Curriculum – Education Next https://www.educationnext.org A Journal of Opinion and Research About Education Policy Thu, 25 May 2023 13:41:07 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=5.4.2 https://www.educationnext.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/e-logo-1.png Curriculum – Education Next https://www.educationnext.org 32 32 181792879 Stanford Summer Math Camp Defense Doesn’t Add Up, Either https://www.educationnext.org/stanford-summer-math-camp-defense-doesnt-add-up-either/ Wed, 24 May 2023 13:13:26 +0000 https://www.educationnext.org/?p=49716680 Flawed, non-causal research that the proposed California framework embraces

The post Stanford Summer Math Camp Defense Doesn’t Add Up, Either appeared first on Education Next.

]]>
Photo of Stanford University
Stanford University was the site of a summer math camp whose outcomes were studied.

I thank Jack Dieckmann for reading my critique of the proposed California State Math Framework (“California’s New Math Framework Doesn’t Add Up”) and for writing a response (“Stanford Summer Math Camp Researchers Defend Study”). In the article, I point to scores of studies cited by What Works Clearinghouse Practice Guides as examples of high-quality research that the framework ignores. I also mention and two studies of Youcubed-designed math summer camps as examples of flawed, non-causal research that the proposed California State Math Framework embraces.

I focused on outcomes measured by how students performed on four tasks created by the Mathematical Assessment Research Service. Based on MARS data, Youcubed claims that students gained 2.8 years of math learning by attending its first 18-day summer camp in 2015. Dieckmann defends MARS as being “well-respected” and having a “rich legacy,” but he offers no psychometric data to support assessing students with the same four MARS tasks pre- and post-camp and converting gains into years of learning. Test-retest using the same instrument within such a short period of time is rarely good practice. And lacking a comparison or control group prevents the authors from making credible causal inferences from the scores.

Is there evidence that MARS tasks should not be used to measure the camps’ learning gains? Yes, quite a bit. The MARS website includes the following warning: “Note: please bear in mind that these materials are still in draft and unpolished form.” Later that point is reiterated, “Note: please bear in mind that these prototype materials need some further trialing before inclusion in a high-stakes test.” I searched the list of assessments covered in the latest edition of the Buros Center’s Mental Measurements Yearbook, regarded as the encyclopedia of cognitive tests, and could find no entry for MARS. Finally, Evidence for ESSA and What Works Clearinghouse are the two main repositories for high quality program evaluations and studies of education interventions. I searched both sites and found no studies using MARS.

The burden of proof is on any study using four MARS tasks to measure achievement gains to justify choosing that particular instrument for that particular purpose.

Dieckmann is correct that I did not discuss the analysis of change in math grades, even though a comparison group was selected using a matching algorithm. The national camp study compared the change in pre- and post-camp math grades, converted to a 4-point scale, of camp participants and matched non-participants. One reason not to take the “math GPA data” seriously is that grades are missing for more than one-third of camp participants (36%). Moreover, baseline statistics on math grades are not presented for treatment and comparison groups. Equivalence of the two groups’ GPAs before the camps cannot be verified.

Let’s give the benefit of doubt and assume the two groups had similar pre-camp grades. Are post-camp grade differences meaningful? The paper states, “On average, students who attended camp had a math GPA that was 0.16 points higher than similar non-attendees.” In a real-world sense, that’s not very impressive on a four-point scale. We learn in the narrative that special education students made larger gains than non-special education students. Non-special education students’ one-tenth of a GPA point gain is underwhelming.

Moreover, as reported in Table 5, camp dosage, as measured in hours of instruction, is inversely related to math GPA. More instruction is associated with less impact on GPA. When camps are grouped into three levels of instructional hours (low, medium, and high dosage), effects decline from low (0.27) to medium (0.09) to high (0.04) dosage. This is precisely the opposite of the pattern of changes reported for the MARS outcome—and the opposite of what one would expect if increased exposure to the camps boosted math grades.

The proposed California Math Framework relies on Youcubed for its philosophical outlook on K-12 mathematics: encouraging how the subject should be taught, defining its most important curricular topics, providing guidance on how schools should organize students into different coursework, and recommending the best way of measuring the mathematics that students learn. With the research it cites as compelling and the research it ignores as inconsequential, the framework also sets a standard for what it sees as empirical evidence that educators should follow in making the crucial daily decisions that shape teaching and learning.

It’s astonishing that California’s K-12 math policy is poised to take the wrong road on so many important aspects of education.

Tom Loveless, a former 6th-grade teacher and Harvard public policy professor, is an expert on student achievement, education policy, and reform in K–12 schools. He also was a member of the National Math Advisory Panel and U.S. representative to the General Assembly, International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement, 2004–2012.

The post Stanford Summer Math Camp Defense Doesn’t Add Up, Either appeared first on Education Next.

]]>
49716680
Inside the “Delhi Education Revolution” https://www.educationnext.org/inside-the-delhi-education-revolution/ Fri, 20 Jan 2023 10:00:16 +0000 https://www.educationnext.org/?p=49716219 Better buildings, a “happiness curriculum,” mentor teachers—and higher test scores

The post Inside the “Delhi Education Revolution” appeared first on Education Next.

]]>
Delhi's Deputy Chief Minister and Education Minister, Manish Sisodia seen during a press conference on the eve of Teachers Day at Delhi Secretariat, in New Delhi, September 4, 2021.
Delhi’s Deputy Chief Minister and Education Minister, Manish Sisodia seen during a press conference on the eve of Teachers Day at Delhi Secretariat, in New Delhi, September 4, 2021.

Since 2015, the public schools serving 1.5 million students in Delhi, India’s capital, have undergone a remarkable transformation. The budget grew nearly tenfold. Crumbling buildings lacking desks or chairs were replaced by newly renovated classrooms with fresh paint or, in some cases, with entirely new schools. Mentor teachers coached their colleagues and reached out to struggling students. Regular attendance increased, and pass rates on a required standardized test improved.

What the government describes as the “Delhi Education Revolution” has attracted considerable attention. The minister who spearheaded the effort, Manish Sisodia, wrote a book titled Shiksha – My Experiments as an Education Minister. Boston Consulting Group, the management consulting firm known for employing Mitt Romney and Benjamin Netanyahu, did a study of the reform. The New York Times published an account of the changes headlined “Clean Toilets, Inspired Teachers: How India’s Capital Is Fixing Its Schools.”

For all that, though, the story is relatively unknown in the U.S., where readers may wonder what exactly happened in Delhi and what lessons from these reforms may be relevant or be replicable elsewhere.

The “Facelift” of Delhi Public Schools

Manish Sisodia was elected as the Minister of Education and the First Deputy Chief Minister of Delhi in 2015 from the Aam Aadmi Party, which had campaigned to remove corruption, strengthen the economy and change the public education system. In an endeavor to understand the nature of the problem with Delhi public schools, he started visiting schools in February, 2015. In his book, he recalls what he saw: “Crumbling” classrooms with “ceilings threatening to come crashing down any minute,” were a common sight. All the students had in their classrooms were “a few tattered durries to sit on and broken blackboards hanging precariously from the walls.” There were schools where students were being taught in corridors or hallways, others where walls were barely managing to hold up and some, which, until recently, had no drinking water facilities.

Anju Pathak, a former Mentor teacher within the Delhi public education system, said in an interview that even teachers had to fight for chairs or clean their own desks of dirt, instances that led to teachers simply feeling not welcome in the school environment.

Karan Deep Singh, who wrote an article on these changes for the New York Times, told me, “I spoke to teachers and parents who said that initially the schools looked like an abandoned building, a decrepit room, and in some cases, not even a building – just tin sheds that were serving as classrooms… so they weren’t really motivated to spend any time in the school.”

In 2015, the government calculated that in order to accommodate its present student population, it would need at least 30,000 more classrooms. In a state that caters to more than 1.5 million students enrolled in public schools across 1st grade to 12th, the state’s approach was to increase the share of the budget allotted to education to 25% (about $1.2 billion) from 12% (about $0.2 billion). By 2022, the education budget was up to $1.9 billion, paid for by overall growth and by some increase in government debt. In a 2022 report from the Auditor general of India, Delhi government’s debt rose by nearly 7% from 2015-16 to 2019-20. However, the report also stated that the government’s revenue receipts had steadily risen over the past few years and the revenue surplus that the government had maintained was sufficient to meet the revenue expenditure. Having increased the budget, the government’s focus was now on building new schools while adding rooms to the ones that really needed it: as many as 17,000 broken classrooms were fixed by the AAP government and by 2016, there were about 25,000 newly renovated classrooms in the capital – most schools, which were earlier dilapidated, “got a facelift”. Buildings were repaired, white-washed, and freshly painted, while schools were furnished with labs with modern facilities, well-equipped staff rooms, even swimming pools. The condition of the public schools was changed in its entirety.

