Does Poverty Matter?

The debate in public education over whether - or how much - poverty matters in the achievement of all kids continues to rage. For example, Peter Meyer's recent piece in EducationNext is criticizing the persistence of what he calls "the poverty myth." At the same time, a discussion of America's poor standing on PISA and TIMMS international test rankings led me to this article by Mel Riddile of the National Education of Secondary School Principals. Riddile has parsed the date to expose a fascinating detail. When American schools with less than 25% poverty are removed from our international test data, America ranks number one in the world in math and science. Thus, he argues that the significance of poverty is no myth and it matters a huge deal. Additionally, Corey Bower's work at Ed Policy Thoughts exposes another side to the gaps and the realities of poverty in education.

Interestingly, I agree with all these points of view, as they are all credible and contributing factors in the discussion.

Riddile is simply pointing out the role that poverty is currently playing in the achievement gap and its impact on international test scores. That seems pretty indisputable. And, of course, David Brooks has written continuously in the New York Times of brain research and the impact on children who do not form stable relationships by the age of 18 months. It can have a life-long debilitating effect. Of course, Brooks subsequently argues that because poverty is so debilitating and such a huge factor in the educational and career success of people, the institutions designed to combat those forces are all the more important. But Meyer is overstating his case by using the word "Myth." It's not a myth. Poverty does matter. Big time. It's not a myth that parenting, socioeconomic status, and neighborhood are the pinnacle of influences on a child's educational success. That's a foundational idea of reform efforts such as Geoffrey Canada's Harlem Children's Zone. That said, schools and teachers must not use it as an excuse. It's not why kids "can't" succeed. It's simply a key factor in why they don't.

Even Jaime Escalante couldn't reach all kids.

American Students Dropping in Science Ranking

While we've all heard that American schools are trailing the world in math and science on international test scores, it's worth noting that according to the National Academies on math and sciences, the United States is also dropping in overall rankings on science in society and the marketplace. Thus, the US is ranked ranked as low as 48th out of 133 countries in terms of math science instruction. This measures and impacts the number of science degrees we produce, as well as significant markers such as patents. For far too long, Americans have responded to criticism of science skills by pointing to our world-leading companies in the tech sector. However, if we continue to fail producing innovative scientists, we risk losing our "Silicon Valley" status.

On the science ranking, I won't dispute the criticism because the point is our kids simply don't want to go into science. In America the real math and science whizzes go into finance or business because they can make more money, or at least believe that they can. Case in point: I had student nominated as a Presidential Scholar which is one of the most prestigious awards for high school students. He has completed in Destination Imagination and the Science Olympiad all through high school, and he is amazingly successful. And all he wants to do is work on Wall Street and be a hedge fund billionaire.

David Brooks of the Times has been writing about this for years. It's a brain drain, as our best and brightest have for years been heading for finance as opposed to the sciences. And that's partly our fault. We give them autonomy. In Taiwan or Singapore or Korea, the kids who excel in math/science are forced into those college majors. And, of course, they revere the sciences more than we do.

I don't really disagree with anything the article says. And we're working on it in Denver with The Denver School of Science and Technology and Cherry Creek's new STEM charter for science and math. But if kids don't want to study it, they won't. And we have a lot of really bright kids in this country - but they are going to law school before anything else. And that is all about money. There are a lot of exceptionally bright sociology and history and comparative lit majors out there. And the reason the same isn't true in many other countries is that their colleges literally don't let them do that.

No easy answer - but always worth the discussion.

Inequality and a Level Playing Field

There's a lot of talk these days about inequality and whether we have a level playing field in this country. Democrats and liberals are most likely to argue that it's not, while Republicans and conservatives are pretty certain that everyone has the same opportunities in America, and success comes from hard work or a lack of it.

That said, there's some fascinating brain research going on these days about the formative years and their impact on education and success. For example, a child who doesn't form close personal attachments in his first twenty months will suffer this inability to develop bonds and relationships throughout life. Thus, he will glean far less from opportunities to learn. And a child from low socioeconomic backgrounds might enter kindergarten trailing middle class students by as many as 1,500 words. In all tests, he will statistically never catch up, as literacy builds on itself. So, not equal. Not even close.

