Showing posts with label Arne Duncan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Arne Duncan. Show all posts

Sunday, February 27, 2011

Arne Duncan and Bill Gates: Dumb and Dumber

On Saturday, Arne Duncan warned governors about ‘dumb’ education cuts and then suggested even dumber cuts, like increasing class size:

“Duncan also said that states should think selectively about increasing class sizes. The father of two grade-school-age children said he’d rather his kids be in a bigger class with a better teacher than a smaller class with a lousy one. He suggested teachers could get paid extra for getting a bigger class…”

Now can anyone explain how that would help kids? Pay teachers more to teach more students, each of which would get less attention and and a lower quality of education? Talk about paying more for less.

Meanwhile, the Institute of Education Sciences, the research arm of the US Department of Education (which he heads) points out that class size reduction is one of only a handful of reforms that have been proven to work through rigorous evidence.

Duncan, whose speech was peppered with references to “you guys”… is popular even with many conservative Republicans….Sixteen governors listened to his speech, which followed a presentation from the head of the Indicators and Analysis Division at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. The OECD official said the U.S. is trailing other developed countries on a host of important measures. Ontario, Canada, was held out as a model.

Except that Ontario has reduced class size systematically since 2003 across the province – just as Finland did, decades earlier, propelling that country to its success.

Click on the chart to the left for class sizes in the early grades since 2003 in Ontario -- the opposite direction NYC schools and others throughout the nation have taken since then.

In today's Washington Post, Bill Gates took up this same dumb refrain -- with a vengeance. He again suggests that class sizes should be increased, and makes the following claim:

In a 2008 survey funded by the Gates Foundation, 83 percent of teachers said they would be happy to teach more students for more pay.

Actually not! What the survey showed is that many teachers would take a $5,000 pay increase instead of a reduction in class size of two students per class – which is very different from preferring an increase in their class size.

Not to mention that in survey after survey, teachers say that the best way to improve their effectiveness would be to reduce class size – over salary increases, merit pay or any other policy. (For example, see this national survey from Public Agenda, “A Sense of Calling: Who Teaches and Why,” in which 86% of teachers said that reducing would a "very effective" way to improve the quality of instruction, far above increasing salaries, more professional development or any other method cited.)

In today's oped, Gates also claims that “After the first few years, seniority seems to have no effect on student achievement.” This is completely erroneous. See our fact sheet on teacher experience; showing student achievement gains are correlated with as much as twenty years of teaching experience.

In fact, as research reveals, there are only two observable, objective factors tied to more effective teaching – class size and more experience. And it’s very sad that Gates and Duncan -- along with the other corporate privateers -- are attempting to undermine both.

Tuesday, December 21, 2010

For Arne Duncan and Bill Gates – A lump of coal in your stocking


This guest column is by Peter Huidekoper, Jr., a former teacher in Colorado.
The two portly gentlemen have asked for a contribution. Scrooge insists on giving nothing:

"I wish to be left alone," he said. "... I help support the establishments I have mentioned--they cost enough; and those who are badly off must go there." - A Christmas Carol

Sorry to disappoint if you'd like a story of good cheer. But if Dickens could tell a Christmas story with more than a little bitterness and anger, it's okay to follow in his shoes. True, Scrooge finds happiness and becomes a second father to Tiny Tim. This piece ends with another vulnerable child, little Bianca, still waiting for a better school where she is not lost in a large class.

Those who are "badly off must go" to schools and sit in classrooms with 29 other students. "They cost enough." Teachers and parents begging for smaller classes--"We can't afford it." Let's even add more kids! No big deal.

Who would offer such Scrooge-like ideas? Well, if it isn't the two jolly men who must have doled out more wasted money to misguided education "reforms" in 2010 than anyone else in America: Secretary Arne Duncan, delivered sleigh loads of "Race to the Top" grants across the land, and Bill Gates, our nation's most "generous" philanthropist.

Groucho: That's in every contract, that's what you call a sanity clause. Chico: You can't a fool a me ... there ain't no sanity clause. --A Night at the Opera

Last year reformers heralded "The Widget Effect--Our National Failure to Acknowledge and Act on Differences in Teacher Effectiveness." The message: don't view teachers as widgets, as "interchangeable parts"--or as Webster's puts it, "something considered typical or representative, as of a manufacturer's products: the widgets coming off the assembly line." Nice to be told we are individuals, who should not be treated as thingamajigs. The same goes with students.

Teachers are human beings, only capable of knowing well a certain number of students, who are themselves individuals with very different strengths and weaknesses. We simply cannot teach 120 students as well as we can a hundred; and we cannot teach a hundred students as well as we can 80.

Let's go to an assembly line, the famous scene in Modern Times where Charlie Chaplin is working in a factory, tightening a pair of bolts as they rush by on the conveyor belt, both hands at work; occasionally he falls behind because of an underarm itch, or a bee flying by his twitching nose.