In an interview, Shoikat Roy, who authored the Boston Consulting Group Analysis on the Delhi Education Reform Movement, recalled the story of a parent who came from a very marginalized section of society. When Roy asked the father what pushed him into sending his child back to school, he simply replied, “All I know is that this is a Delhi Government School. I don’t need to know anything more – my daughter has rights and she can avail of it, that’s all.”

The root cause of the problem with the school buildings, though, was yet to be solved. The lack of organization of roles and responsibilities within the school system made it difficult for schools to be maintained in the first place. While Sisodia inspected schools across the region, asking for feedback, involving school principals and teachers in the conversation about reform, principals from various schools wrote to him explaining how difficult it was for a single headmaster to oversee every nook and cranny of the school building. There was no one to make sure that school infrastructure was being looked after. Hence, the decrepitude.

In response, the government created posts called Estate Managers, or karamcharis, in every school. That official would be in charge of supervising cleanliness and repairs. A structural division of responsibilities was established—while principals focused on the academic environment at school, the karamcharis took care of the buildings. These public schools also had School Management Committees which usually included the principal, a teacher, a social worker, a local elected representative, and parents or guardians. They were responsible for overseeing the working of the school. Under these reforms, the School Management Committees were significantly strengthened. Their independence in decision-making was bolstered, giving them the power to solve issues directly.

How Did this Affect the Teachers and the Students?

Survey data indicates the improvement in the conditions of schools have had a tremendous effect in boosting morale and encouraging students to attend school. In a Boston Consulting Group parent and teacher survey, about 76% credited improvement in school infrastructure as the primary driver of change towards attitudes in schooling. This connection between physical conditions of the school and learning is widely noted. For example, the World Bank, in its 2019 book The Impact of School Infrastructure and Learning, mentions that “investments in school infrastructure and the physical conditions for learning are not a luxury but a need.” Schoolteachers such as Anju Pathak, who had been working within the system for years, testify to the impact that these changes had, mentioning the infrastructural changes as one of the foremost causes that drove students back to school. School attendance numbers increased exponentially when the schools had desks, boards, and working fans. In one of BCG’s focus group discussions, a student said, “Attendance has increased in school after cleanliness and better plants. It is ‘human nature’ to gravitate towards better environment.”

Teacher Training Programs

While the physical improvements were relatively rapid, the learning gains were more gradual, and were stronger after the government also made changes that went beyond the buildings, focusing directly on the two main components of the education system: the teachers and the students. “A teacher is to a school what a pilot is to an aeroplane. Children are like its passengers,” Sisodia writes in his book. The government moved to strengthen the role of teachers and heads of schools within the school community, training them and pushing them forward as responsible leaders. Delhi invested in offering school principals leadership workshops in consultation with larger institutions such as the Indian Institute of Management at Ahmedabad. Teacher-training programs were organized in partnership with the University of Cambridge and with schools in Finland. “This exposure,” Anju Pathak, a Delhi teacher, explained, “helps you see things differently, it opens your mind. It ignites in you a feeling that if they can do it, so can we.” These trainings were happening in tandem with the state’s attempt to recruit more teachers in the system; there were more teachers, and they were better trained. BCG notes in its analysis that as more well-trained teachers entered the system, the pass percentages of students across 10th and 12th grades shot up by almost 10 percentage points, bringing substantial improvement to the quality of education inside the classroom.

The Mentor Teacher Program

Anju Pathak, a former mentor teacher within the Delhi public education system, cites the Mentor Teacher Program as, by far, the government’s “most successful initiative” without which the Delhi education reform movement would have been impossible. Having established cluster level leadership with principals, estate managers, and school management committees, Delhi’s next step was to focus on individual teachers. Sisodia recognized that often, government school teachers did not have anyone to guide them, no one to help hone their skills or listen to their perspectives. The Directorate of Education—the Indian equivalent of a U.S. state education department, therefore, came up with a Mentor Teacher program. In the Delhi model, mentor teachers not only help build on the teachers’ teaching skills but they also keep their eyes on students. Teachers quoted in Sisodia’s book recount going out into villages to persuade parents to let their children return to school, reaching out to students who have been having a hard time. Pathak said these were the teachers who were most motivated to push through, because they were frustrated, disillusioned with the way public schools had been running. The mentor teachers were given substantial autonomy — something Pathak, who was in the first batch of mentor teachers, said she really appreciated. Sisodia himself tried to connect with teachers first-hand by touring schools, taking feedback and listening to their inputs, and this approach helped to break down existing hierarchies.

All these practices contributed to fostering an overall positive environment in the school. In a BCG poll of 6137 teachers, 41% said that their renewed motivation to teach came from improved teacher training programs, 38% mentioned the role of an overall positive environment, and the rest cited improvements in facilities, leadership, or other factors. This support from the government was crucial towards pushing teachers to show up for work, to teach, and to help inspire the leaders of tomorrow.

How Learning Outcomes of Students Improved in Middle School and Beyond

In collaboration with the teachers, Delhi also launched numerous programs to improve the learning outcomes of students, namely Buniyaad (“Foundation”) and Chunauti (“Challenge”). The government’s National Achievement Survey flagged reading skills and math skills as major areas of concern for students. Chunauti was launched in June 2016 to bridge the learning gaps of 950,000 students in grades 6, 7, and 8. Based on their learning capabilities and standards, students were grouped into three learning sections—capable, satisfactory, and below average—and teachers aimed at bridging those learning gaps among the groups. This further ensured that the teaching of fundamental ideas was done at the right level. Similarly, Buniyaad attempted to make children from grades 3 to 9 be able to read their respective textbooks completely without difficulty and perform basic mathematical calculations. In this effort to strengthen foundational literacy and numeracy skills, Buniyaad classes were offered across several schools in Delhi. The BCG report credits these programs with improving the Foundational Literacy and Numeracy outcomes of students. The percentage of students who could perform division and those who could read advanced stories in Hindi increased by an average of 22% across classes 6 to 8 in 2018 and by 10% in 2019. The government’s aim of eliminating the below-average group was essentially achieved by 2019-20, when only 0.4%-0.7% of students were left in that category. Primary schooling was strengthened as the focus of the education department shifted towards bettering foundational skills: primary school enrollments increased at a rate of about 4.7%, while private schools’ growth slowed to 2.7%, indicating that students were beginning to prefer public schools to private schools to a certain extent. Yet this trend, as Shoikat Roy from Boston Consulting Group said in an interview, “is not fully borne out in the data, …, in the long run, that would be a litmus test.” Some public schools, such as the Schools of Specialized Excellence in Delhi are perceived as competitive with the private schools, but that view doesn’t apply universally. These shifts go hand in hand with recognizing that education reform, in itself, is a much longer process that lasts way beyond the common 5 year election period in India.

The changes also had a substantial impact on high school students. In India, every year students from across public and private schools take a “board exam” which is administered by either the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE), Indian Certificate of Secondary Education (ICSE) or respective State Boards. In Delhi, contrary to most states, all public schools undertake the Central Board of Secondary Education – CBSE examination. Since Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal’s Aam Admi Party government came to power and the reforms were implemented, there has been a 10 percentage point increase in pass percentage in the 12th grade board exams and a 13 percentage point increase in 10th grade pass percentage. At least 580 out of 916 schools saw an increase in pass percentage in 2019-20. Statistics from the Central Board indicate that in 12th grade, since the introduction of reforms in 2015, Delhi schools have maintained a much higher pass percentage (98 percent) than the national average (89 percent) and Delhi private schools (92 percent). While the pass percentage in 10th grade is still lower than the national average, they are gradually closing in: while in 2017, public schools were 21 percentage points behind the national average, in 2019-20, they are only 9.8 percentage points behind. However, a lot of work still needs to be done for 9th grade students, primarily because of the low pass percentages therein — and the numbers have not improved significantly despite the reforms that have been applied to students in grades 6-8. This remains as one of Delhi’s core problems, even though the transition rate, calculated as the total class 9 enrollment that is enrolled in 10th grade the successive year, improved marginally between 2015 and 2019. Several stories testify to the fact that even students who had failed in mathematics in 9th grade were channelled into the path that led them to receiving a 96% on their 12th-grade boards.

The Happiness Curriculum

The Delhi government also made multiple attempts to push students beyond the constraints of the prescribed curriculum, endeavoring to provide students with a holistic education through the Happiness Curriculum. The Happiness Curriculum was launched for the first time in 2018 with an objective “to help students lead happier lives, while making meaningful contributions to their communities by practicing mindfulness and by developing skills like empathy, critical thinking, problem-solving, communication and collaboration to build meaningful relationships.” This was billed as the first time that an educational institution in India had actively tried to promote mindfulness and wellness classes and had tried to integrate them within the general curriculum. The Brookings Institution called the curriculum “a landmark first step in expanding a formal, public education system to focus on the holistic development of all learners, invest in their well-being, and improve the overall quality of education.”