Thus, noting what has been acknowledged by most about about deficits in family background and stability, there is not a level playing field in society. The difference between my experience going to Catholic school in a nice suburb and that of a child growing up in public housing is vastly different. And, the benefit I received being in classes with the kids in my neighborhood - all of whom had two college educated parents and many stay-at-home moms - is monumentally different from growing up around kids whose parents represent all the social ills. Thus, it's not simply about a lack of desire to succeed or a failure to work hard. All the brain research points out that you can't just pin failure on a poor kid's lack of will power to "rise above his adversity." Arguing otherwise is what it was like in Dickensian England when the Victorians just concluded the poor were poor because they were a bunch of lazy, drunk, horny morons.

Granted, there is much abuse and perpetuation of these ills. The problem is that liberals and Democrats grossly over-complicate things, and conservatives and Republicans grossly oversimplify them. And David Brooks has artfully explained this acknowledging that it still makes no sense to just drop out of school even if everyone in your neighborhood is. But there is much society can and should do to correct some of the ills. Universal preschool is an example. Since, currently middle class kids can afford it - and don't even really need it - and poor kids can't and desperately do need it. The reformers in Dickens' time were the first to say maybe we could do something to help. Then the progressives picked it up in the American twentieth century.

But it's not a level playing field, and there is no way to argue that all kids and people have equal opportunities. Any time spent with a spectrum of young people clarifies this. It's not a level field - it's a minefield and a battlefield for many, and others just a really lonely desert. And it's really, really sad.

Start Later to Ensure Educational Progress

My high school begins at 7:10 a.m.

Yes, that is incredibly early.

When I was in high school, we started at 8:00 and let out about 3:15. When I first started teaching, the school started at 7:50. My second teaching job was at a school which began at 7:35. I thought that was as early as it could - or should - get. Then I moved to Colorado and discovered the school day began at 7:20. I was shocked, but I got used to it. Then several years ago, the recession led to serious budget crunches, and in a move to cut funds, but keep cuts out of the classroom, the district manipulated bus schedules to save cash ... and shifted the start time to 7:10. And, that, in my opinion, is just crazy. And nothing good comes from it. We let out at 2:50 everyday.

Nothing in education research supports earlier start times - especially for high school students. And, yet we persist. I would prefer and have even promoted an 8 - 4 schedule. In fact, I'd like to see an 8 or 9 to 4:30 or 5:00. And while people protest about the impact on sports and activities, I'd argue that we could and should move many practices to before school. Let the football team practice from 7:00 - 9:00, and then start school. That way, after kids are done at 4:30 or 5:00, they are literally "done." It would promote a return to home life and I truly believe ease a lot of pressure on kids.

In response to my rants about this at school, one of my seniors in Intro to College Comp, wrote a research paper on school start times, and then responded to my suggestions by creating a Facebook page devoted to later start times. So far, in a school over 3500 students, roughly 40 have actually joined the discussion. This is despite the overwhelming support among most students for later start times. It's tough to change the system.

I am so tired of school schedules being "driven" by bus schedules, sports, and child care concerns. Later start times make sense on every level. And there is little support for the alarms of high school kids going off at 5:00 in the morning.

Don't Know Much About ...

It never seems to amaze Americans that apparently none of them knows much about anything, and they are outraged as they point fingers ... or they just laughingly dismiss it because they don't really care. Whenever new polls reveal how little students are learning or how many college students need remediation or how few Americans are really informed on the pertinent issues in an election, there is brief coverage and even cries of doom and gloom. And then Americans go back to their daily lives because they know as much as they need to know to live the lives they are reasonably satisfied living.

However, we are a curious people. And we sometimes want to know what it is we need to know. And this phenomenon has been quite lucrative to some innovative writers and thinkers over the years. Most notable is a man named Kenneth C. Davis, who twenty years ago published a book called Don't Know Much about History which spent thirty-five weeks atop the New York Times bestseller list. Davis - a man who never graduated college - had a knack for distilling the complex details of the nation's history down into digestible tidbits written in a clever voice that gave people the basic knowledge they might want to know about the Boston Tea Party or the New Deal or Brown vs the Board of Education.

Of course, some will criticize Davis as being a hack who dummies down true liberal arts knowledge. And, in many ways, he may be the pioneer of the "For Dummies" books. Years ago, I got into a small spat with a fellow teacher after my freshman students were complaining about the notoriously heavy and convoluted American history text they had to lug around. I grabbed Davis' book off the shelf and recommended the school switch its required text because Davis' book had "all they were going to remember anyway." Probably an imprudent choice of words.

