Save Our Schools March - who we are, part 1.

Last Sunday, January 23, I introduced you to Save Our Schools March and National Call to Action, where I told you that

For the future of our children,
we demand the following . . .

* Equitable funding for all public school communities

* An end to high stakes testing for student, teacher, and school evaluation

* Teacher and community leadership in forming public education policies

and that the date of the event was July 28-31, 2011.

Starting today, I will begin to introduce you to some of the key people organizing the event, and explain why we are committing our time and energy to this important effort to save our schools.

Today I would like you to meet Katherine Cox.

From our About page you can learn that

Katherine McBride Cox, who grew up in Louisiana, initially began her career as a college English instructor. She recently retired after 35 years as an educator in Arizona where she was a classroom teacher, an elementary principal, and a high school principal. She developed a nationally recognized career education program for 5th and 6th graders called Window on the World. She taught self-contained gifted students for eight years and later worked with at-risk middle school students. She also served as an instructional coach, coaching other teachers. She serves on the Information Coordination Committee and the Blogging/Social Networking Sub-Committee.

I asked Katherine why she was volunteering in this effort. She told me the following:

When No Child Left Behind was passed, I was not as wise as others.

Arizona is one of the most poorly funded states in the nation as far as K-12 education goes. I was glad that we would be getting additional monies.

It took me awhile to see that we had made a pact with the devil. Standards actually were lowered because the state had to make the new state tests easier year after year in order to get enough students to graduate. The tests became meaningless, yet schools were ranked according to their test scores.

In order to get the excelling label, principals were telling teachers to drill and kill on the subjects tested – reading, math and writing – and to neglect science, social studies, p.e. and the arts. In the past, at least 75% of our students were on grade level or better. Now I could see that the top 75% of our students were getting a worse education than these students had received before NCLB.

As a high school principal, I could see a train wreck heading down the track. If freshmen had not had 4th grade geology – the rock cycle, including sedimentary, metamorphic, and igneous rock or 5th grade human body systems -- were we supposed to introduce these concepts for the first time to freshmen in biology and physical science classes?

Learning became tedious for students and teachers alike. No longer were we attempting to ignite fires in the minds of our students. I ended up retiring in December of 2009 and set up my website, In the Trenches with School Reform.

I began following teacherken on Daily Kos, as well as bloggers such as Anthony Cody, Nancy Flanagan, and Valerie Strauss. I continually said in my blog – I’m tired of talk. Others like me have been talking and explaining for years. It’s time to take action.

Anthony Cody and Victoria Young made contact with me and eventually I was asked to join this group. I was delighted to be asked to help.

I had spent 35 years as a teacher and principal trying to make our schools better and better. For a long time, I believe I succeeded. After NCLB came along, it seemed that my life’s work had been for nothing. Everything I had helped build was dismantled. For what? I knew that we had fallen into the rabbit hole where everything is upside down and nothing makes sense.

I’m in this battle to take our schools back and make them better. But first we must wrestle them away from the likes of the Michelle Rhees and Bill Gates of the world – and the grip of the federal government.

Katherine is just one those dedicated to the well-being our our students and health of our public schools who has stepped up to the challenges we face.

We ask that you join us in supporting Save Our Schools March and National Call to Action, July 28-31.

You can see who has endorsed us (and there you can find out how YOU can endorse us)

You can contribute to help us.

See how YOU can help us in this effort.


Thanks for reading.

Please consider helping let others know about this effort.

Help us Save Our Schools.

Peace.

Save Our Schools March - who we are, part 1.

Last Sunday, January 23, I introduced you to Save Our Schools March and National Call to Action, where I told you that

For the future of our children,
we demand the following . . .

* Equitable funding for all public school communities

* An end to high stakes testing for student, teacher, and school evaluation

* Teacher and community leadership in forming public education policies

and that the date of the event was July 28-31, 2011.

Starting today, I will begin to introduce you to some of the key people organizing the event, and explain why we are committing our time and energy to this important effort to save our schools.

Today I would like you to meet Katherine Cox.

From our About page you can learn that

Katherine McBride Cox, who grew up in Louisiana, initially began her career as a college English instructor. She recently retired after 35 years as an educator in Arizona where she was a classroom teacher, an elementary principal, and a high school principal. She developed a nationally recognized career education program for 5th and 6th graders called Window on the World. She taught self-contained gifted students for eight years and later worked with at-risk middle school students. She also served as an instructional coach, coaching other teachers. She serves on the Information Coordination Committee and the Blogging/Social Networking Sub-Committee.

I asked Katherine why she was volunteering in this effort. She told me the following:

When No Child Left Behind was passed, I was not as wise as others.

Arizona is one of the most poorly funded states in the nation as far as K-12 education goes. I was glad that we would be getting additional monies.

It took me awhile to see that we had made a pact with the devil. Standards actually were lowered because the state had to make the new state tests easier year after year in order to get enough students to graduate. The tests became meaningless, yet schools were ranked according to their test scores.

In order to get the excelling label, principals were telling teachers to drill and kill on the subjects tested – reading, math and writing – and to neglect science, social studies, p.e. and the arts. In the past, at least 75% of our students were on grade level or better. Now I could see that the top 75% of our students were getting a worse education than these students had received before NCLB.

As a high school principal, I could see a train wreck heading down the track. If freshmen had not had 4th grade geology – the rock cycle, including sedimentary, metamorphic, and igneous rock or 5th grade human body systems -- were we supposed to introduce these concepts for the first time to freshmen in biology and physical science classes?

Learning became tedious for students and teachers alike. No longer were we attempting to ignite fires in the minds of our students. I ended up retiring in December of 2009 and set up my website, In the Trenches with School Reform.

I began following teacherken on Daily Kos, as well as bloggers such as Anthony Cody, Nancy Flanagan, and Valerie Strauss. I continually said in my blog – I’m tired of talk. Others like me have been talking and explaining for years. It’s time to take action.