Every day, students have a happiness period that they use to reflect and express their thoughts about a topic chosen by their teachers. There are no textbooks, no rigorous curriculum, just an opportunity for discussion, reflection and self-expression. Per BCG, roughly 30 percent of teachers working under the Delhi Education model cited the Happiness Curriculum as the key learning related intervention in Delhi that changed the perspectives of students and teachers alike. A Brookings analysis, conducted with the organization “Dream a Dream,” found the student-teacher relationship in public schools has considerably improved and students, who used to treat school as a burden, feel more “refreshed” and can concentrate better. The Happiness Curriculum helps to build emotional self-awareness in students with their final goal being helping them grow into better human beings. As many as 87 percent of teachers reported to BCG that the Happiness Curriculum has had a tangible impact on students.

What Remains to Be Done

Delhi’s reforms are incomplete. A lot of work is yet to be done in terms of getting better results from schools, especially in 9th grade, mostly because pass percentages there have still remained pretty low—57.8 percent in the 2018-2019 year—despite the substantial changes brought to the curriculum in grades 6-8. A program the government rolled out to help support struggling students in 9the grade, known as the Patrachar scheme, only reached about 3,000 of them, less than a third of whom passed their exams. A lot of other interventions have yet to reach their optimum potential. Karan Deep Singh of the New York Times mentions how it took years for the government to even get the most basic fundamental changes running – “it took a lot of time for them to make any dent at all.” In the book Delhi’s Education Revolution, Kusha Anand and Marie Lall write that the “declared ‘revolutionising’ of government school education remains a work in progress.” BCG’s Shoikat Roy describes these reforms as the “early seeds of thought and perception that public education can be improved.” This was a shift significant to India, nevertheless, yet to sustain that shift, far more will have to be done—not only in Delhi but also across the country. Many schools and children in India are in rural areas, not cities, and in those areas widespread teacher absences and other longstanding problems such as lack of outreach by the government have contributed to India’s consistently low rankings in international test-based comparisons.

All in all, the Delhi government’s community-oriented, teacher-based responses helped shape the growth that Delhi public schools have had in the last few years. Their approach was holistic and aimed at establishing a positive learning environment for all. Sisodia writes towards the end of his book, “I have said many a time that education is not about making buildings or modern classrooms or adopting technology in classrooms. These are its needs but not its achievements. Education’s biggest achievement is that it can foresee future problems, find solutions and prepare future generations for them.”

Policymakers considering the possibility of replicating Delhi’s reforms elsewhere may want to keep that in mind. For another school system to duplicate the full combination of programs—the budget increases, the building improvements, the estate managers, the School Management Committees, the mentor teachers, the Foundation and Challenge efforts, the Happiness Curriculum—would seem to be a formidable challenge. But the energy, ambition, and thoughtfulness that the Aam Aadmi Party brought to the task of preparing future generations, and the early results that they brought, are well worth emulating.

Saswato Ray, who is from India, is an undergraduate at Harvard studying Social Studies and Economics.

The post Inside the “Delhi Education Revolution” appeared first on Education Next.

]]>
49716219
In Race for Governor of Maine, It’s “Parents Bill of Rights” Versus “Historic Investment” https://www.educationnext.org/in-race-for-governor-of-maine-its-parents-bill-of-rights-versus-historic-investment/ Mon, 07 Nov 2022 19:33:57 +0000 https://www.educationnext.org/?p=49715983 LePage seeks comeback as Mills promises pre-K

The post In Race for Governor of Maine, It’s “Parents Bill of Rights” Versus “Historic Investment” appeared first on Education Next.

]]>

As Maine voters decide to either re-elect Governor Janet Mills or replace her with Paul LePage, who served from 2011 to 2019, education policy is a key issue.

The first television ad in the race, from the Maine Republican Party, criticized Mills, a Democrat, for spending “nearly $2.8 million” on “radical school lessons” to teach kindergarteners about being transgender. “Is this really what our kids should be learning in kindergarten instead of math, science, and reading?” the ad asked.

Curriculum content is just one of the issues attracting voter attention. The candidates have also clashed over student test scores, and both have stressed the need to focus on career and technical education. Mills has emphasized her role in increasing state funding for public schools.

A Pan-Atlantic Research poll of voting-age Mainers conducted during October 2022 asked what were the top three most important issues facing the State of Maine. Nearly a quarter of respondents named “education/schools” as one of the top three, with only “cost of living” and “inflation” rating higher.

This emphasis on education in Maine is reflective of nationwide trends this election cycle. Although economic concerns have largely taken center stage, education has quietly remained a top priority. According to a Pew Research Center poll conducted during August 2022, approximately 58% of registered voters expressed that education-related issues were to be a “very important” factor in deciding their Congressional votes this election cycle. That ranked higher than abortion, immigration, or climate change.

And in terms of governors races, the contest in Virginia in 2021 gained national attention for the way in which it placed education front and center (See “How “Mama Bears” Won a Court Victory—and Helped Elect a Governor—in Virginia,” features, Fall 2022). Following Youngkin’s electoral victory, it was forecast that “every Republican in the country is going to run on education in 2022 because of what happened in Virginia tonight.” It seems as though there may have been some truth to that prediction, particularly in the State of Maine.

Comparing the Candidates’ Approaches

Photo of Maine Gov. Janet Mills
Governor Janet Mills

While education policy has found a place in both Mills’ and LePage’s campaigns, the candidates have mostly emphasized different issues. Mills has placed at the heart of her education platform the fact that her administration fully funded public education to the statutorily-obligated 55% of the total cost. The Maine Education Association, a teachers union, endorsed Mills, accusing LePage of having “consistently shortchanged funding for schools.” Mills further highlights how she enacted “a budget that puts Maine on track for universal pre-K to two years of free community college to pandemic-impacted students.” Her education platform also speaks to investing in career and technical education in response to workforce shortages and mentions that she enacted a minimum teacher salary of $40,000.

LePage’s education platform is centered on a “Parents Bill of Rights,” consisting of policies focused on transparency, parental engagement, and school choice. Also stressed is the need to expand access to career and technical education, specifically by identifying “students who have the ability to work with their hands earlier” and introducing vocational opportunities as early as middle school. His platform also includes policies that would prioritize “education dollars to provide for after-care programs, in our schools, until 5:00 PM” and “provide teachers stipends to incentivize them to participate in formal tutoring programs, after-school, to aid children who fell behind during the pandemic.”

The candidates differ not just in terms of specific proposals, but in terms of tone and focus. The only noticeable point of overlap concerns career and technical education, although even then the candidates each work to stake claim to the issue in unique ways. LePage frames his platform with reference to parents and students, while Mills takes a more institutional approach, focusing on teachers and funding.

“Parents Bill of Rights”

Photo of Paul LePage
Former Governor Paul LePage

LePage’s “Parents Bill of Rights” has garnered a great deal of attention since its announcement in late September of this year, perhaps because its overarching philosophy is reminiscent of the conversation happening nationally surrounding curriculum and parental involvement. Mills has repeatedly criticized this slate of proposals during debates on the grounds that they would violate Maine’s tradition of local control over curriculum decisions. It’s unclear how effective that criticism will be, though, because none of the policies put forth in LePage’s “Parents Bill of Rights” actually would increase state control over curricular content.

A professor of political science at the University of Maine, Robert Glover, said he viewed LePage’s “Parents Bill of Rights” as an attempt to “capitalize on people’s passionate sentiments that something is going fundamentally wrong in their local schools.” Glover also noted that, “the reason that this has filtered up…in the state and around the country is because there is this sense, for some folks, that the curriculum is out of control and parents need to exert more control over those decisions…and that the state needs to step up.”

The State House correspondent for Maine Public Radio, Kevin Miller, said LePage’s “Parents Bill of Rights” is perhaps, to some extent, the result of replicating a national phenomenon. “Glenn Youngkin in Virginia got a lot of attention for campaigning on these issues, and it seemed to be a successful strategy there,” he said.

Miller also said the state’s tradition of local control could mean that curricular concerns could resonate less in Maine than they would elsewhere. Therefore, it makes sense that LePage’s “Parents Bill of Rights” appears to address the same fundamental concerns that have been raised in other states in a way that preserves the autonomy of local school boards. According to Miller, “LePage basically said that he’s not looking to put in place any state policies…and is still saying it’s a local issue….his administration would make sure schools are more transparent about what’s being taught and would give parents more information so they can figure out what’s going on in their children’s schools.” With this approach, LePage has been able to offer parents who may be worried about the content their children are being exposed to a solution that would empower them without implying that he, as governor, would railroad local school boards.