Anyway, these days, Davis has built himself a nice cottage industry of "Don't Know Much About ..." books. And I wonder how history should judge his contribution.

NCLB and Student Accountability

State test scores are out, and education reformers and critics need to take a good look at discrepancies in the state testing model. Basically, these tests are completely unreliable, and it comes down to one simple fact that no one is willing to talk about.

Students don't try on these tests. Period.

Like many schools, I know, state test scores for my high school are less than impressive. These disappointing results conflict the reality that my school is one of the highest performing schools in the country. The Washington Post and others regularly rank it in the top 2% in the country. Some researchers have concluded it is one of the top 30 schools in the nation for preparing students for college. My school regularly has between 25 and 35 National Merit scholars. It's schoolwide pass rate for AP exams is above 90%. Students rack up more than $20 million in scholarship money to some of the top schools in the country. Our ACT scores - especially in English - are through the stratosphere.

Yet, on state tests 40% of students are below proficient in writing. That reading numbers are almost that abysmal.

Students simply don't put much effort into these tests. Some skip the tests - or ironically go on college visits - resulting in zeroes on the tests. The students know these score don't matter - and the scores are worst for sophomores. That's a year before they absolutely rock the ACT, SAT, and AP scores. That's two years before 95+% graduate and go on to top schools and universities. The top students actually showed that smallest gains, and had actually dropped the most from past years. And, yet, state rankings are now counting these scores for as much as 25% of the overall ranking. And, these scores are to be used - according to new laws - as 50% of a teachers evaluation.

This discrepancy is absolutely outrageous. And, while I am not a union member, this lack of student accountability could be the one thing that could put me on the front lines of labor negotiations ... with a bull horn.

Students are no longer putting adequate effort into state tests that have no accountability for them. This situation must be the primary focus of school reform.

Cowboy Ethics and Character Education

Character education occasionally pops up as a buzzword in the move for school reform. The basic idea is society wondering what the heck is going on with these kids - especially when it's clear that not much parenting is going on in many families. Some teachers, however, are accomplishing incredible things with kids in terms of character and identity - especially with the kids that society is either ignoring ... or has simply given up on.

A couple years ago, a teacher at my high school developed a unit based on the book Cowboy Ethics: What Wall Street Can Learn from the Code of the West by James Owen. The unit had two goals: one was developing the literacy of kids who had struggled in that area, and two was developing the self-esteem and identity of those same kids.

The unit was a fabulous success - and it received some nice press about its impact. Currently, I am working as a mentor in my school, and we are integrating the concept of "cowboy ethics" into the classroom. For many kids, having a code to live by is the last thing on their minds ... and that might be part of the problem. Cowboy ethics is based on the following principles:

Live each day with courage

Take pride in your work

Always finish what you start

Do what has to be done

Be tough, but fair

When you make a promise, keep it

Ride the brand

Talk less, say more

Remember that some things aren't for sale

Know where to draw the line.

These ideas are simple and honest - and quite effective as a code not only for cowboys or Wall Street bankers but also a group of teenagers struggling for identity ... and really for all of us. The book is fabulous and worth checking out especially these days. And the idea of using it in schools is absolutely something special. Check out the following video about a group of students and their journey back to the old West on a journey of self discovery.

Cowboy Ethics: A Life Changing Approach to Character Education from Center for Cowboy Ethics on Vimeo.

Schools and kids need more of this.

So, About All Those Bad Teachers

The general - though misguided - consensus is that public education is a failure. And the general cause of this failure is assigned as "bad teachers." That seems to be the mantra of every education reformer from Michelle Rhee to Bill Gates. And, of course unions and tenure get a pretty good shot.

In response, teachers will often acknowledge the presence of bad teachers and the weaknesses of due process for "bad teachers" but assert that there are far more complex issues at stake - particularly the lack of accountability for students, parents, and administrators. Few people outside the field have ever experienced the challenge of trying to promote learning to resistant adolescents. And even fewer have knowledge of just how many bad teachers are out there or why they might be "bad teachers." It's worth noting, for example, that education does have a self-selecting system of attrition. In that, I mean 60% of new teachers leave the profession in the first three years. Thus, they quit - as opposed to sticking it out and keeping that "easy job for life."

