, school choice, etc, etc.
“I’d suggest that Rotherham read the Bell Curve (or similar books) which disentangles the poverty/SES/race/IQ etc. factors that people tend to lump together when discussing achievement. … only about 20% of variance between students can be explained by in-school factors.” So let’s go after that 20%. It is the lowest hanging, obvious fruit.
“are you also arguing that black students are, on average, genetically inferior to their white counterparts?” Unfortunately yes, according to all scientific evidence they have average IQ about 15 points lower – but that is no excuse for failing to offer them our best.
“look up the theories of “malleable intelligence.” Carol Dweck is a good place to start. Genetics play a role on the tails, but nothing genetic or inhereted stops students from achieving at high levels.” I agree.
“Linda/RetiredTeacher Says:” I am a union shill obstructing any serious ed reform.
“Our schools will improve if and when we have an economy that supports families and provides a tax base that can pay teachers and everyone else a living wage.” You have it ass backwards. Our failing schools (and the “culture of poverty” that prevails in them) are the reason so many pockets of people lack the skills to earn a “living wage” and therefore live in chronic poverty. Don’t attempt to offload the failure of our failing union-dominated schools on the free market economy.
“Are you seriously suggesting that any particular level of intelligence denotes genetic superiority or inferiority?” Sure it does.
He referenced The Bell Curve as reading material, Cal, so it is a relevant question. And no, I didn’t suggest (causal) connections between intelligence and genetics at all, nor the idea that IQ is a valid measure of someone’s degree of intelligence. The book he referenced does. I think it’s a fairly obtuse comment to say that achievement gaps exist because poor people are either less intelligent or have some sort of character flaw, and it’s been a running theme I’ve noticed in his writings.
And I have no idea what the hell your last question was referencing. Not sure how I could have lied by asking a question.
“Unfortunately yes, according to all scientific evidence they have average IQ about 15 points lower – but that is no excuse for failing to offer them our best.”
Jason, lower IQ results do not say anything about capacity for intelligence, nor is it evidence that certain subgroups of people are intrinsically inferior.
To all those who are angry about my references to the Bell Curve (and theories of intelligence): I’m not trying to say that any particular race or gender or ethnicity is genetically better or worse than another. For one thing, I was talking about averages (which isn’t the same at all). But my main point is simply that, based on a number of factors, NOT all children are exactly the same when they hit kindergarten.
These factors include many things that are correlated more strongly with some ethnic groups in America than others, but have nothing to do with genetics, including low birth weight, childhood nutrition, lead in the water, parental education levels, and many other things.
However, the end result of these many factors is that NOT all students are exactly alike with respect to their educational preparedness or ability. Some students have higher IQ’s than others. Some students have larger vocabularies than others. Some students are fluent in English, some know almost no English. Some students have parents who are well educated and supportive, while some student have no parents without a high school education or have no parents at all.
My point is that pretending that schools (including teachers and administrators) are somehow in and of themselves responsible for all or most the differences between low-performing students and high-performing students is, frankly, ridiculous.
Studies (and my teaching experience) show that many other variables are much more important in a student’s overall academic achievement than the particular teacher they happen to get in 3rd grade. Pretending otherwise just leads to ridiculous movements like the current education reform bandwagon of proclaiming loudly that teachers are the “most important” factor in achievement (when really they are simply the most important IN SCHOOL factor, which school factors taken together account for only about 20% of total variance among students).
Blaming teachers for the low performance of disadvantaged groups, when we know that teachers are not the real cause of the problem, is disingenuous at best and at worst can lead to real negative consequences for the teachers and the students.
Firing every teacher in a low-income school won’t solve the problem. If anything, that approach will only make the problem worse because most teachers will not want to work in a school with difficult working conditions and little job security, which may well lead to a downward spiral of quality.
RE: Blaming teachers for the low performance of disadvantaged groups, when we know that teachers are not the real cause of the problem, is disingenuous at best and at worst can lead to real negative consequences for the teachers and the students.
Firing every teacher in a low-income school won’t solve the problem. If anything, that approach will only make the problem worse because most teachers will not want to work in a school with difficult working conditions and little job security, which may well lead to a downward spiral of quality.