School Choice

Although school choice has not featured prominently in either campaign’s messaging this election season, it has been present in the background. In LePage’s case, he included as the final tenet of his Parents Bill of Rights that “the money should follow the student,” specifically advocating that “parents should be able to decide whether a public school, private school, charter school, or parochial school best fits their students’ needs.” Despite its inclusion in his signature slate of policies, LePage seems to have spoken little about his position regarding school choice on the campaign trail. The practice in the state of paying for private or public schooling in districts that don’t operate their own public schools, known as town tuitioning was the subject of a 2022 Supreme Court decision, Carson v. Makin.

As far as Mills is concerned, the issue of school choice has essentially been absent. That said, language often used by advocates for educational freedom has appeared in her education platform. The platform states that “she believes that all children deserve equal access to the same opportunity to attend quality schools, regardless of where they live in Maine.” Mills has also repeated this phrasing during gubernatorial debates. Her solution to the problem of unequal educational opportunities is funding rather than choice, and she frequently mentions achieving the 55% threshold for public school funding.

Career and Technical Education

Although Mills and LePage both stress the importance of expanding access to career and technical education in Maine, they approach the problem in slightly different ways, each attempting to claim the issue as their own. Mills’ campaign website asserts that: “Janet knows that our Career and Technical Education Centers (CTE) are an invaluable resource in solving Maine’s workforce challenges.”

Similarly, LePage states on his campaign website that: “Introducing vocational and technical education to students in high school is TOO LATE. We must introduce vocational and technical education to children in middle school. We need to identify students who have the ability to work with their hands earlier, and provide them with good-paying career opportunities they can pursue into high school.”

The inherent connection between the focus on career and technical education and workforce shortages was made apparent during the gubernatorial debates. When asked how he would address workforce shortages should he be elected, LePage incorporated his stance on career and technical education into his set of proposed solutions.

Maine’s governor in 2023—whether LePage or Mills—will have to address the state’s longstanding education issues along with the newer challenges of pandemic learning recovery and intense conflicts over curriculum. The fact that these issues were so salient in the election campaign will mean that whichever politician emerges as the victor will have some claim to a mandate in moving to improve the state’s schools along the lines proposed in the campaign.

Libby Palanza, a Maine native, is an undergraduate at Harvard College studying government.

The post In Race for Governor of Maine, It’s “Parents Bill of Rights” Versus “Historic Investment” appeared first on Education Next.

]]>
49715983
In Georgia, Candidates for Governor Clash on Education Issues https://www.educationnext.org/in-georgia-candidates-for-governor-clash-education-issues/ Wed, 26 Oct 2022 09:00:45 +0000 https://www.educationnext.org/?p=49715941 “People are tired of their kids being indoctrinated in the classroom,” Kemp says, as a teachers union backs a Republican for state school superintendent.

The post In Georgia, Candidates for Governor Clash on Education Issues appeared first on Education Next.

]]>
Photos of Brian Kemp, Stacey Abrams and Alisha Thomas Searcy
State school superintendent candidate Alisha Thomas Searcy, right, has complained of being “ostracized and excluded” by the campaign of her fellow Democrat, Stacey Abrams, center, who is running to unseat Governor Brian Kemp, a Republican.

As the contest for governor of Georgia heads into the home stretch, the Democratic candidate, Stacey Abrams, is releasing a campaign commercial showing her in a classroom with children. “I’ll raise teacher salaries,” Abrams says, “and invest in pre-k and schools.”

At a recent televised debate, the Republican incumbent, Brian Kemp, defended legislation he signed that included guidelines for teachers about approaching “divisive concepts.” Said Kemp, “people are tired of their kids being indoctrinated in the classroom.”

Will the Georgia campaign be a repeat of Glenn Youngkin’s election victory in Virginia in 2021, in which education was a key issue? It might seem that way based on the debate clip and the Abrams commercial. But the reality is more complex. The candidates are certainly talking about education. Polling, though, suggests other issues are higher on the minds of voters. And the liveliest Georgia statewide race about education issues may not be the one for governor, but the one for state school superintendent.

In the state school superintendent contest, the Democratic candidate, Alisha Thomas Searcy, is a former state representative who is openly supportive of public charter schools and who backed tax credit scholarships. The Georgia Association of Educators, the state affiliate of the National Education Association teachers union, has endorsed the Republican incumbent, Richard Woods. Searcy and Abrams, both Democrats, have clashed, with Searcy publicly complaining that she had been “ostracized and excluded” by the Abrams campaign. “We are supposed to be the party of the big tent, the party to embrace diversity and the party that stands up for those who are left out,” Searcy said.

Some statewide election polling hasn’t even included education on a list of issues voters were asked about as possible priorities. A September Marist poll asked voters about inflation, abortion, health care, immigration, and “supporting democracy.” An October Quinnipiac Poll listed eight issues—abortion, inflation, climate change, election laws, racial inequality, gun violence, health care, and Covid-19—but not education. A July Fox News Poll on the Georgia Senate race did include education as an issue. That survey found only two percent of voters listed education as “most important,” far below inflation, abortion, election integrity and voting rights, guns, border security, or crime.

That hasn’t prevented the candidates from talking about the issue. Governor Kemp’s K-12 proposals focus largely on helping schools recover from pandemic fallout. His plans include recommending $25 million for a Learning Loss Opportunity Scholarship Grant, $25 million for local school systems to recruit more school counselors, and $15 million for a grant program to help paraprofessionals offset the cost of obtaining teacher certification to build the teacher workforce.

“We have more work to do to address pandemic learning loss, bring more educators and counselors into our schools, and keep our students and staff safe,” Kemp said in September when unveiling his K-12 proposals. “By working with our local school systems and providing targeted funding to bring these kids back up to grade level, I am confident we can lend a helping hand to the students who need it most.” In the recent debate between the candidates, Kemp portrayed his proposals as an extension of his work as governor “pushing to get our kids back into the classroom,” noting that “a lot of Georgians, including African Americans and other minorities, cannot go back to work if their kids are not in the classroom.”

Additionally, the governor has promised to propose school safety legislation such as new safety training for teachers and staff, continuing education requirements for school resource officers, and requiring districts to submit school safety plans to the Georgia Emergency Management and Homeland Security Agency.

As for Abrams, she has put boosting teacher pay at the center of her education agenda. Kemp delivered on a 2018 campaign promise to raise teacher pay by $5,000. Abrams would go much further, raising the statewide base pay for teachers to $50,000 from $39,092 and the average teacher salary to $73,500 from $62,500. “Central to our children’s educational success is supporting the teachers, paraprofessionals and support staff who help us grow resilient children,” Abrams said when accepting an endorsement from the Georgia Association of Educators. “When our educators are highly valued and fairly compensated for their commitment to education, our children benefit.”

Abrams’s agenda also includes creating initiatives to strengthen the teacher talent pipeline, adopting a new education funding formula for K-12 students, leveraging Medicaid money to increase access to mental health services in schools, and providing universal pre-K.

When asked in the recent debate how she would pass and fund her sweeping education proposals, particularly given the likelihood she would be working with a Republican legislature, Abrams replied: “Georgia is sitting on a 6.6 billion surplus… I want to invest it in our children and in our families.”

She also promises to oppose any legislation that would hinder transgender and nonbinary students from accessing “a gender-affirming space at school,” such as a sports team, and legislation that “drives a wedge between parents and teachers” or “devalues teachers’ professional judgment” and leads teachers to “live in fear of sanctions for teaching an accurate history or having meaningful class dialogue.”

Both points are in reference to a bill Kemp signed into law last April that issues guidelines for teachers to approach certain “divisive concepts” with their students and created an oversight committee to determine how transgender students may participate on sports teams. In the recent debate, Abrams promised to repeal the bill were she elected, describing it as “a teacher [being] told you have to lie to a child.” Kemp has defended his signature on that bill and on another creating a Parents’ Bill of Rights. He told a nonpartisan teachers group, the Professional Association of Georgia Educators, “I have also been clear that Georgia’s classrooms should be free of divisive ideology and a place where students can learn how to think, not what to think. In the last year, we have taken steps to ensure that is the case in Georgia, and I will continue to do so as governor of our state.”

Notably, the school choice champion in Georgia’s election is neither of the gubernatorial candidates, but Searcy, the Democratic nominee for Georgia school superintendent. Abrams has promised to oppose private school tax credits and vouchers. Kemp has been largely quiet on the issue.

Tracey Marin is a senior associate at Whiteboard Advisors.

The post In Georgia, Candidates for Governor Clash on Education Issues appeared first on Education Next.

]]>
49715941
Texas School District Bans the Bible https://www.educationnext.org/texas-school-district-bans-the-bible/ Fri, 19 Aug 2022 13:58:05 +0000 https://www.educationnext.org/?p=49715716 “Parents had objected”

The post Texas School District Bans the Bible appeared first on Education Next.