And, then, every once in a while the curtain is pulled back for just a moment, and one honest soul provides some insight into the schools where all the bad teachers are blocking achievement from these children thirsty for education. Such is the case with the recent expose "Confessions of a Bad Teacher" from John Owens, an editor with a long career in the publishing industry who decided to step into the classroom to "make a difference."

He got quite the education.

Google and the Loss of Existing Knowledge

Researchers have long noted that the human brain compartmentalizes and categories all new information it encounters. This organizing stems from the reality that learning new material is rather arduous. That is why our learning curve is so steep - it takes us year or more to simply be able to make words ... but acquisition of new words from that point is exponential. Thus, we use old information to make sense of new information - and, so, the more we know the easier it is to learn.

This physiological reality is not lost on teachers of reading. The most important technique for any effective reader is to access existing knowledge to make sense of new information. Ultimately, I encourage my students to become "people on whom nothing is lost." They need to access a great deal of new information in short time periods - and it's easier if their brains already have some place to put it - something to which the new info can be connected. And from the time of Roman orators, we know the growth in rhetoric and literature and science was intrinsically linked to previous information. Roman students spent vast amounts of time memorizing the classics. Abraham Lincoln spent vasts amount of time copying the speeches of Cicero by hand. All told, their brains and their abilities to think critically grew exponentially.

Thus, I worry about this latest generation - the Google generation. Google and the internet are wonderful innovations that have made life infinitely more efficient. Yet, current students are the first group who have legitimate reason not to commit information to memory because they can simply look it up. Think about how they know many of their friends phone numbers simply as #4 on speed-dial - or even worse simply by the name in the directory where they can often voice activate "Call Steve."

This is a problem.

The less we commit to memory on a daily basis, the less are brains are enabled to form the categories and make the connections that lead to higher level critical thinking and, even, innovation. Thus, I would assert that it is still a good idea for students to memorize a speech or monologue or sonnet from Shakespeare. It's still a good idea for students to write in-class essays from memory with no access to the book or their notes. It's still a good idea for students to study spelling and memorize their times tables.

In fact, it might not just be a good idea. It might be an imperative.

Engineering and Trades Up, Banking Down

In the past few weeks, I've encountered numerous stories about increased hiring by corporate industry giants such as Seimens Technology and GE. At the same time, Bank of America, HSBC, and UBS are all announcing large scale layoffs over the next couple years. So, perhaps last decade's trend of the best and brightest math and science minds going into finance for a quick score has crested, and we may see a return to engineering colleges and a new rise in innovation. Additionally, the stories at Seimens and GE indicate that they are seeking skilled labor as well. That will mean a rising need for technical workers. It's doubtful that politicians and education leaders will have enough foresight to prime the pump for this growth. But I'm hoping.

Do Special Needs Need Vouchers

The battle over the proposed - and now suspended - voucher program in Douglas County, Colorado has generated some serious discussion about the needs of students and the right of choice in schools and how tax dollars are spent. As I've noted before, Douglas County struck some as an unusual place for a voucher program - as it is one of the richest counties in the USA, and it's students are not trying to escape failing schools. Thus, the issue is all about freedom of choice - though Colorado already has statewide open enrollment. Thus, the issue is really about using public dollars to choose a private and/or religious education. However, in the testimony for the district's plan, one interesting claim was made by a woman who claims her son's special needs require a private school. So, that's a new angle.

Resident Diane Oakley appealed to the district to pass this voucher plan because her son has special needs - Asperger's syndrome. Oakley claims she needs the voucher to pay the $17,000 tuition at a private school called Humanex Academy - as that is the school that can meet the needs of her son. I am curious about this assertion. As a public school teacher, I know that her son's diagnosis of Asperger's Syndrome qualifies him for special service under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Thus, in Douglas County Schools, he would have a case manager and a specialized instruction program to assist him in fully accessing his right to a free and public education. Certainly, a well-funded school system like DC is going to have all the necessary support for students with special needs. And, if a public school cannot provide for a students needs under the law, families can file suit for additional support. Thus, I am wondering why this parent believes that only this private school can meet her son's needs.