Anthony Cody and Victoria Young made contact with me and eventually I was asked to join this group. I was delighted to be asked to help.

I had spent 35 years as a teacher and principal trying to make our schools better and better. For a long time, I believe I succeeded. After NCLB came along, it seemed that my life’s work had been for nothing. Everything I had helped build was dismantled. For what? I knew that we had fallen into the rabbit hole where everything is upside down and nothing makes sense.

I’m in this battle to take our schools back and make them better. But first we must wrestle them away from the likes of the Michelle Rhees and Bill Gates of the world – and the grip of the federal government.

Katherine is just one those dedicated to the well-being our our students and health of our public schools who has stepped up to the challenges we face.

We ask that you join us in supporting Save Our Schools March and National Call to Action, July 28-31.

You can see who has endorsed us (and there you can find out how YOU can endorse us)

You can contribute to help us.

See how YOU can help us in this effort.


Thanks for reading.

Please consider helping let others know about this effort.

Help us Save Our Schools.

Peace.

Ireland's PISA results: myth and reality

The recent results from the PISA surveys have got a lot of attention. In somewhat apocalyptic terms, the Irish Times referred to “2010: the year Irish education fell to earth” and invited reader’s opinions on Ireland’s “Falling literacy levels” though the Irish Independent did carry a more balanced assessment. A careful analysis of the data reveals a more complex picture.

Firstly, these assessments do not show in absolute terms how well or badly our students are doing since in each wave the data are normed to have a mean of 500 and a standard deviation of 100. Comparing the results for 2000 and 2009 will not tell us whether our current 15 year olds know more or less than the equivalent cohort 9 years earlier. It just shows where they are relative to students in other countries. So even if our current 15 year olds have slipped in the rankings, they might actually be better academically than the earlier Irish cohort but have simply been leap-frogged by other countries. Let us not forget that results in public exams have been trending up. Maybe it's grade inflation, maybe not.

Of course rankings do matter, for example foreign investors may only care about the relative skills of countries’ workforce. However when our rankings fall, as they have recently, there may be a tendency to use this as a stick to beat the education system. But it can hardly be to blame if our students are actually learning more but other countries simply got better.

Secondly, PISA includes a diverse range of countries including, for example, Liechtenstein, Kyrgyzstan and Macau. With no disrespect to these, should we really care where we stand relative to them? Does it not make more sense to pay much more attention to countries which are more relevant to us economically and/or are simply bigger?

Thirdly, PISA has changed significantly since it started. In 2000, there were 32, largely OECD countries. This grew to 41 in 2003 and in 2006, which focused on science there were 57 countries. The latest wave has 64 countries - some are actually territories. So when you look at a ranking, you are counting how far you are from the top. But one could equally look at how far one is from the bottom. Now as other countries join, it’s likely some will come in above us and some below. So the ranking can be misleading. Looking at how far we are from the bottom might tell a different story. A fairer comparison over time would just compare us with those countries that were in with us from the beginning and indeed some commentators have looked at our rankings just with the OECD.

To look closer at this consider the reading results. In 2000, PISA put our students between 3^rd and 9th (out of 32). For statistical reasons, they didn’t give exact rankings but let’s take 6^th place as an average. That puts us in about the top 20% of countries. By 2009 our ranking had slipped to 21^st. That may seem a precipitous decline but there are twice as many countries in the frame: we are now only in about the top one third. So while it is nothing to be happy about, it’s not quite the disaster it appears at first blush. Mathematical skills are often seen as being particularly important, so where do we stand? In 2000 we were ranked between 16^th and 19^th , in around the top 55% of countries. In 2009 that had fallen to 20^th but given that there are more countries we are just about in the top half: arguably this is an improvement. Looking at the science results tells a similar story.

So the point is that one has to be careful to jumping to conclusions about how our students and schools are doing from simplistic comparisons. When one studies the detailed reports produced by the OECD it becomes obvious that there is far more information than hits the headlines. The research is particularly informative on issues of socio-economic disadvantage. In all countries, those students from a better-off background do better but the extent to which this is the case differs markedly. In a fascinating analysis, the OECD considers what it defines as “resilient” students, these are students who are in the bottom quarter on the socio-economic scale but who perform in the top quarter in the assessments. It is a good summary of the extent to which young people are not held back by their background. So who tops this particular league table? It is dominated by the Far East, the top 7 are (in order) Shanghai, Hong Kong, Korea, Macau, Singapore, Finland and Japan. And us ? Ireland is pretty average, ahead of the US, the UK and many European countries though not by much. That we are way ahead of Kazakhstan, Panama or Dubai in this respect seems scant consolation.

Anger, we have been advised, does not constitute a policy. Neither do simplistic statistics or headlines. Ireland faces particular challenges in adapting its educational system to changing needs and technologies, a changing international economy and a much less favourable fiscal situation. It is imperative then that we carefully monitor the extent to which educational resources produces results, how we fare relative to our competitors and the extent to which our schools mitigate or reproduce social inequities.

Opinions of the Irish Public on the Availability of Information About Schools

This is a topic that Kevin has commented on before (the availability of information, not the opinions). He has mentioned that "when league tables are discussed in an education context it usually refers to comparisons of schools based on exam results... but such tables (real ones) would at least refer to outputs and could, with a little work, be made into a Value Added measure." Why keep parents in the dark about one of the most important decisions they will ever make?

The abstract below (also available as the third item on this link) is from a research paper from the ERC in Drumcondra, co-authored by Geary fellow Michael Daly (Irish Journal of Education: Vol. 38, 2010). It elicits the opinions of the Irish public on the availability of information about schools. The research finds substantial variation in views to be associated with socioeconomic status, "due mainly to the deviation of respondents categorized as farmers, both in their satisfaction with the current situation and in their agreement with the need to provide more information."