]]>

A Holy Bible rests on a school desk

In the Summer 2022 issue of Education Next, Joshua Dunn looked at the uproar over the McGinn County Board of Education in Tennessee vote to remove Maus, a graphic novel about the Holocaust, from its curriculum. Dunn concluded, in an article headlined, “Suits Challenging Book ‘Banning’ May Be Better Politics than Law”: “If the standard is graphic depictions of sex, or rape, or incest, then it is only a matter of time before someone calls for the Bible to be banned.”

Events rapidly unfolded just as Professor Dunn presciently predicted. In an account headlined “The Bible is among dozens of books removed from this Texas school district,” NPR reports that at Keller Independent School District outside Fort Worth, Texas, school staff were instructed to remove books from classrooms and libraries, including “the graphic novel adaptation of Anne Frank’s diary, all versions of the Bible and numerous books with LGBTQ+ themes or characters.”

According to NPR, “The School Board did not say why the Bible and the Anne Frank book were removed, but parents had objected to them.”

Jonathan Friedman, the director of free expression and education programs at PEN America, an advocacy group, said in a statement, “the whole situation reflects trends across the country toward educational censorship, a recipe for anodyne schools and lowest-common denominator education.”

The post Texas School District Bans the Bible appeared first on Education Next.

]]>
49715716
Can We Revive Standards-Based Reform? https://www.educationnext.org/can-we-revive-standards-based-reform/ Thu, 14 Jul 2022 18:32:11 +0000 https://www.educationnext.org/?p=49715585 Statewide curriculum sounds seductive, but charters, vouchers are more promising.

The post Can We Revive Standards-Based Reform? appeared first on Education Next.

]]>
Illustration
Great big top-down systemic education reforms surely glitter.

Georgetown University’s FutureEd project was right to declare that “few people have played a larger role in efforts to raise standards in the nation’s schools” than the coauthors of its latest paper, Unfinished Agenda: The Future of Standards-Based School Reform.

Michael Cohen and Laura Slover, both now associated with CenterPoint Education Solutions (which Slover heads), do indeed have impressive track records in this realm, including Mike’s long-time leadership of Achieve and Laura’s leadership in developing and launching the PARCC assessments. I’ve known them forever, like them a lot, and greatly respect what they’ve done and are doing.

I also respect their new paper, even as I find myself doubting the feasibility of its proposals.

The paper is squarely in the tradition of “systemic reform,” an honorable, perceptive, and ambitious approach that says, in essence, that making any major gains in America’s K–12 results requires a holistic understanding of how the system works and a strategy for overhauling its many key elements in synchronous fashion. Prominently identified with Marshall (Mike) Smith and Jennifer O’Day, this understanding of education reform has been present in the field for more than three decades. The ERIC system summarizes it as “a design for a systemic state structure that supports school-site improvement efforts and is based on clear, challenging standards for student learning. Policy components would be tied to these standards and reinforce one another in providing instructional guidance to schools and teachers.”

Those “policy components” are legion, ranging from “a coherent [statewide] system of instructional guidance” to major changes in the structures and governance of schooling. Included, of course, are academic standards and assessments, but also aligned teacher preparation, professional development, a perhaps-surprising injection of school-level autonomy—and considerable financial investment. With everything synchronized, of course.

That’s a very heavy lift, which is why no state, to my knowledge, has given it a full test. Some have moved a fair distance toward it—Massachusetts, Louisiana, Tennessee—but it’s not just hard to do. It’s next to impossible to sustain. The main obstacles, sadly, are obvious and familiar: the difficulty of reaching a durable consensus over what, exactly, the state’s schools are supposed to teach and its children to achieve; a vast, lumbering, loosely-coupled K–12 enterprise that is loath to change, beyond perhaps doing more of what it’s always done; adult interests that are vested in the status quo; widespread complacency regarding that status quo; and election-year changes (and leadership turnover) that make it daunting to stay on course, notably when that course is disruptive, disputed, and politically vulnerable.

Cohen and Slover know all that, of course, and have scars to prove it. They acknowledge widespread exhaustion with and pushback against even the simpler forms of standards-based reform, while recognizing that “it has increased the rigor of state standards and improved the quality of state tests overall.” They also acknowledge the complicated role played by the Common Core, which has served both to raise standards in many places and to stiffen resistance in some. And they’re honest about the generally disappointing results of all this effort: “Millions of students—particularly Black and Latino children and those from low-income families—continue to be taught to low expectations. And that lack of rigor remains a major barrier to economic mobility and social justice.”

Darn right it does.

But they’re not giving up. Far from it. Their new paper restates the centrality of standards in the reform of American education in the name of both excellence and equity. It restates the “systemic reform” thesis that a standards-driven system needs its many moving parts to mesh. But it then focuses laser-like on what Cohen and Slover see as the part of that system that has been widely neglected but that, they say, may be the most necessary: “the instructional core,” particularly an “adequate supply of standards-aligned curricula” and the “related professional learning” that would equip teachers to deliver such curricula effectively.

Why neglect something so vital? The authors astutely explain that “Most state officials were loath to influence districts’ curriculum decisions—sometimes because the politics were deadly in light of the nation’s long history of local control of education, oftentimes because they lacked the capacity to do so. Publishers, meanwhile, were quick to assure districts that their materials were aligned to standards, despite evidence to the contrary.”

Darn right.

But what to do? Cohen and Slover seek a rededication to standards-based reform centered on an aggressive statewide approach to the “instructional core.” They see this as having four vital components:

  • High-quality, standards-aligned curriculum.
  • Professional learning connected to the curriculum.
  • Curriculum-aligned assessment.
  • Accountability focused on instructional coherence.

Sounds right, no? Yet the very first step of their action plan for states is “a fundamental shift in state accountability systems,” beginning with states adopting “policies requiring every district to demonstrate that its curriculum, instructional materials, professional learning, and local assessments are aligned with each other and with state standards.”

And on they go, citing Louisiana since 2013 as one place that’s put a number of these elements into operation (more with incentives than coercion); noting a multi-state effort by the Council of Chief State School Officers to “encourage” districts to adopt and deploy such aligned curricula and professional development; and mentioning several organizations (including CenterPoint) that are “helping.”

They seek far more of all of that, and in many more places.

But obstacles loom, perhaps insurmountable. Truly doing what Cohen and Slover recommend amounts to a statewide curriculum or its virtual equivalent, as well as ensuring that many other currently-local instructional decisions conform to state norms if not actually replaced by state decisions and actions.

Their plan also entails a subtle but important shift from school accountability centered on student achievement and gap closing to something more like schools’ successful fealty to an instructional strategy. Of course the authors want and expect that stronger achievement will follow—that’s ultimately their point—but it’s no small thing to change the focus from results to the machinery intended to produce them.

Yes, I favor instructional coherence. Yes, I understand that many schools and districts cannot produce satisfactory results by just whipping the troops to try harder. Yes, I’d like to see states doing far more to help. I might be talked into the Cohen-Slover approach if I thought it was feasible and if I had confidence that state-level decision makers would make sound decisions in all those realms, implement them thoroughly, and stick with them. But I approach despair when I watch the fast-changing cast of characters at the helm of state education agencies, the timid, rigid, and bureaucratic behaviors of those agencies, the difficulty they have in attracting and paying for the requisite talent, and their vulnerability to interest-driven political interventions and course changes. I worry, too, that a fully coordinated instructional system at the state level will leave even fewer options for dissenting parents and educators to escape from what they view as curricular indoctrination, whether from left or right.

We’ve seen some states struggle toward coherence, but how many of them last long enough to make a material difference? John White is no longer in charge in Louisiana, Carey Wright just retired from Mississippi, Dave Driscoll is years away from the Massachusetts job. Penny Schwinn inherited a promising start in Tennessee and—well, so far so good. But in how many states would even the suggestion of such centralization of K–12 control not trigger protest and pushback? And in how many states might such centralization amid culture wars lead to bad choices in the curricular sphere?

Great big top-down systemic education reforms surely glitter, and on more than one occasion I’ve been seduced. That might happen again. It’s easy to be smitten by Mike and Laura’s vision, which glitters brightly. In the end, however, I’ve almost always ended up favoring workarounds and end-runs, ways (such as charters) of letting schools escape from the grip of state (and local) rigidities, and ways (such as vouchers and education savings accounts) of letting parents escape from the monopoly.

In a private note, one of the authors insists to me that “The agenda here is necessary, complex, and doable, with sustained leadership and effort.” I’d like to think so, and would applaud signs of the requisite “sustained leadership and effort.” But three decades after the debut of “systemic” reform, and after three (and more) decades of results that are too flat, too low, and too disparate, I’ve grown harder to seduce. And more determined than ever to factor painful reality into our reform strategies. Which, sadly, means (to me) acknowledging that what glitters sometimes turns out to be fool’s gold.