Over the years I have had numerous students with Asperger's Syndrome, as well as numerous other conditions such as ADD, ADHD, anxiety disorder, sensory processing syndromes, etc. At every school I know, there are qualified personal to assist students with these struggles. I've had students with these conditions - including Asperger's - in my basic level classes that have been team taught, and I've had them in my honors and AP classes. Thus, I have no doubt that public schools - especially high quality schools like DC - can provide every angle of support to assist students in accessing their education. However, occasionally parents will feel like their child needs even more than the school provides. At those times, students do pursue private alternatives. However, that decision is personal, and I'm not sure the public schools have to support that perspective. Certainly, any parents can file with districts if they believe that the school can't provide for a legally recognized disability.

Thus, the idea of a voucher being necessary for special needs students is questionable in my opinion.

Why Read, Study, Learn

Each year at this time - on the first day of second semester, I ask my students to ponder the following two questions:

What do you dislike about the subjects you study in school?

What flaws in your intellect or character does this reveal about you?

You can imagine the blank stares as I pose the second one and then leave them to write down their thoughts. There isn't an option to disagree. The discussion that follows can get pretty animated and I generally play a serious Devil's Advocate.

These two questions come from a great book called Why Read, written Mark Edmundson, a professor of English at the University of Virginia. Each year, as he hands out the obligatory class evaluations at the end of the semester, he adds these two questions. Edmundson's goal is to get past the obvious and general criticisms that students make about their education and instead get them to focus inward on what their relationship to learning is. Perhaps they don't like school because they don't have much discipline. In other words, they don't like to work or read or write or study or think, etc. Perhaps they have reached their level of incompetence, as we rarely enjoy those activities we aren't good at - and if reading is a burden, then higher education will be all the more so. The reality is that often subjects are innocuous - there is neither good nor bad. Thus, it's not that the class is boring or not - it might be that the student, however, is.

This is not intended to force the students to criticize themselves or see their approach to learning negatively. In fact, in a subsequent discussion, I seek to put a positive spin on the exercise. Understanding that some things are beyond our control, I urge them to consider the reality that the one thing - in their education - over which they will always have control is their thoughts. Thus, while the class or subject or teacher may be boring or frustrating - issues which they can't control - their perception or attitude toward the task is within their power. Thus, they may seek to find something positive in the class. They may seek to view mundane repetition as merely an opportunity to practice, refine, and even perfect a skill.

It's not a perfect discussion, but it certainly kicks off the second half of the year in an interesting way.

Poverty Matters

Researchers at the University of Texas are concluding with a new study that poverty actually suppresses a child's genetic potential. Through a study of 750 sets of twins, researchers concluded that genetic potential can account for as much as half of the success a wealthier child achieves. By contrast, poor kids do not receive benefit from genetic qualities. Thus, it's not that poor people are genetically inferior to the wealthy, but instead that poverty is so damaging to children that its lack of opportunity inhibits any genetic advantages kids may have had.

Clearly, this has significant ramifications for education reform in a country where 1 in 5 children live in a state of poverty. That condition impacts kids through food insecurity and nutrition, adequate sleep and health care, early educational opportunities, and a sense of well being, among a myriad of other factors. Thus, it's not surprising the United States struggles in PISA scores against nations like Finland and Singapore where the poverty rate is 2% for school children. And, it creates a conundrum for communities seeking to improve their school performance.

Certainly, poor kids rise above their circumstances all the time - but not many and not without a great deal of additional support beyond the norms of public education.

Education Resolutions

Reprinted from The Answer Sheet Blog by Valerie Strauss

This was written by Mike Rose, who is on the faculty of the UCLA Graduate School of Education and Information Studies and is the author of "Why School?: Reclaiming Education for All of Us.”

By Mike Rose
The beginning of the year is the time to be hopeful, to feel the surge of possibility. So in that spirit I want to propose just over one dozen education resolutions that emerge from the troubling developments and bad, old habits of 2010. Feel free to add your own.

1) To have more young people get an engaging and challenging education.

2) To stop the accountability train long enough to define what we mean by “achievement” and what it should mean in a democratic society. Is it a rise in test scores? Is it getting a higher rank in international comparisons? Or should it be more?

3) To stop looking for the structural or technological magic bullet – whether it’s charter schools or value-added analysis – that will improve education. Just when you think the lesson is learned – that the failure of last year’s miracle cure is acknowledged and lamented – our attention is absorbed by a new quick fix.

4) To stop making the standardized test score the gold-standard of student achievement and teacher effectiveness. In what other profession do we use a single metric to judge goodness? Imagine judging competence of a cardiologist by the average of her patients’ cardiograms.