Mr. Rotherham: have you or any on other ed journalist ever traced the origins in print of the terms “teacher bashing” or “blaming the teacher” What exactly did “reformers” say that was so horrible – before Wiengarten and others starting saying teacher bashing many times in every conversation?
Carol: Reformers don’t say teachers are horrible. Instead, they say that teachers are very important – more important than poverty, socioeconomic conditions, single parent households, poor attendance or any other factors that negatively correlate with student performance.
The reformers then confidently make the assertion that since teachers are so “important” to student achievement, then widespread poor student performance in low-income schools must be blamed on the teachers, who must be fired.
The problem with this ‘reasoning’ is that teachers are NOT the major problem in low-performing students and, as such, blaming them when low-income kids do poorly in schools doesn’t solve the problem.
Chris Smyr and Attorney DC —
An Occupy The Schools movement — that is, one that is widespread, popular, loud, and well-publicized but unfocused (or presses only a generic improve-the-inner-city-schools demand)– would probably be counterproductive.
Pretty much everyone already knows that inner-city schools are awful. And, there’s been a lot of well-publicized discussion at the local, state, and federal level about what to do about this problem. In short, we do not need more pressure/attention to solve the problem. To the contrary, what we need is more critical thinking/analysis regarding how to solve the problem.
A generic Occupy-the-Schools movement would increase the pressure/attention without improving the critical thinking/analysis.
The increased pressure/attention would make it more likely that public officials would implement the most superficially-appealing/easy-to-implement reforms (i.e., charters, vouchers, teacher evaluation/discharge systems) and implement them on a large-scale basis (i.e., across an entire school system, rather than in a few pilots).
As Attorney DC persuasively argues, it is extremely unlikely that teacher evaluation/discharge reforms will significantly improve education in inner-city schools. To the contrary, such reforms would probably harm inner-city schools by providing additional incentives for highly-skilled teachers to flee the inner-city schools.
OWS-type movements are useful when the main obstacle to solving a problem is the public’s apathy and/or where an affluent/powerful minority supports a status quo that damages the majority. Neither applies to the problem of poorly-performing inner-city schools. The public knows this is a problem, the public strongly wants the problem solved, and, although the status quo is damaging the lower-income students in the inner-city schools, there is no affluent/powerful minority enforcing the status quo; to the contrary, there are affluent/powerful players on all sides of the education-reform debate.
Attorney DC:
In short, you cite every possible socioeconomic factor for poor/minority students being on average dumber than others — except schools — and thus you claim schools aren’t to blame for their low achievement. Since you think schools could never have a large impact (yet haven’t provided the sources I asked from you before), does that mean you think these subgroups simply lack the capacity to become smarter? Considering we just had a discussion about charter schools where we saw poor/minority kids greatly excelling, and you argued that peer effects explained all of the achievement differences, doesn’t that still imply that in-school factors made the difference?
What’s disingenuous is setting up straw man arguments, like how teachers are being blamed for “the real cause” of achievement gaps, or how reformers intend to “fire every teacher in a low-income school”. Especially this gem:
No, the idea is to improve the way our schools function such that we can make an impact regardless of the social ills that pervade our society. Great teachers/schools *are* very important nonetheless. You’ve read these arguments countless times before, so why you’re pretending otherwise is baffling.
LaborLawyer:
Yet they don’t know the economy sucks as well?
Justify this. Give sources. Give reasoning, more than what Attorney DC offered, as he didn’t offer much. There is good justification for there being a variety of causes associated with achievement gaps. There is none for it being impossible for schools to help disadvantaged students achieve.
“And I have no idea what the hell your last question was referencing. Not sure how I could have lied by asking a question.”
Because he never mentioned genetic rankings at all. Neither does The Bell Curve. But you implied that he did. Hence, a lie.
“Jason, lower IQ results do not say anything about capacity for intelligence, nor is it evidence that certain subgroups of people are intrinsically inferior.”
First, wrong. Second, true. But you were the one implying otherwise, originally.
He stressed it as reading material, Cal, for helping to disentangle the effects of poverty/SES/race/IQ. He then qualified the first argument by saying the main problem in schools are the “personal attributes of the students.” My question addressed to him was entirely valid and relevant.
Also, your bizarre line about The Bell Curve not mentioning genetic factors can be refuted literally in seconds, with a cursory look at any of the thousands of websites or papers on the topic. I can’t even decide which one I want to link to most.