Upstairs the boss of Electro Steel Corp takes a break from the funny papers long enough to bark out to his minion: "Section 5, speed her up!" We laugh as the tramp snaps his wrists faster and faster to match the rising tempo of the conveyor belt, and then, as he chases after some bolts he failed to tighten. Another shout from the Voice on High: "Section 5, give it the limit!" Soon it's too much. Charlie jumps on that belt and gets swallowed up inside the machinery and the gears.

In asking us to think anew amidst our tighter education budgets, what does our Secretary of Education say?

"Our K‐12 system largely still adheres to the century‐old, industrial‐age factory model of education.... Educators were right to fear the large class sizes that prevailed in many schools. But the factory model of education is the wrong model for the 21st century.... "

Good, no more factory model. Then what in the world is he doing from his sleek office upstairs barking-OK, in Duncan's case, recommending--bigger classes? More Speed! Give it the limit!

"Parents, like myself, understandably like smaller classes. We would like to have small classes for everyone‐‐and it is good news that the size of classes in the U.S. has steadily shrunk for decades. But in secondary schools, districts may be able to save money without hurting students, while allowing modest but smartly targeted increases in class size...."

More students! You can work harder, right? Those of you teaching grades 7-12, with five classes of 25, surely you know your 125 students well, right? Of course you can build strong relationships with each and every one of them, yes? But hey, challenge yourself, don't be a wimp, here's another three or four in each class, you don't have a problem with 29 do you?--just another twenty kids to know, twenty more papers to grade....

"In fact, teachers in Asia sometimes request larger class sizes because they think a broad distribution of students and skill levels can accelerate learning."

Darn! I KNEW there was something wrong with me! I am not volunteering to have bigger classes so that I can have more 14-year-olds whose voices will not be heard in our 50-minute class, so that I can have more paragraphs and essays to read and correct. What's WRONG with us that we who don't ask for an even broader "distribution of students and skill levels"--as if we don't already have a huge range in our rooms already with 21-24 students. And guess what--this is how, Duncan claims, we "elevate the teaching profession"!

Two days later Bill Gates praised Duncan's "terrific speech" and again suggested that the budget cuts gave us a chance to rethink class size. He told the Council of Chief State School Officers:

"Your predecessors ... could push reforms with big price tags. Schools hired new staff, added more specialists, and reduced class sizes. We went from one adult for every 19 students to one adult for every 8 students. I don't question the good intentions behind it, but these have been costly changes, and they have not led to better student achievement.... Great teachers are a precious natural resource. But we have to figure out how to make them a renewable, expandable resource."

So that's what we are: "a renewable, expandable resource"? I guess it's better than being seen as a widget-- or as a member of an assembly line. And yet a teacher has only so many resources, and so much time. Gates continued:

"Conservative estimates suggest that we can save more than $10,000 per classroom by increasing class size by just four pupils. If we pay some of that money to our best teachers for taking in more students, we accomplish three goals at once - we save money, we get more students in classrooms with highly effective teachers, and we give our best teachers a real raise, not just for being good, but for taking on more work."

Pay me to teach more students? No thanks. We compromise enough as it is. We have our standards too.

Unfortunately, these two men have outsize influence. Already others have chimed in. Rick Hess of the American Enterprise Institute, the National Council on Teacher Quality, and the Thomas B. Fordham Institute--all gleefully singing the same tune, all seemingly eager for budget cuts and increased class sizes across the land. So a lump of coal in your Christmas stockings, Secretary Duncan, Bill Gates, and these others.

Here is my protest for advocating an idea that most teachers, parents, and researchers can only call foolish and unjust.

Teaching has been 18 years of my life and so, yes, this is personal. To have over a hundred students in Vermont was "easy" compared to fellow English teachers here in Colorado today, where many have 150 students- 5 x 30--in their classes.

And yet I found a hundred students too much. It was one reason behind my move from a public school to a private school (no more than 65 students) in the '80's. It was a reason many of us supported one of the key principles of the Coalition of Essential Schools--developed by Ted Sizer, a former teacher and headmaster at Andover Academy, a man who knew understood classrooms and teacher-student relations as well as anyone:

Personalization: Teaching and learning should be personalized to the maximum feasible extent. Efforts should be directed toward a goal that no teacher have direct responsibility for more than 80 students in the high school and middle school and no more than 20 in the elementary school.

It was a reason that when I returned to teach this past decade, I was only willing to work in schools (including two charter schools) where the teacher-student ratio enabled me to feel I could be effective. And it was one factor in my not going back to the public school where I taught last spring.

Rather than listen further to the faux Wise Men who come bearing bad ideas on how to make schools more productive and efficient, listen to a teacher. I asked my cousin, in Florida, who started teaching last year at 61, after a successful career in computers, about the 2002 state amendment that lowered class size:

"We really think our law is good for education. I think the numbers-18: K-3, 22: 4-8, and 25 for H.S. were arrived at very responsibly. After over a year with class sizes in compliance for my 3rd, 4th, and 5th grade classes, I feel that the numbers are just right. I have 18, 22, and 22 and feel like I have a good teaching relationship with all of my students."