OPINIONS OF THE IRISH PUBLIC ON THE AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION ABOUT SCHOOLS
Thomas Kellaghan and Michael Daly
Educational Research Centre,St Patrick’s College, Dublin

In a survey of a representative sample of the Irish adult population (aged 15+ years) (n=1,511), respondents categorized by gender, age, socioeconomic level, school-leaving standard, and whether or not they had children in the education system, were asked in interview their views about the adequacy of information that schools provide to parents about how well their children are doing and about the school’s performance in general. They were then asked if they agreed with a series of statements relating to making information about schools available in the following forms: an annual report on a school’s performance, inspectors’ evaluation reports, rates of absenteeism, dropout rates, literacy and numeracy achievements of students (primary schools), public examination results (secondary schools), number of students who go to third-level education (secondary schools), and students’ improvement in achievement while in school (secondary schools). All categories of respondent exhibited differences in the percentage agreeing with some statements. The greatest variation in views was associated with the socioeconomic status of respondents, due mainly to the deviation of respondents categorized as farmers, both in their satisfaction with the current situation and in their agreement with the need to provide more information. Respondents who were still in the education system (and respondents in the youngest age category) indicated the greatest satisfaction with the information currently available and were less likely to agree that there was need for a greater amount of information.

Brian Hayes on Irish Education Policy

Today on his blog, Ferdinand von-Prondzynski mentions that Fine Gael (FG) has just published a policy document entitled 'Reinventing government: protecting services and getting the economy back on track'. Ferdinand notes some references in the document to universities and higher education, but suggests that these references are somewhat in passing, as primary and secondary education get far more attention in the document.

Brian Hayes, former FG spokesperson on Education and Science (2007-10) and current FG deputy spokesperson on Finance, gave attention to salient issues in higher education in his article in last Tuesday's Education section in the Irish Times: 'No more Republic of average'. Besides higher education, the article also addresses primary and second-level education, with the emphasis firmly placed on ideas to reform the overall education system for the better.

Ten points of action are outlined in the article under the following headings: (i) Change the points system and abolish the CAO; (ii) Publish school reports; (iii) Introduce a graduate tax; (iv) Abolish compulsory Irish; (v) Boost teacher quality; (vi) Invest in school leadership; (vii) Schools know best – give them real power; (viii) Let the money follow the student; (ix) Improve the teaching – and learning – of maths; (x) Give parents a greater role on school boards. While I do not agree with all of the detail in some of these policy-suggestions, there is much that will seem intuitive to economists in Hayes' article. Some thoughts are as follows.

The Points-System and the CAO. I agree with Hayes that rote learning does not prepare young people for the challenges they face in today’s world. However, I do not think it is necessary to abolish the CAO. Rather than let universities decide their own entrance system, why not change the CAO system to make it fairer? The system could include more continuous assessment (CA). However, this CA should be marked anonymously, just as the exams are. This would serve to take away the pressure of the Big Day, steer students away from rote-learning, and would still be a fair and transparent assessment method. I also think that having four (instead of three) compulsory subject-choices would be fairer, in that it would be a more level playing-field. I discussed all of this before here.

Publish school reports. I agree that this would be a step in the right direction. Kevin D has commented before on this in detail and mentioned that "when league tables are discussed in an education context it usually refers to comparisons of schools based on exam results... but such tables (real ones) would at least refer to outputs and could, with a little work, be made into a Value Added measure." Why keep parents in the dark about one of the most important decisions they will ever make?

Introduce a graduate tax. I agree that there is a need for a student contribution to resolve the higher education funding crisis in Ireland; and concerns about the fairness of 'free fees' have been discussed before on this blog. Certainly, I think it is undesirable to see the current increase that is planned for the student "registration fee". However, I do not think that a graduate tax is the answer. I would instead recommend an income contingent student loan scheme: the consensus solution offered by economists - which Kevin D has discussed before on the blog.

A good reference in this area is an article in the Guardian from last year, in which Nicholas Barr, LSE economist, argues coherently as to why students are better off under an income contingent loan scheme. In such as scheme, a graduate with low earnings makes low or no repayments, and anything not repaid after 25 years is forgiven. "Thus loans - deliberately and rightly - have inbuilt insurance against inability to repay, protecting graduates who do not do well financially out of their degree." Also, a student loan scheme is more transparent - graduates know what they are being asked to repay. It is ironic that the U.K.'s National Union of Students argue in favour of a graduate tax; they stand to avail of a fairer system now that U.K. Business Secretary Vince Cable has scrapped his plans for a graduate tax.

There are some immediate concerns in the Irish case about whether student loans would provide the upfront-finance needed to resolve the higher education funding crisis. Without a securitisation-strategy (to securitise the value of future loan re-payments), the taxpayer would still have to provide funds upfront so that universities could finance current expenditure. Furthermore, if the loan scheme is interest-free (as it is in the UK) then there is a subsidy (in relation to the time value of money) which is paid for by taxpayers. Securitisation seems to me to be the optimal solution; though of course, someone would have to buy the securities. The only alternative (in current conditions) would seem to be the increase in the "registration fee"; though Irish students should also be aware that they may apply for UK college loans from 2012. The only other possibility that I can imagine is to invite the UK Student Loans Company to set up shop in Ireland.

Finally, in relation to income contingent student loans, it should also be mentioned that the Australian student loan scheme has been evaluated in a very positive light in relation to its impact on equality of access; Bruce Chapman and Chris Ryan report the following: "The social composition of participants was different in 1999 from that of 1988: the distribution was more equal. That outcome reflected strong relative growth in participation in the middle of the wealth distribution. ...We find no evidence that participation fell among 'marginal decision makers'—those who, while at school, did not intend to study at university. We conclude that HECS did not discourage university participation in general or among individuals from low wealth groups."

Abolish compulsory Irish. I agree that it should be optional to study Irish for the Leaving Cert. While the Irish language is important for heritage (and knock-on effects on tourism), do we not get enough of that benefit by schooling students in the Irish language up until Junior Cert.? Those who want to study Irish at third-level (and I can see the need for this) could enter third-level courses that pick up where Junior Cert. Irish left off. I made this suggestion before here.