IQ gives a measure of cognitive ability, but it’s incorrect that IQ differences are indicative of genetic differences, as Jason had mentioned. Which, if you read closely, was where I was directing my response.
And, no, I most certainly did not ever imply that any subgroups were intrinsically inferior to others. This is the 2nd time you have claimed this but haven’t bothered to explain how I did as much. Point to the specific lines that suggest I implied that certain subgroups were intrinsically inferior. And do it soon, before you again get cranky due to the thoroughness of my replies.
Reading Cal and Chris bicker is like watching the Superbowl between two teams you despise. You really don’t care who wins or loses.
Or like watching someone piss at a fan.
Lest the collective attention span of this forum is too short to see the contributions to this discussion past a few sneering commenters, I’m still waiting for:
1) A reply from Attorney DC with at least the answers to the two questions I asked him, and
2) Cal to provide evidence supporting her claims.
Chris, the Bell Curve does not mention genetic “rankings”, nor does it ever mention “genetic inferiority”. In fact, the authors only say that it seems to them likely that genes AND environment have *something to do* with the different IQs reported for different races.
In other words–now, focus hard– blacks have a lower average IQ than whites (one and a half SD). Hispanics have a lower average IQ than whites (1 SD). Asians have a slightly higher IQ than whites (less than half an SD). These statements are facts. They are not arguments. They are not in dispute.
None of these statements mention genes at all. Stating these facts is NOT an argument for a genetic cause in and of itself. Moreover, speculating that genes are a likely cause for some of this difference is *not* an argument for inferiority or superiority.
But speculating that genes may have some role to play in racial differences in IQ, as opposed to just individual differences, sounds pretty similar to eugenics to me.
Me too, pgteacher, as it did for others, hence the controversy. The book was a catalyst for many debates on race and intelligence and hereditarianism. The way Attorney DC casually referenced it in support of his ideas, as I explained above, made it a relevant question to ask what he specifically was arguing with respect to the linkages between race and intelligence.
Now that Cal has responded (albeit without justifying her repeatedly calling me a liar), if only Attorney DC would answer those two little questions that he’s been evading for months. I will even rewrite them below:
1) Since you think schools could never have a large impact (yet haven’t provided the sources I asked from you before), does that mean you think these subgroups simply lack the capacity to become smarter?
2) Considering we just had a discussion about charter schools where we saw poor/minority kids greatly excelling, and you argued that peer effects explained all of the achievement differences, doesn’t that still imply that in-school factors made the difference?
“But speculating that genes may have some role to play in racial differences in IQ, as opposed to just individual differences, sounds pretty similar to eugenics to me.”
Then you don’t know what “eugenics” means. Eugenics is about breeding for a particular result, breeding to improve a population.
What I suspect you mean is this: racists who believe that blacks are inferior argue this point on the grounds that blacks are genetically inferior. Nothing to do with eugenics.
And nothing to do with the point at hand. What Chris and others want to do is smear people who point out the IQ differences (which may or may not be genetic) as racists, so that the observation will be perceived to be racist as well.
But facts are facts, and the following are facts:
1) there are clear and unambiguous IQ differences between self-identified races.
2) Eugenics means breeding for improvement.
Therefore pointing out IQ differences is pointing out a fact. It has nothing to do with advocating a particular position.
Speculating that IQ differences may be based in genetics does NOT argue that one race is inferior or superior, nor does it in any way suggest a desire to improve races through breeding. It may be speculation that perhaps the genes that determine intelligence are found in different combinations and different frequencies in different races. Or it may be (as Rushton argues) that the races are actually quite distinct. But the speculation in and of itself does not in anyway allow for an inference of beliefs about genetic superiority or eugenics.
When Chris moves from “genetic cause” to arguing that someone believes that races are “genetically inferior”, he is lying about that person’s position. Or, perhaps, he’s merely too stupid to know the difference.
“doesn’t that still imply that in-school factors made the difference?”
No. Sorting out kids who don’t want to work does not count as an “in school” factor. That’s why KIPP is under fire for sorting and cherry picking.
Chris,
I think it’s interesting that you assume AttorneyDC is a man. Why is that?