Chester E. Finn, Jr., is a Distinguished Senior Fellow and President Emeritus at the Thomas B. Fordham Institute. He is also a Senior Fellow at Stanford’s Hoover Institution.

This post originally appeared on the Fordham Institute’s Flypaper blog.

The post Can We Revive Standards-Based Reform? appeared first on Education Next.

]]>
49715585
A Search for Common Ground https://www.educationnext.org/search-for-common-ground-navigating-tough-classroom-conversations/ Fri, 10 Jun 2022 09:00:20 +0000 https://www.educationnext.org/?p=49715457 Navigating tough classroom conversations

The post A Search for Common Ground appeared first on Education Next.

]]>

Pedro Noguera, the dean of the University of Southern California’s Rossier School of Education, and I have a podcast (Common Ground: Conversations on Schooling) in which we dig into our disagreements and seek to identify common ground on some of the thorniest questions in education. I thought readers might enjoy snippets of those conversations every now and then. This week, Pedro and I discuss teaching upsetting topics in schools.

—Rick Hess

Cover of Winter 2022 issue of Education NextNoguera: In the past few months, several states have said we should be able to sue teachers who teach subjects that are upsetting to kids. It seems like conservatives now have very little backbone for distressing subjects. War is upsetting. The Holocaust is certainly upsetting. Slavery is definitely upsetting, and so are mass shootings which occur with great regularity in this country. Despite the discomfort, I think kids have a right to learn about these topics and teachers have a responsibility to help students work through the emotional part of helping kids to understand these issues. Learning about the disturbing parts of our history and of current events is essential for preparing kids to become citizens. I’m wondering what you think about these kinds of laws that might make it illegal for teachers to address such topics if a parent says their kid was upset because they learned about something such as children being bombed in Ukraine.

Hess: I’m with you on the first part. Kids are going to get upset, and we shouldn’t be unconcerned about how they process trauma, fear, or grief. Learning about the Holocaust or about Russian brutality in Ukraine is upsetting. We agree that neither parents nor legislators should be in the business of telling schools they can’t teach about slavery or Jim Crow. But I do think it’s wholly appropriate for legislators and parents to say that teachers should not be promoting personal agendas. Teachers can delve into the realities and legacies of racism and Jim Crow without labeling their students as oppressors and victims. They can do so without crude “privilege” worksheets that demean students for being straight or living in a two-parent home. And they can certainly do so without asserting that “hard work” or “timeliness” are evil legacies of “white supremacy culture.” And, we’d have to sit down and parse the laws, but the statutes I’ve seen are focused on addressing these dogmas—not on truncating the history that gets taught.

Noguera: I get your point. We don’t always know from the way the media reports about these new laws how accurately they capture what the law is or what it’s trying to do. But these kinds of laws are taking off in several states, and anytime something is done that quickly, it’s often done poorly without much thought to consequences. That’s my concern. I’ll give you an example of how it could backfire. My daughter during some lesson she had about Black History Month said, “I think the white kids in class may have felt uncomfortable when we started talking about slavery.” I said, “Why?” She said, “Because some of them might have felt that they were guilty,” and I said, “Well, the teacher should explain that none of the students in the class were slave owners, and all of us have a responsibility for fighting racism.” I believe that kids can learn about distressing events without there being a sense of blame. However, that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t ask how we might be complicit in perpetuating harm toward others. I think that is essential if we are going to move forward and not repeat the mistakes of the past or accept the damage being done in the present as inevitable that we figure out how to do this. However, I still am not sure about how to hold an appropriate discussion with young children on difficult topics. How do we engage 4th graders? How about 2nd graders? At what age do we introduce these topics? Clearly, high school students should be prepared to discuss difficult and controversial topics, but if we wait until high school to introduce history and geography, it might be a little hard to catch up. I don’t want to pretend that any of this is easy or simple. I know it’s complex, and that’s why I am concerned about the teachers who we’re asking to address it.

Hess: I could not agree more. If simply broaching topics like the Tulsa Massacre or Korematsu makes some students uncomfortable, we need to help our kids develop a thicker skin. But it’s also the teacher’s job to make sure that these conversations are appropriately respectful and serious and don’t turn into an excuse for kids to trade barbs or insults. You know, one of the things you and I have talked about a lot, in the book and in these conversations, is the importance of giving each other a little bit of grace and the benefit of the doubt. That can be tough to do when we’re frustrated with each other. But the lack of that means that it’s easy to assume, when someone has concerns about whether something is age appropriate or how it’s being taught, that the “real” agenda is stopping kids from learning about slavery or about the Holocaust. But I think we’d do better if we were more able to make these kinds of distinctions and argue about them in good faith and with some mutual regard. It’d sure be a good model for our students.

This conversation has been edited for clarity and length. To hear the rest of the conversation, check out Episode 10 of Rick and Pedro’s Common Ground Podcast, “Ukraine, Russia, and civics education.”

Frederick Hess is director of education policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute and an executive editor of Education Next.

This post originally appeared on Rick Hess Straight Up.

The post A Search for Common Ground appeared first on Education Next.

]]>
49715457
San Francisco’s Detracking Experiment https://www.educationnext.org/san-franciscos-detracking-experiment/ Tue, 29 Mar 2022 20:31:54 +0000 https://www.educationnext.org/?p=49715200 Course enrollments are a means to an end—student learning—not an end unto themselves.

The post San Francisco’s Detracking Experiment appeared first on Education Next.

]]>

Golden Gate Bridge

The San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD) adopted a detracking initiative in the 2014–15 school year, eliminating accelerated middle and high school math classes, including the option for advanced students to take Algebra I in eighth grade. The policy stands today. High schools feature a common math sequence of heterogeneously-grouped classes studying Algebra I in ninth grade and Geometry in tenth grade. After tenth grade, students are allowed to take math courses reflecting different abilities and interests.

Implementing the Common Core was provided as the impetus for the change. When first proposed, district officials summed up the reform as, “There would no longer be honors or gifted mathematics classes, and there would no longer be Algebra I in eighth grade due to the Common Core State Standards in 8th grade.” Parents received a flyer from the district reinforcing this message, explaining, “The Common Core State Standards in Math (CCSS-M) require a change in the course sequence for mathematics in grades 6–12.” Phi Daro, one of Common Core’s coauthors, served as a consultant to the district on both the design and political strategy of the detracking plan.

The policy was controversial from the start. Parents showed up in community meetings to voice opposition, and a petition urging the district to reverse the change began circulating. District officials launched a public relations campaign to justify the policy. Focused on the goal of greater equity, that campaign continues today. SFUSD declared detracking a great success, claiming that the graduating class of 2018–19, the first graduating class affected by the policy when in eighth grade, saw a drop in Algebra 1 repeat rates from 40 percent to 8 percent and that, compared to the previous year, about 10 percent more students in the class took math courses beyond Algebra II. Moreover, the district reported enrollment gains by Black and Hispanic students in advanced courses.

Important publications applauded SFUSD and congratulated the district on the early evidence of success. Education Week ran a story in 2018, “A Bold Effort to End Tracking in Algebra Shows Promise,” that described the reforms with these words: “Part of an ambitious project to end the relentless assignment of underserved students into lower-level math, the city now requires all students to take math courses of equal rigor through geometry, in classrooms that are no longer segregated by ability.” The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) issued a policy brief portraying the detracking effort as a model for the country. Omitted from these reviews was the fact that the “lower-level math” to which non-algebra eighth-graders were assigned was Common Core Eighth Grade Math, which SFUSD and NCTM had spent a decade depicting as a rigorous math course, as they do currently.

Jo Boaler, noted math reformer, professor at Stanford, and critic of tracking, teamed up with Alan Schoenfeld, Phil Daro and others to write “How One City Got Math Right” for The Hechinger Report, and Boaler and Schoenfeld published an op-ed, “New Math Pays Dividends for SF Schools” in the San Francisco Chronicle.

In this public relations campaign, there was no mention of math achievement or test scores. Course enrollments and passing grades were presented as meaningful measures by which to measure the success of detracking.

They are bad measures. Course enrollments are a means to an end—student learning—not an end unto themselves. If a district enrolls students in courses that fail to teach important content, nothing has been accomplished. Boosting enrollment in advanced courses, therefore, is of limited value.[1] It’s also a statistic, along with grades, that is easily manipulated. No matter the school district, if word spreads that the superintendent would like to see more kids enrolled in higher math classes and fewer D and F grades in those classes, enrollments will go up and the number of D’s and F’s will go down.