As a corollary resolution I would like to have school reformers pledge to read Stephen Jay Gould’s classic The Mismeasure of Man or just about anything by Canadian philosopher of science Ian Hacking to remind them of the logical fallacies and scientific follies involved in trying to find a single measure for a complex human phenomenon.

5) To assure that teacher professional development gets increased and thoughtful support. For this to happen, we will need at the least: a) A major shift from the last decade’s punitive accountability system toward a program of growth and development. b) A rejection of typical development fare: a consultant jets in, lays down a scheme, a grid, a handful of techniques and aphorisms, then jets out. c) A replacement of said fare with ongoing, comprehensive, intellectually rich programs of the kind offered by the National Writing Project and the National Science Foundation.

6) To ensure that people who actually know a lot about schools will appear on Oprah and will be consulted by politicians and policy makers. When President Obama visited my home state of California, the person he met with to talk about education was Steve Jobs.

7) To have the secretary of education, the president, and other officials stop repeating the phrase “We are going to educate ourselves toward a 21st Century economy.” It is smart economic policy more than anything else that will move us toward a 21st Century economy.

8) To convince policy makers and school officials to stop using corporate speak (or whatever it is) when talking about education: “game changer,” “non-starter,” “leverage,” “incentivize,” and so on. We would chastise our students for resorting to such a clichéd vocabulary. Education of all places should reflect a fresher language. And while we’re at it, how about a moratorium on this phrasing: “We’re doing it for the kids” or “It’s good for kids” when referring to just about any initiative or practice. Talk about clichéd language; the phrase is used as a substitute for evidence or a reasoned argument.

9) To rethink, or at least be cautious about, the drive to bring any successful practice or structure “to scale”. Of course we want to learn from what’s good and try to replicate it, but too often the notion of “scaling up” plays out in a mechanical way, doing more or building more of something without much thought given to the fact that any human activity occurs in a context, in a time and place, and therefore a simple replication of the practice in one community might not achieve the same results it did in its original setting.

10) To make do with fewer economists in education. These practitioners of the dismal science have flocked to education reform, though most know little about teaching and learning. I mean, my Lord, with a few exceptions they did such a terrific job analyzing the financial and housing markets – something they do know a lot about – that the field of economics itself, according to The Economist, is experiencing an identity crisis. So tell me again why they’re especially qualified to change education for the better.

11) To have the media, middle-brow and high-brow, quit giving such a free pass to the claims and initiatives of the Department of Education and school reformers. There is an occasional skeptical voice, but for any serious analysis, you have to go to sources like The Nation or Pacifica radio. Journalists and commentators who make their living by being skeptical – David Brooks, Nicholas Kristof, Arianna Huffington – leave their skepticism at the door when it comes to the topic of education.

12) To have education pundits check their tendency to resort to the quip, the catchy one-liner. If you’ll indulge me, I’ll give an extended example. I believe it was Hoover Institute economist Eric A. Hanushek who observed that if we simply got rid of the bottom 10% of teachers (as determined by test scores) and replaced them with teachers at the top 10% we’d erase the achievement gap, or leap way up the list on international comparisons, or some such. His observation got picked up by a number of commentators. It is one of those “smartest kids in the class” kinds of statements, at first striking but on reflection not very substantial.

Think for a moment. There are many factors that affect student academic performance, and the largest is parental income – so canning the bottom 10 percent won’t erase all the barriers to achievement. Furthermore, what exactly is this statement’s purpose? It seems to be a suggestion for policy. So let’s play it out. There are about 3½ million teachers out there. Ten percent is 350,000. As a policy move, how do you fire 350,000 people without creating overwhelming administrative and legal havoc, and where do you quickly find the stellar 350,000 to replace them? Also, since the removal of that bottom 10 percent one year creates a new 10 percent the next (I think Richard Rothstein also made this point), do we repeat the process annually?

It is this kind of quip that zips through the chattering classes, but really is a linguistic bright, shining object that distracts us from the real work of improving our schools.

13) To have my hometown newspaper, The Los Angeles Times, stop advocating for the use of value-added analysis as the key metric for judging teacher effectiveness and return to reporting as comprehensively as it can news about education and employing the journalist’s skepticism about any technique that seems too good to be true. The Times does offer the contrary voice, but in a minor key, and too often from teachers union officials who lack credibility rather than the wide range of statisticians and measurement experts who raise a whole host of concerns about value-added analysis used this way.