Boost teacher quality. While I agree that teacher evaluation and indeed teacher incentives, should be considered in more detail, there are pitfalls to be avoided in this area. There is research by Pedro Martins from the University of London (based on robust quantitative methods) which shows that an increased focus on individual teacher performance caused a significant decline in student achievement. It is possible that the mechanism behind this relationship is teacher-motivation.

Schools know best – give them real power. More school-level autonomy could reduce the risk that capital works related to school building projects do not go ahead. One model of enhanced autonomy (and accountability) is the charter school in the United States.

Let the money follow the student. Hayes does not use the term "school voucher" but that seems to be what he is referring to by "pupil premium". There is evidence from robust quantitative research in Colombia that a school-vouchers program "increased test scores by two-tenths of a standard deviation in the distribution of potential test scores. Boys, who have lower scores than girls in this population, show larger test score gains, especially in math."

Improve the teaching – and learning – of maths. I agree that "while the debate on bonus points is important, the teaching of the subject is the real issue". My reservations about the bonus points scheme for maths are documented here.

Give parents a greater role on school boards. Some charter schools are founded by teachers, parents, or activists who feel restricted by traditional public schools. A string of high quality studies have found that students benefit academically from attending a charter school rather than a traditional public school (in the United States).

How education policy is made

Martin has posted a link below to a very interesting lecture on Research and Policy Making given by Frances Ruane, director of the ESRI. The following observation I found striking:

"Getting something into the ‘programme for government’ in effect ensures that a policy is likely to be adopted, but perhaps just as importantly, has the effect of terminating any substantive debate subsequently on the issue. From what I can see, this is what happened to the De Buitléir Report on student grants mentioned earlier: there was a commitment to increasing access to higher education in the 1993 programme (which led to the report being commissioned) but in the negotiations of the 1995 programme that shifted to a commitment to ‘free fees’. This decision ran counter to the report’s evidence that this approach would not be the most cost effective or fair way of improving access, and consequently the report was kept out of the public domain until after the decision was made. What can we learn from this? Unless research is publicly available to inform the ‘programme for government’ process, its potential influence may be quite limited; even when it is available, it may be ignored."

The problem with NBC's Education Nation - where are the voices of parents and teachers?

cross-posted from Daily Kos

Beginning Sunday, Sept. 26, NBC will be broadcasting a national "Summit" on education, which it has titled Education Nation. There will be panel discussions, an exhibit hall, and it will begin with an electronic town hall with Brian Williams, broadcast live at 12 Noon EDT (so much for people on the West Coast who might be attending religious services). NBC hopes to have several hundred thousand teachers signed up for that town hall.

In theory, one might think what NBC is doing is good - it is a focus on education as a national priority. In practice there are some serious concerns which have already been expressed publicly as well as in numerous communications to people responsible for organizing the event.

Perhaps the most significant concern is this - there are many voices being included, but the voices of parents and teachers are surprisingly not considered a significant part of setting the agenda.

Please keep reading for more details.

On September 13, NBC issued a press release in which it announced the confirmed speakers to date. Here is that list as presented:

• Maria Bartiromo: Anchor of CNBC's "Closing Bell with Maria Bartiromo" and Anchor and Managing Editor of "Wall Street Journal Report with Maria Bartiromo"
• Michael Bloomberg: Mayor, City of New York
• Cory Booker: Mayor, City of Newark, New Jersey
• Phil Bredesen: Governor, State of Tennessee
• Steven Brill: co-founder of Journalism Online, CourtTV and American Lawyer magazine and author of “The Rubber Room” In The New Yorke
• Tom Brokaw: NBC News Special Correspondent
• Geoffrey Canada: CEO & President of Harlem Children's Zone Project
• David Coleman: Founder & CEO, Student Achievement Partners; Contributing Author of the Common Core Standards
• Ann Curry: News Anchor, "Today" and Anchor, "Dateline NBC"
• Arne Duncan: US Secretary of Education
• Byron Garrett: CEO of the National Parent Teacher Association (PTA)
• Allan Golston, President, US Program, The Gates Foundation
• Jennifer M. Granholm: Governor, State of Michigan
• David Gregory: Moderator, "Meet the Press"
• Reed Hastings: Founder & CEO of Netflix
• Lester Holt: Anchor, "NBC Nightly News," Weekend Edition and Co-Host, "Today" Weekend Edition
• Walter Isaacson: President & CEO of the Aspen Institute
• Joel Klein: Chancellor of New York City Schools
• Wendy Kopp: CEO and Founder of Teach for America
• John Legend: Musician; Founder of the Show Me Campaign
• Jack Markell: Governor, State of Delawa
• Gregory McGinity: Managing Director of Policy, The Broad Education Foundation
• Andrea Mitchell: NBC News Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent and Host, "Andrea Mitchell Reports"
• Janet Murguia: President & CEO of the National Council of La Raza (NCLR)
• Michael Nutter: Mayor, City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
• Bill Pepicello, Ph.D.: President of University of Phoenix
• Sally Ride: First Female Astronaut; Vice-chair of Change the Equation
• Michelle Rhee: Chancellor, District of Columbia Public School System of Washington,D.C.
• Edward Rust: Chairman & CEO of State Farm Insurance Companies
• Gwen Samuel, CT delegate to Mom Congress
• Barry Schuler: Former CEO of AOL
• Sterling Speirn: CEO, Kellogg Foundation
• Margaret Spellings: Former US Secretary of Education
• Antonio Villaraigosa: Mayor, City of Los Angeles, California
• Randi Weingarten: President of American Federation of Teachers (AFT-CLO)
• Brian Williams: Anchor and Managing Editor "NBC Nightly News"

For many of us, that list was more than a little unbalanced, and illustrates much of what is wrong with discussions of education policy in this nation. There are many corporate executives, there are people from educational policy organizations, there are politicians, there are foundations. There are journalists. Many of these lack any real knowledge about education, or are well known for pushing a particular view of education to the exclusion of any other.