Personally, I think it’s the least interesting (and relevant) part of this discussion. Regardless, it has been well over a year and I’ve never noticed he/she correct my pronoun usage, leading me to assume it either didn’t matter or that I was right. Easy fix if that’s not the case; doesn’t change my questions.
Chris — Attorney DC has replied to you several times. He has addressed each of your points, except your request that he give citation for studies showing that school-controlled factors account for about 20% of differences in student achievement. I’ve seen this 20% point referenced many times in different forums, but — perhaps like Attorney DC — I don’t have the time to track down the citation. Perhaps you can accept Attorney DC’s failure to provide citation as awarding you a debating point and we can move on.
That 20% figure is *not* what I am asking for, or the current estimate of school impacts relative to out-of-school impacts. I’m specifically asking for a study that suggests that there is a hard limit on academic achievement that can be obtained with focusing on improving school factors. It is often argued that [insert out-of-school factor] is more important than in-school factors, but it’s besides the larger point of what impacts schools *CAN* have– right now– without invoking the whimsical notion of ending all social ills everywhere and for everyone.
My two questions follow directly from both the inability to produce such a source (there isn’t one) and the academic achievement gains from students in non-traditional schools discussed recently, to which his argued cause was peer effects. So, no, they are very relevant questions that have not been answered. I definitely understand why they haven’t been answered yet given the timing of this discussion, so the only reason I keep reiterating them is so they don’t get lost in the tangential offshoots this thread has grown.
Teachers can and do have a huge impact on their students, regardless of the background of the child. A teacher can, and often does, affect the life chances of a child. There is no limit on the academic achievement that he or she can realize in a student.
Teachers are the biggest advocates of children second only to parents and guardians. They know that children are people who have the same basic needs as other people and that’s why they support eyeglasses for the child who cannot see well, medical care for the child whose asthma keeps him at home, food for the child who is hungry. Teachers know that for MOST children, the job of educating the child is a partnership among student, parents, teachers and citizens.
Today is Thanksgiving so I’d like to give thanks for our servicemen, teachers and other public servants who devote their lives to others for modest salaries. I had a very fulfilling career as a teacher and for that I am extremely grateful.
A teacher touches a life forever.
Chris —
If you are arguing that “improving the schools can significantly improve student achievement”, I (and, I think, Attorney DC) would agree with you — at least with regard to inner-city schools.
In my opinion, there are school reforms that could significantly improve inner-city schools and, consequently, student achievement in the inner-city schools. My suggested reforms would focus on 1) student behavior problems (chronic absenteeism, chronic tardiness, and minor but endemic classroom misconduct); and 2) the students-reading-far-below-grade-level problem. If the inner-city schools could largely solve these problems, then — I think/hope — inner-city students would have achievement scores closer to those of suburban students. (It’s possible that suburban schools are no better than inner-city schools at addressing these problems, but — due to students’ SES profile — school weaknesses regarding student-behavior and reading-below-grade-level result in only minor problems in the suburban schools but tremendous problems in the inner-city schools.)
In my opinion, the main school reforms being pushed by Rheeformers/media/public officials — high-stakes testing/teacher evaluation, facilitating teacher discharge by weakening just-cause/due process, charters, and vouchers — would have little/no impact on the student-behavior or reading-below-grade-level problems and would probably make the problems worse (particularly for the inner-city students who are left behind when the more motivated students/parents flee to the charters/privates).
If the “school-based factors” concept is restricted to teacher quality, curriculm, physical facilities, per pupil spending, etc. and does not include student-behavior and reading-below-grade-level, then I would argue that changes/reforms in “school-based factors” cannot significantly improve school quality/student achievement in the inner-city schools. If the “school-based factors” concept includes measues directed at the student-behavior and reading-below-grade-level problems, then I’d agree with your argument that we can significantly improve inner-city student achievement without curing social ills generally.
And, there’s definitely some overlap — for example, if, by improving teacher quality, teachers with weak classroom-management skills and/or weak reading-instruction skills were replaced by teachers with stronger skills, then improving teacher quality would have an impact on inner-city student achievement. However, to the extent such overlap exists, its largely accidental and it’s just as likely that the reform will make the problem worse — for example, the bright, diligent but untrained/inexperienced Teach for America teachers will, on balance, probably be weaker regarding classroom management and reading-teaching technique than the experienced teachers they are replacing.