Families for San Francisco

Families for San Francisco, a parent advocacy group, acquired data from the district under the California Public Records Act (the state’s version of the Freedom of Information Act). The group’s analysis calls into question the district’s assertions. As mentioned previously, repeat rates for Algebra I dropped sharply after the elimination of Algebra I in eighth grade, but whether the reform had anything to do with that is questionable. The falling repeat rate occurred after the district changed the rules for passing the course, eliminating a requirement that students pass a state-designed end of course exam in Algebra I before gaining placement in Geometry. In a presentation prepared by the district, speaker notes to the relevant slide admit, “The drop from 40 percent of students repeating Algebra 1 to 8 percent of students repeating Algebra 1, we saw as a one-time major drop due to both the change in course sequence and the change in placement policy.”

The claim that more students were taking “advanced math” classes (defined here as beyond Algebra II) also deserves scrutiny. Enrollment in calculus courses declined post-reform. The claim rests on a “compression” course the district offers, combining Algebra II and precalculus into a single-year course. The Families for San Francisco analysis shows that once the enrollment figures for the compression course are excluded, the enrollment gains evaporate. Why should they be excluded? The University of California rejected the district’s classification of the compression course as “advanced math,” primarily because the course topics fall short of content specifications for precalculus.

Smarter Balanced scores

The conventional way to measure achievement gaps—and progress towards closing them—is with scores on achievement tests. California students take the Smarter Balanced assessments in grades three through eight and in grade eleven. Following SFUSD’s analytical strategy, let’s compare scores from 2015, the last cohort of eleventh-graders under the previous policy, and 2019, the last cohort with pre-pandemic test scores.[2] Please be alerted, however, that both analyses, SFUSD’s and the one presented here, fall far short of supporting causal claims. The purpose of the current analysis is to illustrate that SFUSD’s public relations campaign omitted crucial information to determine what’s going on.

As displayed in Table 1, SFUSD’s scores for eleventh-grade mathematics remained flat from 2015 (scale score of 2611) to 2019 (scale score of 2610), moving only a single point. Table 1 shows the breakdown by racial and ethnic groups. Black students made a small gain (+2), Hispanic scores declined (-14), White students gained (+17), and Asian students registered the largest gains (+22).

Table 1. San Francisco Unified School District Smarter Balanced Scores, grade 11, 2015–19

Table 1

 

Table 2 offers some context for interpreting the scores. Smarter Balanced is vertically scaled so that scores can be compared across grades. On Smarter Balanced results from twelve states, the mean fifth-grade math score was 2498, well above the 2479 score for eleventh-grade Black students in SFUSD and the same as the 2498 score registered by eleventh-grade Hispanics students.[3] The mean Smarter Balanced sixth-grade score was 2515, well above the scores of both groups of eleventh graders in SFUSD.

Table 2. 2019 Smarter Balanced summative assessment scores, mathematics, by grade

Table 2

Summing up: Black and Hispanic eleventh-graders in San Francisco score about the same as or lower than the typical fifth-grader who took the same math test. Black eleventh-graders fall just short of the threshold for being considered proficient in fourth-grade math and well below the cut point for demonstrating fifth-grade proficiency. The situation is appalling.

Are test score gaps narrowing?

Contrary to the district’s spin, the trend towards greater equity is not headed in the right direction. Gaps are widening. Perhaps this trend is statewide and not just a SFUSD phenomenon.

Table 3 supplies the gap calculations from the data above in Table 1, along with a comparison to statewide trends. For example, at the state level, the eleventh-grade Black-White gap grew by 11 points—from 94 to 105—while in SFUSD, the gap expanded by 15 points (from 143 to 158). The Hispanic-White gap provides a more dramatic contrast. The state level gap grew by only 5 points, but in San Francisco, it expanded by a whopping 31 points. Glancing back at Table 2 again will provide context. The 31-point expansion is larger than the 20-point difference in mean scores for Smarter Balanced’s eighth-grade and high school assessments. That’s a big change.

With both gaps, SFUSD evidenced greater inequities than state averages in 2015, and that relative underperformance worsened by 2019. The district’s anti-tracking public relations campaign, by focusing on metrics such as grades and course enrollments, diverts attention from the harsh reality that SFUSD is headed in the wrong direction on equity.

Table 3. Black-White and Hispanic-White gap, grades 11, California and San Francisco, 2015–19, by Smarter Balanced scale scores, mathematics

Could the situation be even worse?

Finally, as bad as the preceding data look, the reality of the district’s poor math achievement is probably worse. SFUSD has exceptionally low rates of test participation on the state test, especially among Black and Hispanic students. Don’t forget: This is the test that state and district officials use for accountability purposes. Participation is mandated by both federal and state law. If the students who don’t take the test tend to be low achievers—usually a fair assumption—the district’s test score performance could fall even lower once those students are included.

Table 4. 11th-grade students tested as a percentage of students enrolled

Conclusion

San Francisco Unified School District embarked on a detracking initiative in 2015, followed by an extensive public relations campaign to portray the policy as having successfully narrowed achievement gaps. The campaign omitted assessment data indicating that the Black-White and Hispanic-White achievement gaps have widened, not narrowed, the exact opposite of the district’s intention and of the story the district was selling to the public. Only SFUSD possesses the data needed to conduct a formal evaluation that would credibly identify the causal factors producing such dismal results.

Whether detracking can assist in the quest for greater equity is an open question. It could, in fact, exacerbate inequities by favoring high achieving children from upper-income families—who can afford private sector workarounds—or with parents savvy enough to negotiate the bureaucratic hurdles SFUSD has erected to impede acceleration. As I have written elsewhere, the voluminous literature on tracking is better at describing problems than in solving them. The evidence that detracking promotes equity is sparse, mostly drawing on case studies that are restricted in terms of generalizability of findings to other settings and with research designs that do not support causal inferences.

If SFUSD would now approach tracking with an open mind, officials need not look far to discover equitable possibilities. Across the bay, David Card, a scholar at University of California, Berkeley, won the 2021 Nobel Prize in Economics for his research applying innovative econometrics to thorny public policy problems. Card’s recent studies, conducted with colleague Laura Giuliano, investigate tracking. In 2014, Card and Giuliano published a paper evaluating an urban district’s tracking program based on prior achievement. In particular, disadvantaged students and students of color benefitted from an accelerated curriculum, with no negative spillover effects for students pursuing the regular course of study. Card and Giuliano concluded, “Our findings suggest that a comprehensive tracking program that establishes a separate classroom in every school for the top‐performing students could significantly boost the performance of the most talented students in even the poorest neighborhoods, at little or no cost to other students or the District’s budget.”

Card and Giuliano’s current project studies two large urban districts in Florida, predominantly Black and Hispanic, that provide mathematically talented students with the opportunity to accelerate through middle school math courses. When these students enter high school, they will have already completed Algebra I and Geometry. They begin high school two years ahead of students in San Francisco, opening up greater opportunities to take Advanced Placement (AP) courses in later years.

Which system is more equitable?


Notes:

1. An analysis that I conducted in 2013 showed a steadily increasing percentage of students who had taken Algebra II; however, NAEP scores for students who had taken Algebra II also steadily declined concurrent with the increased enrollments.

2. California employs “Black or African American” and “Hispanic or Latino” as reporting categories. After Table 1, for the sake of clarity, the terms are shortened to “Black” and “Hispanic” in both tables and the narrative.

3. Using 2018 scores, the cohort of eleventh-graders first affected by detracked eighth-grade courses in 2015, would not change the analysis significantly except for one aspect: The achievement gaps associated with race and ethnicity were larger in 2018 because of higher scores for White students. 2018 scores were Asian (2682), Black or African American (2479), Hispanic or Latino (2497), White (2650).

Tom Loveless, a former sixth-grade teacher and Harvard public policy professor, is an expert on student achievement, education policy, and reform in K-12 schools. He also is a member of the National Math Advisory Panel.

From TomLoveless.com via the Fordham Flypaper.

The post San Francisco’s Detracking Experiment appeared first on Education Next.

]]>
49715200
A Math Teacher’s Frank and Funny Take on Math Education https://www.educationnext.org/a-math-teachers-frank-and-funny-take-on-math-education/ Thu, 17 Feb 2022 10:00:10 +0000 https://www.educationnext.org/?p=49714797 "Full of the kinds of things that teachers say privately but hesitate to speak aloud"

The post A Math Teacher’s Frank and Funny Take on Math Education appeared first on Education Next.

]]>

Cover of Out on Good Behavior by Barry Garelick

Math is fundamental. This observation is a groan-inducing cliché, but it’s also true. Math matters for employment, financial literacy, and even for navigating evidentiary claims about things like Covid-19 and climate change. Yet math education seems to have gotten sidelined amid broader debates about school culture, civics, and the rest. Lately, when math does come up, it seems like it’s due to efforts to eliminate accelerated offerings or do away with the requirement that students answer questions correctly. And, of course, this is all against the backdrop of the devastating pandemic declines in math performance.