There are more than 30 names. Of these two are from parent organizations, and there is one representative from the smaller of the two national teachers unions.

Where are the voices of parents?

Where are the voices of those actually teaching?

I have been privy to an exchange of emails between some notable people who raised these concerns and those responsible for recruitment and outreach.

I know that there were strong urgings to reach out to teacher leaders. As far as I can tell, most of those whose names were suggested - and emails were provided - were NOT contacted from the side of NBC. I know, because mine was a name on that list.

I would not necessarily expect to be included on such a list. My one recent teaching award is probably not of a great enough significance to justify inviting me, and my feelings are not hurt.

But why is the first name we see the head of a for-profit university, yet we see no current classroom teachers?

Let's take the presence of the University of Phoenix, and several of the other people on that list. Perhaps it can be explained in part by looking at the sponsors of the event. You can find the list on the website, but let me save you the time:

University of Phoenix
Members Project American Express
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
The Eli and Edythe Broad Foundation
W.K. Kellog Foundation
Marvell
BlackBerry
Microsoft
Raytheon
Scholastic
American Airlines

The commitment that NBC is making is notable. The corporate and foundation commitment might be commendable. But I cannot resist making some remarks about that list.

About the Members Project, they have funded two education initiatives this year, Donorschoose.org and Jumpstart for Young Children, based on the votes of those who have American Express Cards. They do not have a person among the speakers, which is probably appropriate.

University of Phoenix is a SPONSOR - and for this they get one of the speaking slots?

The foundations of Gates and Broad have been putting a lot of money into education. They have thereby become major players, able to shape many policy initiatives to their perspective. Some of the efforts might be positive, but there has been a tendency for that point of view to crowd any that might be critical of their efforts, which include things such as Teach for America (note the presence of Wendy Kopp among the speakers, and remember that Michelle Rhee is a TFA alumna) and New Leaders for New Schools. Diane Ravitch uses the term "Billionaire Boys Club" to question the influence of such foundations upon American educational policy.

Why is Stephen Brill one of about thirty speakers and no classroom teacher is?

Why do we not have the voice of say the immediate past National Teacher of the Year, Anthony Mullen, or even the current National Teacher of the Year, Sarah Brown Wessling? To be NTOY one is not only an excellent teacher, but expected to serve as spokesperson for the nation's teachers. Surely one, or better both, of these fine teachers could have been included.

For those who are teachers and want to participate in the Town Hall, you can go to this link to learn more and to sign up.

I have not yet done so. I do not know if I will. I am unwilling to serve as passive wallpaper that can be used to claim support for an effort with which I have serious problems.

One can submit a question to be discussed. It is not clear to me how those questions will be screened. I worry that those that might challenge the underlying assumptions of the summit will be excluded.

I looked at the mission statement for Education Nation. It is appropriate to note our high dropout rate. As I have written before, I think the emphasis on international comparisons demonstrates a misunderstanding of what those comparisons represent. I find too great an emphasis on the economic purposes of education and a total lack of the role of education in preparing a person to be a citizen in a democratic republic. Given the importance of civic participation in a functioning democratic system, I immediately wondered why Sandra Day O'Connor was not an included speaker, given how hard she has worked to raise the issue of civic education?

It is nice that there is a president of a teachers union, albeit the smaller one. I know that the NEA president will be participating in one of the 11 announced panels. But teachers are not their unions. Some of us may even be union activists but feel that our unions do not address some of the real issues we believe need to be addressed. Having one union president and so many corporate types does not allow even for the raising of many of the concerns of teachers, which go far beyond issues of teacher pay and evaluation. I have read and heard that the presence of Randi may be to set her up as illustrative of teachers and their unions as obstructionist to real reform.

There are real issues in American education that need to be addressed. We can read about them in the mission statement. We can see that they are supposedly addressed in the panels.

Supposedly. But too many points of view are not included.

Why is there no representation from people who do Montessori work, which has been proven to be very effective?

Some of the organizations and individuals present have supported the work of the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. Why is there no representation from that organization. For example, why not invite Jolynn Tarwater, the current National Board Certified Teacher in Residence?

The National PTA organization should be included. It is good that Mom Congress has a representative. That is 2 there representing parents. Against that consider there are four mayors and three governors; and top executives of Netflix, the Aspen Institute, and State Farm Insurance, and the former CEO of AOL. Pray tell, why are these voices more important than those of parents?

Or perhaps we can look at those selected to represent the administrators of schools. We see Joel Klein and Michelle Rhee. They represent ONE viewpoint of how schools should be organized and run. And by the way, the data does not support that either has been all that successful, and in the case of Rhee her approach was just fairly strongly rejected in the primary defeat of her boss Mayor Adrian Fenty of Washington. There have been superintendents with notable success who take a far different approach to educational reform. Where for example is the likes of Carl Cohn, who had notable success in Long Beach, CA?

I cannot tell people how to approach this effort by NBC. I only know that I am skeptical. I may watch the town hall with teachers, but as of now I do not plan to sign up. I am unwilling to provide that kind of validation for something I viewed as at a minimum flawed, and at worst destructive of really addressing the needs of our schools and teachers.

I'd like you to imagine the following. Suppose we are going to have a national summit on health care. Do you not suppose that a substantial number of the voices included would be from professionals in health care, including doctors and nurses? Would you have 3 people with just the head of the AMA to represent doctors?

Or how about legal reform - would not lawyers scream if such a conference were organized without a substantial portion of the main participants being members of the profession representing the range of opinions within the legal field?

Why then is it when it comes to education that people think it is appropriate to have major discussions about education without fair inclusion of the voices of those who bear the greatest burden for the education of our children, the parents and the teachers?