Now let's hear from a student, seven year old Bianca, one of the New York City children in the film Waiting for Superman, eager to find a better alternative to the public school she attends.

According to a recent story in Parade magazine, Bianca is still waiting:

"We have 30 kids in my class and one teacher," the Harlem second grader says softly. "She doesn't have time for each of us."

Wednesday, October 13, 2010

A chat with the oligarchy of corporate education reform

Check out this from "Aunty Broad", one of our friends in Seattle: the education oligarchy (Rhee, Broad, Bloomberg, KIPP and Kopp) "should be cloned because they are so smart." More brilliant exposes from Aunty Broad are here.



Friday, September 24, 2010

Alphabet Soup

A recent report raises a fundamental education policy question that requires more than simply refuting the report's premise.

The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) -- a self-proclaimed "free market, limited government" non-profit, which is really just a spout of Republican policy ideas -- recently released its 16th annual Report Card on American Education. First of all, the LAST thing education needs is another report card. But I have to give it to my friends at SmartALECk which has been nothing less than persistent (in the true conservative spirit), having apparently kept this up for 16 years. Second, I note that ALEC's Board of Directors is populated almost entirely by Republican office holders. Third, I note that the report's foreward was written by former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, a Republican. It is no mystery for whom ALEC is shilling.

That said, the ALEC Report Card grades states based on two criteria: (1) Education Performance Rank and (2) Education Reform Grade. Specifically, a state's Education Performance Rank "measures the overall 2009 scores for low-income children (non-ELL and/or non-IEP) and their gains/losses on National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) fourth- and eighth-grade reading and mathematics exams from 2003 to 2009." A state's "Education Reform Grade" is based on the following reform criteria (few of which are central to educational outcomes, but which are all weighted equally): state academic standards, change in state proficiency standards, private school choice, charter school laws, mandatory intra- and inter-district open enrollment, online learning policies and programs, homeschooling regulation levels, alternative teacher certification, identifying high-quality teachers, retaining effective teachers, and removing ineffective teachers.

The state of Vermont provides a case in point about what is flawed about ALEC's methodology and typifies a troubling dynamic in some of today's education policy and reform conversations. ALEC ranks the Green Mountain state #1 with respect to its educational performance, but gives it the lowest grade of any state - a 'D' - on education reform. I guess the question for me is what is the fundamental purpose of the American education system: To warm the cockles of would-be reformers' hearts by adopting their pet reforms? Or to achieve educational outcomes and accelerate student learning? Assuming you don't have trouble answering that question, what does this example say about broader education policies and reform conversations? Well, it reminds me that too often we seem more interested in the means rather than in the ends. And that's a big problem.

At the federal level, the Obama Administration is onto something with its "tight on ends, loose of means" mantra. Arne Duncan's Education Department has attempted to use that catchphrase to articulate a stronger federal role over education policy while reassuring educators and policymakers that it won't make policies too prescriptive if the desired results are achieved. In a sense, it is not entirely unlike No Child Left Behind's accountability system which more or less allowed schools to keep on keeping on as long as they didn't run afoul of adequate yearly progress requirements. As Fordham's Gadfly recently noted, the future of federal education policy is very much in doubt, dependent on the outcomes of November's elections, control of one or both houses of Congress, and whether the Know Nothing Tea Party forces seize control of the GOP agenda.

But prescriptive-ness is sometimes an invisible line. The Race to the Top program probably went too far down the path of requiring certain reforms that don't have much of an evidential basis, aren't ready to be fully implemented, or aren't scalable. In addition, as Vermont Education Commissioner Armando Vilaseca (my high school principal at Essex High School in Vermont!) has noted, some of these faddish and sensible-in-certain-context reforms don't make sense or cannot be successfully implemented in a small, rural state such as Vermont. One also could ask whether RTTT scoring insufficiently weighted "improving student outcomes" -- which accounted for only 25 of the application's 500 total points (a mere 5 percent) -- in favor of promises of future reform. Again, is it about educational outcomes for students? Or it is about reform for reform's sake?

Back to the SmartALECk report: It would seem to me that ALEC is right in one sense. There *is* an argument for reducing federal regulation, and in education the answer is to leave well enough alone when a state such as Vermont is achieving great results. Now, we can argue over how those results should appropriately be measured, but that would be a more important conversation than talking about a metric such as 'reform' that is focused on pet approaches to privatizing education, firing teachers and enabling home schooling that likely have little bearing on student outcomes and that have little basis in research.

It is hypocritical of an organization like ALEC, committed to loosening regulations and limited government, to offer up such a prescriptive laundry list of reforms that states must enact to receive an 'A.' By ALEC's own outcome metric, Vermont is doing the best job of any state in the country in achieving equitable educational outcomes for low-income students. (Arguably, that is as much if not more due to Vermont's social safety net and universal health care as anything its schools are doing.) Accordingly, SmartALECk should let those results speak for themselves and save its ABCs and Ds to fill many bowls of alphabet soup during the coming winter.