14) I’m going to end by repeating my initial resolution in case the universe missed it the first time around: That through whatever combination of factors – from policy initiatives to individual effort – more young people get an engaging and challenging education in 2011.

The Problems - Poverty & Crime

According to writer and teacher Pamela Kripke:

I think that Michael Bloomberg could put an air conditioning repair man in the chancellor's seat. Or a neuroscientist. Or, frankly, a university president. It doesn't much matter, and here is why: They do not know Miguel. Or Maria. They are just too far away. They do not know that these kids' survival, right now, is not derived from brilliant test scores or good grades, even. Or, the allocation of money from one place to another.

Today, if my students find their way to Room 146 with some peace, they are a success. If they make it into the building without a security guard hollering at them because their shirts are untucked, they are a success. If an assistant principal doesn't suspend them because their ID cards aren't hanging on their necks, well, it has been a marvelous school experience. If they can forget for 50 minutes that their brothers are in jail for selling cocaine at an elementary school, they are doing okay.

This public school district is not terribly different from other large urban machines, where kids are passed along without proper skills, ex-cops parade detention-goers through the campus like a prison work gang, and poorly paid teachers learn on Tuesday what a flawed curriculum says they need to teach on Wednesday, maybe.

An account worth reading. And a valuable perspective completely lost on people like Bill Gates. Consider this:

Of course, administrators will have you think the place is Choate Rosemary Hall, what with "Pre-AP" classes (entrance criteria: compatible scheduling, not academic ability) and college posters plastered on corridor walls. Work hard, go to Princeton. Dally amongst the Ivy. Aspiration is good, except when the goal is so utterly unreachable. Then, it is a tease, a reminder that the cycle is not nearly broken, that only 43 percent of students will graduate from high school, that repeat teenage pregnancy in this city is the highest in the country, that kids are not allowed to take home textbooks because the principal believes they won't come back.

In order to fix the schools, as is the common parlance, the Bloombergs and Blacks need to fix the kids. First. But this would require a tectonic shift in philosophy, from penal to uplifting, from frenetic to calm, from dictate to reality. For there to be any hope for true achievement, these kids need to feel safe, respected and secure before prepositional phrases and periodic tables can penetrate their bodies and brains. They need social workers and psychologists in every classroom, and teachers who resist screaming at children even when administrators tell them to. They need longer classes and fewer subjects each day. They need physical exercise, even if they can't afford the $10 for the mandatory check-up. The need hugs and cookies, yes, at 13. They need people to listen when they are told, finally, that their father was killed in a drug deal, not a car crash.

Then, perhaps, they can learn to write a paragraph. Or dream about a place like Princeton.

Not Quite Adults

Interesting new book called Not Quite Adults about the latest generation to reach adulthood - or perhaps reach a new definition of adulthood. The book's subtitle is "Why 20-Somethings are Choosing a Slower Path to Adulthood and Why It is Good for Everyone." The book focuses on young people who are delaying marriage, child-rearing, home-ownership, and even careers as they approach adulthood in a more calculating manner. It seems that, at least in the new economy, that boomerang children are not necessarily a problem, and that the image of the slacker living in the basement is far from reality.

Some interesting arguments made by the authors - which are really quite logical - have to do with the rigid paths society has set for defining success and careers and the negative perceptions we have about "involved parents" and "boomerang children." For example, the criticism of "helicopter parents" is misplaced in an era when un-involved disconnected parents do far more harm to their kids and society. As a teacher, I see the wisdom in that. Given a choice between a parent who cares too much or not enough, it seems like a no brainer. Additionally, the stereotype of the slacker kid living off of mom and dad while playing HALO in the basement is not the norm. Many, if not most kids who return home, are instead using the time to not only establish some financial security by paying down debt, but they are helping out mom and dad as well. In many ways, it can be good for a relationship with all parties seeing each other on a more mature level playing field.

Additionally, the authors address a topic dear to my heart - society's misplaced emphasis on bachelor degrees and a diminished appreciation for trades. Society has declared to young people that their only viable options are a high-paying bachelor degree job or "working the line at Arby's." Instead, we need to provide a more honest and realistic portrayal of alternative routes to careers. We have nearly destroyed career and technical education at a time when those areas are where the economy is growing the most and in most need of skilled workers. From health care technicians to electricians and plumbers, the economy is in need of exactly the sort of labor we are turning kids away from. And at a time when half the kids entering college won't finish, this is a nearly unforgivable error.