I hope that despite the flaws I see in the organization of this effort some good comes out of it. I fear that it is yet another example of driving educational policy while excluding voices that should be a major part of the discussion. Perhaps the town hall will at least provide some audience for the concerns of teachers, if the questions addressed represent the full range of views and concerns.

I hope I am wrong.

I fear that I may not be.

I worry that this event will yet again mean that teachers - and parents - are excluded from meaningful participation in the shaping of educational policy.

Starting next week, we will see.

And there is time for NBC to work to provide greater balance than what we have so far seen.

Peace.

The problem with NBC's Education Nation - where are the voices of parents and teachers?

cross-posted from Daily Kos

Beginning Sunday, Sept. 26, NBC will be broadcasting a national "Summit" on education, which it has titled Education Nation. There will be panel discussions, an exhibit hall, and it will begin with an electronic town hall with Brian Williams, broadcast live at 12 Noon EDT (so much for people on the West Coast who might be attending religious services). NBC hopes to have several hundred thousand teachers signed up for that town hall.

In theory, one might think what NBC is doing is good - it is a focus on education as a national priority. In practice there are some serious concerns which have already been expressed publicly as well as in numerous communications to people responsible for organizing the event.

Perhaps the most significant concern is this - there are many voices being included, but the voices of parents and teachers are surprisingly not considered a significant part of setting the agenda.

Please keep reading for more details.

On September 13, NBC issued a press release in which it announced the confirmed speakers to date. Here is that list as presented:

• Maria Bartiromo: Anchor of CNBC's "Closing Bell with Maria Bartiromo" and Anchor and Managing Editor of "Wall Street Journal Report with Maria Bartiromo"
• Michael Bloomberg: Mayor, City of New York
• Cory Booker: Mayor, City of Newark, New Jersey
• Phil Bredesen: Governor, State of Tennessee
• Steven Brill: co-founder of Journalism Online, CourtTV and American Lawyer magazine and author of “The Rubber Room” In The New Yorke
• Tom Brokaw: NBC News Special Correspondent
• Geoffrey Canada: CEO & President of Harlem Children's Zone Project
• David Coleman: Founder & CEO, Student Achievement Partners; Contributing Author of the Common Core Standards
• Ann Curry: News Anchor, "Today" and Anchor, "Dateline NBC"
• Arne Duncan: US Secretary of Education
• Byron Garrett: CEO of the National Parent Teacher Association (PTA)
• Allan Golston, President, US Program, The Gates Foundation
• Jennifer M. Granholm: Governor, State of Michigan
• David Gregory: Moderator, "Meet the Press"
• Reed Hastings: Founder & CEO of Netflix
• Lester Holt: Anchor, "NBC Nightly News," Weekend Edition and Co-Host, "Today" Weekend Edition
• Walter Isaacson: President & CEO of the Aspen Institute
• Joel Klein: Chancellor of New York City Schools
• Wendy Kopp: CEO and Founder of Teach for America
• John Legend: Musician; Founder of the Show Me Campaign
• Jack Markell: Governor, State of Delawa
• Gregory McGinity: Managing Director of Policy, The Broad Education Foundation
• Andrea Mitchell: NBC News Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent and Host, "Andrea Mitchell Reports"
• Janet Murguia: President & CEO of the National Council of La Raza (NCLR)
• Michael Nutter: Mayor, City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
• Bill Pepicello, Ph.D.: President of University of Phoenix
• Sally Ride: First Female Astronaut; Vice-chair of Change the Equation
• Michelle Rhee: Chancellor, District of Columbia Public School System of Washington,D.C.
• Edward Rust: Chairman & CEO of State Farm Insurance Companies
• Gwen Samuel, CT delegate to Mom Congress
• Barry Schuler: Former CEO of AOL
• Sterling Speirn: CEO, Kellogg Foundation
• Margaret Spellings: Former US Secretary of Education
• Antonio Villaraigosa: Mayor, City of Los Angeles, California
• Randi Weingarten: President of American Federation of Teachers (AFT-CLO)
• Brian Williams: Anchor and Managing Editor "NBC Nightly News"

For many of us, that list was more than a little unbalanced, and illustrates much of what is wrong with discussions of education policy in this nation. There are many corporate executives, there are people from educational policy organizations, there are politicians, there are foundations. There are journalists. Many of these lack any real knowledge about education, or are well known for pushing a particular view of education to the exclusion of any other.

There are more than 30 names. Of these two are from parent organizations, and there is one representative from the smaller of the two national teachers unions.

Where are the voices of parents?

Where are the voices of those actually teaching?

I have been privy to an exchange of emails between some notable people who raised these concerns and those responsible for recruitment and outreach.

I know that there were strong urgings to reach out to teacher leaders. As far as I can tell, most of those whose names were suggested - and emails were provided - were NOT contacted from the side of NBC. I know, because mine was a name on that list.

I would not necessarily expect to be included on such a list. My one recent teaching award is probably not of a great enough significance to justify inviting me, and my feelings are not hurt.

But why is the first name we see the head of a for-profit university, yet we see no current classroom teachers?

Let's take the presence of the University of Phoenix, and several of the other people on that list. Perhaps it can be explained in part by looking at the sponsors of the event. You can find the list on the website, but let me save you the time:

University of Phoenix
Members Project American Express
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
The Eli and Edythe Broad Foundation
W.K. Kellog Foundation
Marvell
BlackBerry
Microsoft
Raytheon
Scholastic
American Airlines

The commitment that NBC is making is notable. The corporate and foundation commitment might be commendable. But I cannot resist making some remarks about that list.

About the Members Project, they have funded two education initiatives this year, Donorschoose.org and Jumpstart for Young Children, based on the votes of those who have American Express Cards. They do not have a person among the speakers, which is probably appropriate.

University of Phoenix is a SPONSOR - and for this they get one of the speaking slots?