Bottom line: High-stakes testing/facilitating teacher discharge will not significantly improve student achievement for inner-city students; charters/vouchers will improve student achievement for a small minority of inner-city students, but will do so at the expense of depressing student achievement for the left-behind majority of inner-city students. It is possible to significantly improve student achievement for inner-city students, but only by addressing directly the school-based/controlled problems disproportionately confronting inner-city students — behavior problems and reading below grade level.
Labor Lawyer:
Given Attorney DC’s previous comments about the main problem stemming from the “personal attributes of the students” and his (or her!) citing of the 20% figure as some kind of hard limit on achievement, I doubt that he (or she!) would agree with you. They are incompatible ideas.
I agree with you that schools can have a large impact, but disagree when you say that current reforms could never hope to have an impact on problems such as the two you give. If “student-behavior” is the top problem in urban schools, how is it possible you don’t agree that “teacher quality” would be a relevant variable to improve? How do you fix student behavior without exceptional teachers and administration, all working together to build a cohesive school culture? And how do we know which teachers need which type of professional training/support without a system that authentically can determine it, without blindly marking the vast majority as effective?
It’s not clear how wide the motivational difference is between families who stay at one school versus those who choose to leave for another school. It is also reasonable to suggest that some motivated families would choose to avoid charters and private schools, or that less motivated families would rather choose a charter simply to have the kid with an adult during the day when parents are at work.
Furthermore, it’s a strange thing to say to blame charters for the added hardships that a traditional school will have to bear when some families choose to leave. All families deserve that choice, particularly since some students achieve more at some non-traditional schools. Every school has to work very hard to enable a thriving peer culture that values hard work and achievement, and shouldn’t rely only on certain students as cornerstones toward achieving that goal.
This, too, is unsubstantiated reasoning. You first have to show evidence that TFA teachers are weak in classroom management and “reading-teaching technique”. You then need to show evidence that they are somehow forcibly “replacing” any teachers. Finally, you would need to show that they are taking the place of effective teachers. Given some of the best studies we have on TFA and given their method of placement, I’d say your reasoning is flawed here on all counts.
Here is a short quiz, based on a child who was a student in another first-grade teacher’s class.
“Janet” had Type I diabetes that was not well controlled. She lived with an aunt who showed little interest in Janet’s well-being. As a result, Janet often had insulin reactions at school and had to leave early. She missed many days of school and was not making much progress in reading. What would be the best way to help Janet?
A. Give her an excellent teacher.
B. Give her access to medical care at school.
C. Assign a social worker to provide home support.
D. Provide tutoring for Janet.
E. All of the above.
When we look at an example of a real child, the answer becomes obvious.
“it’s besides the larger point of what impacts schools *CAN* have– right now– without invoking the whimsical notion of ending all social ills everywhere and for everyone.”
It’s important to concentrate on what schools CAN do; this is what most teachers do every day. But that should not prevent us from reaching out to the child who requires additional help from medical or social services.
“The measure of a country’s greatness is how it treats its weakest members.”
Just logged back onto this blog after a few days off to find a vertitable spate of comments… After all this back and forth, I’m not entirely sure what we’re arguing about, but I’ll give it one more shot. My basic position (based on my teaching and reading about the subject) is simply that most academic performance differences between students have little to do with their specific teacher, but are highly correlated with the individual characteristics of the student. This basic premise is borne out by many studies, including those which correlate student performance with family SES.
That said, I agree with Labor Lawyer and others that of course schools and teachers can have a positive (or negative) influence on individual students attending their schools. I particularly espouse the schools’ ability to influence student behavior based on discipline and behavior standards. However, this MUST be done on a school-wide level. It can’t be left to individual teachers, unsupported by the administration. So many administrators in low-income schools basically throw up their hands when it comes to student behavior (including everything from attendance to mouthing off and cursing at other students and staff members). No real learning can take place in schools where this type of behavior is permitted.
I disagree with Chris Smyr and others (including Rotherham) that the solution to widespread low-performance among high-risk students is making it easier to fire their teachers. Many of the problems that contribute to low performance (including emotionally disturbed kids, uninvolved parents, school crowding, teachers placed out of subject area) are mostly or completely out of the control of teachers. Punishing teachers by pretending these problems are their responsibility simply creates a convenient political target, without solving any problems.