Wake up, America, and take a realistic look at the world and the young people emerging into adulthood.

A Culture of Average Education

This was my recent comment on RightOnTheLeftCoast about the struggles of students even qualify for the military:

Every release of PISA scores is a measurement of a culture's seriousness about education - or simply about testing. Far too many people simply allow kids - and themselves - to "get by." When you can get in to college with a D average or no diploma - and you still think you should go - there is a problem with the culture.

And, of course, the system is way too lenient and lacks serious competition at all but the elite levels. This is why I was recently writing about whether "school choice" advocates should also be arguing for the right to not choose education. Allowing earlier graduation or competency-based rather than age-based education or a la carte choices on curriculum or simply much high standards and requirements to access state-funded higher education might bring about some change.

But the culture remains the problem - Always has been.

School Choice - All the Way Around

School choice advocates are seriously committed to the idea that parents and children know what is best for them in terms of their education - at least when it comes to choosing a school and where they want tax dollars allocated. The logical extension of this is the right and authority to choose how much or how little - or if any - school they want. And, there is something, maybe "ethical," in nearly all of us - save the most liberty-oriented of libertarians - that is reluctant to make schooling completely optional. And I wonder about that.

When I first entered public education, and began encountering issues of student motivation and truancy despite the best efforts of committed teachers and counselors, I briefly entertained the idea that schools need to back off on forcing education upon anyone. Of course, the benefits of a well-educated population and the responsibility of adults to guide children to the best long-term decisions are nearly indisputable. Society certainly needs to encourage - and perhaps at times require - that parents and children submit to mandatory education not only for "their own good" but for the good and stability of society.

But how much to "mandate" is the issue. It's no secret that I believe high school "graduation" should come at the age of sixteen, with the final two years of education reserved for academically motivated students. The expansion of career and technical education should become much more prominent, and the number of students who qualify for taxpayer-funded higher education should be limited based on much higher standards for admission into bachelor and master degree programs. Beyond that, I wonder about core requirements in middle and high school curricula.

Think about school choice. How serious are we? Should education be much more a la carte?

Skills or Effort?

It's not unusual, it seems, for kids to move through American schools with adequate to above average grades only to discover in outside assessments that the kids really don't know what they're talking about. It may be B+ students in class who perform below proficiency on state tests, or it's often college students who seemed to breeze through high school with A's, B's, and C's but end up failing or in remedial classes in college.

The New York Times profiles this issue in an article about schools in Minnesota and administrators who began to seriously, and rightly, question the discrepancy in results. It seems that we are developing a population of kids who are quite adept at "doing school." They do their homework, take notes in class, get by on tests, and (in my opinion) earn "extra credit" for work not indicative of true knowledge or skill - the EC for a box of Kleenex is one of the biggest abominations of grades.

Thus, it's no surprise that half the students who go on to colleges and universities don't actually earn a degree. Clearly, the issue is "rigor" or more specifically a serious lack of it in the classroom. My students have long complained about how hard it is to get an A in my class, and it often seems they expect the A, or at least a high B, for effort. That's simply should not be the case - and it will have huge ramifications for them later on.

Parents and Education

There has been much talk recently about the role parents play in the academic success of their kids. JoanneJacobs has recently posted about this, and Geoffery Canada continues to call on families to step up for the good of their kids. For, it's pretty clear that regardless of changes made to schools, if the families are not buying in, the changes will not ensure success.

Thus, it's refreshing to see the approach taken by the inspiring leader of a long-struggling school in Denver. Principal Antonio Esquibel is exactly the type of leader needed in a school like Abraham Lincoln High School of the struggle Denver Public Schools. Reform efforts in Denver have begun to key in on the importance of parent buy-in. And when Esquibel can report that Parents' Night which used to draw fewer that 100 adults is now pulling in 1,500, we know he's on to something.

Of course, the argument has always come - but what if the parents simply don't step up? What about those kids? Are they destined for failure? While there's a lot of evidence for that, it is simply unacceptable to abandon them. Schools need to do everything they can to help kids succeed in spite of their home lives. But if the emphasis on academics begins in the home, it will be all the more likely the schools will succeed.