The foundations of Gates and Broad have been putting a lot of money into education. They have thereby become major players, able to shape many policy initiatives to their perspective. Some of the efforts might be positive, but there has been a tendency for that point of view to crowd any that might be critical of their efforts, which include things such as Teach for America (note the presence of Wendy Kopp among the speakers, and remember that Michelle Rhee is a TFA alumna) and New Leaders for New Schools. Diane Ravitch uses the term "Billionaire Boys Club" to question the influence of such foundations upon American educational policy.

Why is Stephen Brill one of about thirty speakers and no classroom teacher is?

Why do we not have the voice of say the immediate past National Teacher of the Year, Anthony Mullen, or even the current National Teacher of the Year, Sarah Brown Wessling? To be NTOY one is not only an excellent teacher, but expected to serve as spokesperson for the nation's teachers. Surely one, or better both, of these fine teachers could have been included.

For those who are teachers and want to participate in the Town Hall, you can go to this link to learn more and to sign up.

I have not yet done so. I do not know if I will. I am unwilling to serve as passive wallpaper that can be used to claim support for an effort with which I have serious problems.

One can submit a question to be discussed. It is not clear to me how those questions will be screened. I worry that those that might challenge the underlying assumptions of the summit will be excluded.

I looked at the mission statement for Education Nation. It is appropriate to note our high dropout rate. As I have written before, I think the emphasis on international comparisons demonstrates a misunderstanding of what those comparisons represent. I find too great an emphasis on the economic purposes of education and a total lack of the role of education in preparing a person to be a citizen in a democratic republic. Given the importance of civic participation in a functioning democratic system, I immediately wondered why Sandra Day O'Connor was not an included speaker, given how hard she has worked to raise the issue of civic education?

It is nice that there is a president of a teachers union, albeit the smaller one. I know that the NEA president will be participating in one of the 11 announced panels. But teachers are not their unions. Some of us may even be union activists but feel that our unions do not address some of the real issues we believe need to be addressed. Having one union president and so many corporate types does not allow even for the raising of many of the concerns of teachers, which go far beyond issues of teacher pay and evaluation. I have read and heard that the presence of Randi may be to set her up as illustrative of teachers and their unions as obstructionist to real reform.

There are real issues in American education that need to be addressed. We can read about them in the mission statement. We can see that they are supposedly addressed in the panels.

Supposedly. But too many points of view are not included.

Why is there no representation from people who do Montessori work, which has been proven to be very effective?

Some of the organizations and individuals present have supported the work of the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. Why is there no representation from that organization. For example, why not invite Jolynn Tarwater, the current National Board Certified Teacher in Residence?

The National PTA organization should be included. It is good that Mom Congress has a representative. That is 2 there representing parents. Against that consider there are four mayors and three governors; and top executives of Netflix, the Aspen Institute, and State Farm Insurance, and the former CEO of AOL. Pray tell, why are these voices more important than those of parents?

Or perhaps we can look at those selected to represent the administrators of schools. We see Joel Klein and Michelle Rhee. They represent ONE viewpoint of how schools should be organized and run. And by the way, the data does not support that either has been all that successful, and in the case of Rhee her approach was just fairly strongly rejected in the primary defeat of her boss Mayor Adrian Fenty of Washington. There have been superintendents with notable success who take a far different approach to educational reform. Where for example is the likes of Carl Cohn, who had notable success in Long Beach, CA?

I cannot tell people how to approach this effort by NBC. I only know that I am skeptical. I may watch the town hall with teachers, but as of now I do not plan to sign up. I am unwilling to provide that kind of validation for something I viewed as at a minimum flawed, and at worst destructive of really addressing the needs of our schools and teachers.

I'd like you to imagine the following. Suppose we are going to have a national summit on health care. Do you not suppose that a substantial number of the voices included would be from professionals in health care, including doctors and nurses? Would you have 3 people with just the head of the AMA to represent doctors?

Or how about legal reform - would not lawyers scream if such a conference were organized without a substantial portion of the main participants being members of the profession representing the range of opinions within the legal field?

Why then is it when it comes to education that people think it is appropriate to have major discussions about education without fair inclusion of the voices of those who bear the greatest burden for the education of our children, the parents and the teachers?

I hope that despite the flaws I see in the organization of this effort some good comes out of it. I fear that it is yet another example of driving educational policy while excluding voices that should be a major part of the discussion. Perhaps the town hall will at least provide some audience for the concerns of teachers, if the questions addressed represent the full range of views and concerns.

I hope I am wrong.

I fear that I may not be.

I worry that this event will yet again mean that teachers - and parents - are excluded from meaningful participation in the shaping of educational policy.

Starting next week, we will see.

And there is time for NBC to work to provide greater balance than what we have so far seen.

Peace.

Bonus Points for Maths at UCD

As reported today in the Irish Times, and on the front-page of the UCD website, the UCD Academic Council have decided to introduce bonus CAO points for Leaving Certificate Higher Level Mathematics for a trial period of four years, commencing in 2012. The idea of a trial period is a welcome addition to the debate surrounding bonus CAO points for Leaving Certificate Higher Level Mathematics (henceforth "bonus points"). Instead of making a decision now in the absence of any (quasi-) experimental evidence, why not experiment with this measure and subsequently make a decison? Of course, the best we can hope for in this case is quasi-experimental evidence; one would imagine that randomising bonus points to different students (or schools) would be potentially very difficult. Not to mention the issue of fairness in the college admissions process. But maybe somebody can come up with a suggestion that would address all of these concerns. In any event, the precise scheme for the awarding of bonus points will be decided in the coming weeks; the objective is to have a single scheme for all institutions that will be awarding bonus points.

The UCD announcement contains a lot of additional content; it states that the introduction of bonus points will "only be successful if it is part of a suite of measures to interest students in mathematics, to ensure the best possible teaching and to support student learning... We will research the impact of bonus points to ensure it is equitable and effective." Specific research questions to be investigated are as follows:

* How much time, compared to other subjects and compared to other students
internationally do students spend on mathematics?

* What is the impact of bonus points on the uptake of higher level mathematics?