In fact, punishing the teachers of low-performing students is more likely to hurt the low-income kids than to help them, because the media and political attacks on teachers are making teaching LESS attrative to educated college grads and are making teaching in low-income schools especially unattractive.
To all those who blame teachers for the ills of low-income schools, I say: Go into these schools, teach for an entire year (or three). Like all teachers, you will teach whatever classes your principal assigns you (whether or not they’re in your preferred subject) and will likely have 30 or more kids in each period, for 5 or 6 periods a day (for a total of 150 plus kids on your roster). You have few working phone numbers for the parents (who are often transient and living in poverty and may not speak much English). Your principal ignores your requests for assistance and refuses to back you up in punishing any students who misbehave (including for fairly egregious physical or verbal assaults).
Then tell me at the end of your foray into the world of teaching how you were able to solve all the students’ problems solely through your teaching ability and how you deserve to be fired if you didn’t (because believe me, you won’t be able to make more than a dent).
“… attacks on teachers are making teaching LESS attractive to educated college grads and are making low-income schools especially unattractive.”
Yes, I believe when the dust settles, this will be the legacy of this “reform” movement. Among all my friends and relatives, there are only two young people who are starting teaching careers. One subbed in a very affluent district for three years before getting a permanent position. He made it very clear that he was holding out for a position in the high-scoring affluent district. The other plans to get a job in higher education. And of course none of the “reformers” wants to teach.
To add to your point, Attorney DC, principals have their hands bound by their superiors as they try to remove the student or teacher who getting in the way of the students learning only to find out that those in charge do not have their back and that they can’t get the bad apple out.
We were (and are) discussing a couple related topics, which I will remind you of in more detail below. Before I do that, one thing you still haven’t done yet is offer your specific answers to the two questions I originally posed to you. Again, they are:
1) Since you think schools could never have a large impact (yet haven’t provided the sources I asked from you before), does that mean you think these subgroups simply lack the capacity to become smarter?
2) Considering we just had a discussion about charter schools where we saw poor/minority kids greatly excelling, and you argued that peer effects explained all of the achievement differences, doesn’t that still imply that in-school factors made the difference? (Your latest comment implied that you think it was the “school” and not the teachers that made the difference in classroom conduct, but I’d like confirmation on that)
And again, citing the correlation of academic achievement with SES, race or IQ does not establish causal factors nor a hard limit on achievement that schools could hope to support.
This “the schools’ ability to influence student behavior […] can’t be left to individual teachers” argument is incredibly obtuse, and it follows a trend of continually shifting blame to accommodate an increasingly illogical stance against reform. Who do you think enforces discipline and behavioral standards in a classroom? How is it possible that any particular school could see large differences in student behavior between classrooms if teachers were not a large underlying cause? Is it administrators or teachers who are most poised to make an impact on students, as leaders and as role models? And where is your evidence that discipline problems in a school often stem from do-nothing administrators and apparently any other factor *except* teachers, the one variable that nearly everyone can agree on as being exceptionally important for a good education?
I mean, really? Schools, not teachers, are responsible for student behavior? Is that the mantra for your vision of school reform?
As before, here you also level some fairly disingenuous straw man arguments. You know better than this, yet you perpetually misinterpret the arguments for reform nonetheless, and it is very counterproductive to any form of discourse.
1) Give examples of “the media and political attacks on teachers” you are referencing. Repeating the line ad infinitum does not make it true, no matter how many iterations are attempted.
2) Give evidence that such “attacks” are the real reason educated college grads find teaching in low-income schools unattractive.
And discover, as Attorney DC apparently did, that you have no control over classroom conduct, no responsibility in contributing to a positive school and peer culture, and no efficacy in enabling your students to learn to their highest potential unless your administrator wills it. Or perhaps you’ll find the exact opposite, as it is argued by many on either side of the ed reform debate in support of teachers. Anecdotes are funny that way!
“I mean, really? Schools, not teachers, are responsible for student behavior? ”
Schools, not teachers, are widely agreed to be the primary determinant for behavior rules.