Photo of Barry Garelick
Barry Garelick

If you’re concerned about this, where can you turn? Well, one place is a recently published book from the inimitable Barry Garelick, a second-career math teacher with a chip on his shoulder and a deep affinity for Mary Dolciani’s classic 1962 math textbook Modern Algebra. Garelick, who readers likely already know from his various books and articles (in fact, he penned one of the more popular Rick Hess Straight Up guest letters last year), has delivered a work that’s filled with bracing, laugh-out-loud takes on math education and the teacher’s lot. Out on Good Behavior: Teaching Math While Looking Over Your Shoulder is delightfully pithy (clocking in at a slender 94 pages) and filled with short chapters that bear titles like “The Prospect of a Horrible PD, a Horrible Meeting, and an Unlikely Collaboration.”

Throughout the volume, Garelick shares stories from his own experience that capture the state of math education and illuminate the frustrations of teaching math today. In one anecdote, Garelick recalls the professional development trainer who excitedly shared that students would be able to get credit on the test for offering a satisfactory explanation, even if they had the wrong answers. That posed a challenge, she cautioned: “Explaining answers is tough for students and for this reason there is a need for discourse in the classroom and ‘rich tasks.’”

When Garelick asked what constituted a “rich task,” she said: “It’s a problem that has multiple entry points and has various levels of cognitive demands. Every student can be successful on at least part of it.”

I quite like Garelick’s take on that indecipherable response: “Her answer was extraordinary in its eloquence at saying absolutely nothing.” I routinely hear from teachers and administrators who really, really wish they were free to say things like that in the course of staff meetings or professional training sessions.

This is the rare text in which an educator calls out the patronizing air of so many reformers and trainers. Recalling one conference where the moderator urged teachers to name their “super power,” Garelick drily asks the reader, “Why is so much PD steeped with the vocabulary that has teachers being ‘rock stars’ or ‘super heroes’?”

Garelick is stubbornly, even proudly, traditionalist in his takes. His approach to teaching negative numbers perfectly encapsulates his approach. He says, bluntly, “I do not like to prolong the topic.” He elaborates, “I once observed a teacher taking three weeks to teach it. The students had it down fairly well when the teacher introduced a new explanation using colored circles, causing confusion.”

Exasperated, one girl asked, ‘Why are we doing this?’” The teacher explained that, since the students had learned how negative numbers work, it was time to understand why they work that way.

Garelick recounts the student’s plaintive response: “I don’t want to understand!”

Garelick may be the only math author willing to publicly state that he thinks the student has a point. No fan of the Common Core or the broader push for conceptual math, he instead argues, “I’ve found that a lot of the confusion with the addition and subtraction of negative integers comes from giving students more techniques and pictorials than are really needed.”

At one point, he describes guiltily confessing to his supervisor that he’d attended a workshop session on the role of memory. She tells him, “Memorization is not a good thing.” She then asks, with some concern, “Was this person advocating it?” Throughout the book, one is frequently reminded just how much teachers who believe in phonics, math procedure, or memorization can feel like they’re moles struggling to escape persecution.

Garelick’s book is full of the kinds of things that teachers say privately but hesitate to speak aloud. Whatever side you’re prone to take in the math wars, Garelick’s wry reflections are well worth checking out.

Frederick Hess is director of education policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute and an executive editor of Education Next.

This post originally appeared on Rick Hess Straight Up.

The post A Math Teacher’s Frank and Funny Take on Math Education appeared first on Education Next.

]]>
49714797
The Maus that Roared https://www.educationnext.org/maus-that-roared-who-do-you-want-to-decide-whats-best-for-kids/ Thu, 03 Feb 2022 14:54:57 +0000 https://www.educationnext.org/?p=49714658 Who do you want to decide what’s best for kids?

The post The Maus that Roared appeared first on Education Next.

]]>

Cover of Maus by Art Spiegelman

The school board in McMinn County, Tennessee, voted 10-0 to remove Maus, a Pulitzer Prize-winning graphic novel by cartoonist Art Spiegelman, from its eighth grade curriculum last month, citing concerns about explicit language and disturbing illustrations. When word got out last week, the condemnation from across the country was swift and pointed. That the vote seemed to coincide with Holocaust Remembrance Day (it was actually taken two weeks earlier) only fanned the flames.

“Yes, it is uncomfortable to talk about genocide, but it is our history and educating about it helps us not repeat this horror,” said teachers union president Randi Weingarten. “It has the breath of autocracy and fascism about it,” Spiegelman himself told CNN. “I’m still trying to figure out how this could be…I think of it as a harbinger of things to come.”

The story is not quite the way it’s been portrayed in the press and social media. And the episode, like several other curriculum battles in recent months, raises any number of questions that are proving too fine-grained for the ready-fire-aim cauldron of Twitter, Facebook, and our polarized public discourse. What kids should and should not be exposed to in school, at what age, and who should decide: Parents? Teachers? School boards? Someone else?

Let’s start with a precise description of the action taken by the school board. One sane voice, Derek Thompson of The Atlantic, pointed out that Maus had not been “banned”; it was removed from the district’s eighth grade curriculum. “Those are really different things. I found and read—and loved—Maus in our school library,” he tweeted. “It was never a part of the curriculum.”

But Maus had been part of the curriculum in McMinn County. A big part. None of the voluble coverage I’ve read has cited the fact that Maus is the “anchor text” in EL Education’s eighth grade language arts curriculum. Thus, when a school board member asked why they couldn’t just swap another Holocaust-themed text for Maus, the district’s instructional staff described how difficult that would be, since the entire curriculum module and several weeks of instruction revolve around that specific text. The same issue was cited when the board was reminded of its own policy allowing parents to opt out of materials they think are inappropriate for their children.

The biggest misconception is that the removal was because board members didn’t want kids learning about the Holocaust. “Our children need to know about the Holocaust, they need to understand that there are several pieces of history that show depression or suppression of certain ethnicities. It’s not acceptable today,” noted one board member, whose specific motion (which ultimately passed) directed “that we remove this book from the reading series and challenge our instructional staff to come with an alternative method of teaching the Holocaust.” A high school teacher at the meeting chimed in to say she teaches the Holocaust every year, but she doesn’t use Maus either. So the frequently repeated claim that the controversy was about keeping kids from learning “honest history” is simply incorrect based on a transcript of the meeting, which is available to any who care to read it.

Here are my takeaways from this high-profile and obviously distorted episode: Would I have let my eighth grade daughter read Maus? Yes, I would and without hesitation. I’m also favorably disposed toward EL Education’s language arts program. It’s knowledge-rich, usable for teachers, and draws upon complex texts and thoughtfully curated supplemental resources. If this controversy were to repeat itself in my town, I’d speak in support of Maus, the curriculum, and teaching the module as written. Finally, anyone inclined to make dark imprecations about teachers and administrators in rural east Tennessee should read the transcript. They made a very strong and sophisticated case for Maus. If I were on the McMinn County Board of Education, I would have cast the lone “no” vote on removal.

But here’s the thing: I’m not on the McMinn County Board of Education. So I draw the line at telling the people of a distant rural school district, six states and 500 miles away, what their children must read for a simple reason: I don’t want the people of McMinn County, Tennessee, telling me what my kid must read.

You don’t have to like or agree with the decision, but the question I haven’t seen considered in all the howling outrage is what alternative wouldn’t be worse in a diverse and divided nation, where even state control of education feels too distant and the grain size too large? If you don’t think a local, democratically-elected school board is the appropriate body to decide whether a book belongs in their school’s curriculum, who is? If not the nation’s 13,000 local school boards, in whose hands would you place the power to dictate the terms and conditions that govern your child’s school culture and curriculum? And what happens when a decision that’s in friendly hands and aligns with your tastes and values today ends up tomorrow in the hands of people you do not know and cannot stand?

Shout all you like. It’s a free country, at least for now. But recognize that a strange spirit is at loose in the land. We seem eager to limit people’s access to ideas we don’t like, and at same time impose our ideas on people we don’t like. We see no conflict in these obviously contrary impulses. We condemn the McMinn County school board for “banning” Maus and in the very next Tweet applaud Neil Young trying to muzzle Joe Rogan on Spotify. Yes, yes, I know. It’s a false equivalence. One’s a government action and the other’s the free market doing its thing. But might I humbly suggest that if your first impulse is to explain why something is or is not censorship or compelled speech rather than being reflexively uncomfortable with it, you’ve already lost the plot.

Half of the seats on the ten-member McMinn County school board are up this year. The primaries are in May; the general election is in August. Now that they have offered a high-profile demonstration of their feel for community values and displayed their pedagogical discernment, the good people of McMinn County, Tennessee, will have the opportunity to express their support or disappointment with their board at the ballot box.

Got a better plan? Because I sure don’t.

Robert Pondiscio is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

This post originally appeared on the Fordham Institute’s Flypaper blog.

The post The Maus that Roared appeared first on Education Next.

]]>
49714658