* Do bonus points have an effect on equity of access to third level?

The UCD statement recommends the introduction of two examinations; one testing basic mathematical competency, which if passed would secure a pass overall and entry to third level, and another to test advanced mathematics ability. This is as much of a distinct recommendation as introducing bonus points, and arguably a measure that could encourage take-up of Higher Level Maths in the absence of a bonus points scheme. Behavioural economists will recognise the potential role of loss aversion in how Leaving Cert. students decide whether or not to persist with Higher Level Maths. Only 16% of Leaving Certificate students take the higher level paper on the day of the examination but almost 40% of students register with the State Examination Commission to take the paper.

Also, the UCD statement identified three possible dangers:

* That bonus points may contribute to increased competition, or a worsening
points race

* That students who do not require high points might not see bonus points as
much of an incentive to persist with higher maths

* That higher level mathematics would not be available to some students,
particularly in schools in poorer areas, and that this would worsen issues of
access to university. (In 2009, 79 schools had no higher-level candidates
sitting mathematics in the Leaving Certificate. According to UCC Registrar
Professor Paul Giller, about half of second-level maths teachers do not have
maths as a major subject in their degree).

Finally, some outstanding issues in the debate on bonus points are as follows:

(i) Tom Boland, the chief executive of the Higher Education Authority (HEA), has asked whether the bonus points would be awarded only to those who are going on to take a third-level course that requires maths. (According to David Quinn from the Irish Independent: "Those who are good at more literary subjects like History or English will be effectively penalised because they'll find it even harder to compete for university places with those who are good at Maths").

(ii) A HEA report on Career Opportunities in Computing & Technology mentions that Higher level maths and certain science subjects (i.e. physics and chemistry) are seen by many students to be particularly difficult and requiring a level of work that is not conducive to the objective of maximising CAO points. Is bonus points for Maths enough, or should there be bonus points for certain science subjects aswell?

(iii) According to the Irish Independent, the existing courses for which bonus points are available -- including all courses at UL and some courses at DIT -- do not have a higher rate of application from higher-level students, nor do they have a higher number of applicants than courses in the same disciplines where the bonus is not available.

(iv) Also according to the Irish Independent, when bonus points for higher-level maths were removed on foot of curriculum reform in 1993, participation in the subject at higher-level actually increased.

(v) According to David Quinn, journalist at the Irish Independent, "those who are already good at the subject will simply get more points without helping those who are currently failing it".

(vi) Kevin Denny has some comments related to bonus points on Ferdinand von Prondzynski's University Blog: "Is the idea that this initiative will propel more students into technical subjects like science and engineering at third level, thus helping the smart economy etc? This might be a laudable objective but it seems terribly naive to think that having effectively bribed students to do more maths in secondary school that they will just keep going i.e. that this will make them change what they wanted to study at university forgetting that they weren’t that crazy about maths in the first place. Maybe, maybe not but it seems more likely to me that they will take the points and run i.e. study what they wanted to study anyway."

(vii) A separate comment by Kevin Denny on Ferdinand von Prondzynski's University Blog: "There is a good basis for bonus points for maths unrelated to these arguments namely that ability at maths is a better proxy for general cognitive ability. So if we think that more able students should get priority, as the points system does, then a student who does better at Leaving Cert maths than another student is better in general even if they have the same total points (i.e. that student will do significantly better in university)."

(viii) A survey conducted by Engineers Ireland found nearly two-thirds of ordinary-level maths students said they would not opt for higher-level maths even if offered bonus points. The online survey was completed by 122 students who sat higher- or ordinary-level Leaving Cert maths this year.

(ix) On a separate but related point, it has been recommended that Maths should be compulsory for CAO points purposes to ensure students persevere with the subject, according to a report submitted to the Minister for Education Mary Coughlan.

OECD Report: Education at a glance- or in a fog?

The Irish Times today covered the publication of the latest OECD Education at a Glance and some of the domestic response to it. Like most OECD publications, this series provides lots of useful statistics and information generally to a fairly high standard.
I haven't read the actual report but two things struck me from the coverage. In the first article it says " The report shows that on average across OECD countries, a man with third-level qualifications will generate $119,000 (€93.386) more in income taxes and social contributions over his working life than someone with just an upper secondary level of education. It says that even after taking account of the cost to the public exchequer of financing degree courses, higher tax revenues and social contributions from people with university degrees make third-level education a good long-term investment."
Assuming they are being quoted correctly, this is a bad mistake by the OECD. If you want to do a Cost-Benefit analysis of investment in education then you need to measure the extra output generated which is proxied by the extra income and not the additional tax revenue generated. The latter is a transfer from one group to another so its irrelevant. In a country with high marginal income taxes the extra tax yield from additional education is higher but obviously this doesn't mean that education is a "better investment" in such countries. Unfortunately this fallacy is quite common though I am surprised to see it apparently emanating from the OECD. The OECD argument would only make sense if the purpose of public policy was to minimize net public outlays on education. In which case, one should simply close the sector down or privatise it.
The second point that struck me is the concentration in the commentary on education expenditure & Ireland's low ranking by this criterion (as a share of GDP). This data is openly referred to as "league tables" and various people in the education sector as well as opposition politicans, quoted in the second article, are content to moan about it.
Now when league tables are discussed in an education context it usually refers to comparisons of schools based on exam results. Cue educationalists and teachers unions saying "Oh no crude league tables, don't take into account blah blah... so we can't have that". Far better to keep parents in the dark about one of the most important decisions they will ever make: its for their own benefit. But such tables would at least refer to outputs and could, with a little work, be made into a Value Added measure. However these OECD numbers just released are measures of one input as a share of another variable that take nothing into account. What does it mean that Ireland spends less on education, as a % of GDP, than say Belgium? Absolutely nothing. So it seems to me that it is completely inconsistent, not to say self-serving, to decry one set of crude comparisons but endorse another totally meaningless set.