” Considering we just had a discussion about charter schools where we saw poor/minority kids greatly excelling, and you argued that peer effects explained all of the achievement differences, doesn’t that still imply that in-school factors made the difference?”
No, it doesn’t. “In-school factors” do NOT include selection bias and environment sorting. Charter schools do both. “In school factors” say that conditions are identical, and the only factor is the teacher or curriculum or something unique to the school.
But even more than that, there are no examples of charter schools that have “poor/minority kids excelling” to the extent of closing the achievement gap.
So you’re wrong twice: First, charter schools showing improvement does not imply that in-school factors matter, because sorting for motivation or ability is a student issue, not in-school. Second, charter schools haven’t closed the achievement gap. All some of them have done is marginally lesson the gap, and we don’t have any evidence that the marginal lessening isn’t caused by pulling motivated kids away from the unmotivated mass around them.
Didn’t answer the first question, Cal: who enforces the behavior rules? My district and school had several behavioral standards, but they were implemented very differently due to different teaching styles in different classrooms. From my experiences it’s widely accepted that teachers have a strong impact on classroom management and conduct. Other questions still exist regarding this strange reasoning, as I already wrote above.
I see you didn’t read my last comment addressed to you. The discussion I was referencing was one in which peer effects were the go-to explanation for the achievement differences; attrition and selection biases were accounted for in the experimental design.
It’s possible you may have missed my prior comment addressed to you, since you haven’t responded to the other points of discussion, either, so here’s the link:
eduwonk.com/2011/11/occupy-the-schools.html/comment-page-1#comment-231385
Even if that were true, you’d be hard-pressed to make a decent argument that the stellar achievement gains in some schools compared to neighborhood schools are not indicative of a pressing need to focus on and improve school policy.
However, it’s incorrect to say that these schools are doing nothing to close achievement gaps. Charters serve a disproportionately large number of black, Hispanic, and low-income students, and so disadvantaged students on the low end of achievement gaps are the ones benefiting. From the latest report on CMOs:
Thus, I don’t think a “marginal lessening” of achievement gaps is really what’s at stake here.
It’s interesting that the “reform” movement supposedly respects data, yet so many of the “reformers” continue to ignore the mountain of research that supports the view that charters, in general, do no better than traditional public schools. Some are better and some are worse. In my hometown paper this morning, it was reported that all the charters, with the exception of the one located on “the eastside” (affluent part of town) have lower test scores than the regular schools. It was also interesting to me that the charter school with the lowest scores of ALL the schools in the entire district have parents who love the school so much and have petitioned the state to keep the school open. The parents said that they valued the fact that their children enjoy school and are safe. One parent said something to the effect of “Tests don’t show everything that is being taught here.” Indeed. In the end, the wisdom of the American people will save us from this nonsense that is called “reform.”
There is good news: More and more journalists are doing their own investigative reporting and are seeing the same things teachers see. One prize-winning journalist from a major newspaper wrote to me today and said, “…when I get into schools I’m reminded of what goes on and how little it has to do with the reform jabber.” “Jabber” – What a great word to describe what is going on in the name of “reform.”
The truth almost always has a way of breaking through so it’s just a matter of time before most citizens see things as teachers do. Yes, teachers know the truth because they are the ones who are actually engaged with the children. The fact that their collective wisdom is not being sought is a clear sign that something is not right. I have to laugh every time I think of that book by Steven Brill- he discusses “education” for hundreds of pages but “forgets” to mention the people who provide it! Yes, “Class Warfare” says it all!
I just included a passage from one recent study suggesting the opposite, and it cited several more studies with similar findings. Would you like to confirm for me what it is these studies are doing wrong to have deviated from the findings of said mountain?
Chris loves studies” until they disprove his theories, like the UMBC study on EAI in Baltimore City public schools.
Then Chris becomes very creationist -like.
I thought the UMBC study was an interesting read, particularly the way in which it didn’t support any of the claims you were making while referencing it.
The entire argument about whether lower IQ’s are genetic or the result of cultural factors is beside the point. The point is that in communities where it plays a strong role, typically for both the students and the supply of teachers, there is an even more desperate need for stronger accountability systems, i.e., abolishing tenure, seniority, work rules, collective bargaining, etc. In practice this will mean higher turnover as districts have to work harder to winnow out ineffective teachers.