Peabloggy

David Keyes, a second-grade teacher in Washington, D.C., wrote an article posted on Washington Post Online called Classroom Caste System which blames No Child Left Behind for the creation of a “new gap between poor and minority students…and largely wealthy and white students…” From what I’ve read, his assessment of the law received both praise an admonition from both sides of the aisle. An excerpt of the article:

Students in largely wealthy and white schools are learning to ask larger questions; students in poor and minority schools are only being taught to answer smaller ones.

The No Child Left Behind Act is creating a caste-like system in which students’ future prospects are likely to be similar to those of their parents. This undemocratic development is at odds with a society that prides itself on being a meritocracy. As Congress debates the renewal of the law, members should consider not only whether the act is reducing the achievement gap but also the skills gap it is creating.

I think Mr. Keyes has gotten it wrong. My take: the only implicit solution in Keyes’ article is to go back to the way things were before NCLB. No accountability and no measurement of achievement to help us understand what is working and what is not. For Keyes, it sounds as if ignorance was bliss - particularly considering his only argument against NCLB relates to mandated testing.

A new Center for Education Policy report shows that state test scores have increased significantly since NCLB. Of course, there is currently no way to tell whether there is a causal relation between NCLB and these improvements, but NCLB is the reason we are even able to have a discussion based on evidence.

The kind of hyperbolic anti-discussion conceived by Mr. Keyes doesn’t serve to amplify essential points of contention about the bipartisan legislation that is NCLB. It only widens the gap between already intractable opinion-holders. It’s tremendously easy to write an article that aggrandizes a generations-old problem and ostentatiously places all of the blame on a single piece of legislation. Offering suggestions on how to improve the legislation - that is what is difficult. In short: Pontificating is easy. Problem-solving is hard.

- Peter Beddow

Previous:
CEC on NCLB (FYI)
NCLB: When in doubt, bake cookies

President Bush met with supporters of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) in the White House’s Roosevelt Room in April. In the meeting, he answered to some sharp criticisms of the legislation. Namely, it seems some legislators believe that NCLB is intended as a system of punishment. A current student of assessment and accountability practices, I agree with the President’s response:

“It is important for all of us to make it clear that accountability is not a way to punish anybody,” Bush told supporters of the law in a meeting at the White House. “It’s an essential component to making sure that…our education system, frankly is not discriminatory.”

Essentially, NCLB requires states to report annual yearly progress data on every student in reading, math, and science at three time points: third grade, eighth grade, and at some point in high school.

To those who are against renewing the law, a serious question lingers: In the past, we pumped federal money into the public education system with nominal accountability. If NCLB were to fall by the wayside, how would we ensure the system is working? Namely, are we to take it on blind faith that our students are learning?

Below: One of Margaret Spellings’ homemade NCLB cookies. The Education Secretary gave them out during her recent meeting with the chairs and ranking minority House and Senate Education committee members regarding NCLB reauthorization.

- Peter Beddow

Hat tip/Cookie pic: EduWonk

Last semester, Senators Barbara Mikulski (D-Maryland) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont, my childhood stomping ground) introduced a budget amendment that would have increased IDEA spending by $44 billion, beginning with a $10 billion increase effective 2008.

Mikulski’s and Sanders’ selling point for the amendment was that the funding would be paid for by eliminating “President Bush’s tax cuts for the very wealthy” (“Special Education must not be a hollow promise”, from Mikulski’s weblog).

Certainly we would (should) all agree that promises should be kept. If the government has promised to shoulder the financial burden of adherence to federal education legislation, it should keep its promise, and Congress should hold itself to account for that.

Mikulski wrote:

The federal government is supposed to pay 40 percent of a state’s special education costs, with the rest subsidized by the state and local governments.  However, the federal government has not made good on its commitment!  This means local districts must make up the difference by skimping on special education, cutting from other education programs, or raising taxes.

The amendment was denied by a vote of 35-58.

Others - not only libertarian-minded folks but others on both sides of the aisle - feel that education is a burden that states should bear alone, and federal money only serves to generate leveraging power from above. Essentially they argue that a central Department of Education is unconstitutional.

This is not a political blog by any stretch, but the issue of funds is an important one. With NCLB extending its reach deeper into state education systems with the inception of AYP requirements for Science beginning shortly, Mikulski and Sanders certainly make a good point about funding, even if Congress doesn’t agree with them (at least in practice.) I honestly don’t know where to stand on the issue.

What do you all think? Does the government “owe” states more money for special ed? Is anyone suggesting states go it alone, sacrificing their federal dollars for freedom from what some may see as the oppression of the powers-that-be? If the federal government is able to regulate education at the state level, should it also subsidize the implementation of these regulations to a greater extent than it does currently?

- Peter Beddow

Hat tip: Charles Fox, an Illinois attorney with a special needs child who maintains a blog about Special Education.

For Christmas, my mom gave me a little iron puzzle - one of those “remove the ring” types. My dad and I had a kick trying to figure this iron spring puzzle out. It took an hour or so, but we did it. Good thing, too - I suspect I would have stayed awake for days trying to free that darn ring. This is essentially what it looks like:

For years, I’ve enjoyed brain teasers, including those in video games, books, or situational/conversational puzzles (ever heard of the “albatross soup” riddle?) Anyway, I found a couple of online stores (here and here) with all sorts of these “disentanglement” puzzles. They’re usually called Tavern or Parlor Puzzles. Unfortunately, they’re a little expensive (usually about $15 each for the nice iron ones) but I figure if I purchase one or two each year, I’ll have quite a collection in no time.

I’ve got my Christmas puzzle up in my office in Wyatt 407 if anyone wants to visit and try it. Bring one of your own if you like and we’ll try and stump each other - that is, if you don’t mind causing a man to lose sleep!

These are wonderful items to have in the classroom. They can be made available to students who finish worksheets early, or given to those who need a little extra boost of self-confidence. I’m a believer in giving students tasks that intrinsically increase self-efficacy upon completion, but such tasks must be of appropriate difficulty that students are both challenged and encouraged simultaneously. As a teacher, this takes an element of finesse, as some might tend to give the answer away (eliminating the opportunity for growth) while others may offer too few hints when the child is in need of a momentary hand. These kinds of brain teasers can be found for many levels of difficulty, so even the Super Puzzle Genius in the classroom can be kept satisfied.

Since it’s summertime, I suspect someone out there is due for a little brain exercise. In case I’m correct, I’ll leave you with a classic situational puzzle:

Bob and Bill, who were identical twins, sat down and ordered drinks. Their drinks were identical. Bob drank his quickly and felt fine. Bill sipped his slowly and died. Why?

If you need a hint, I’ll answer yes/no questions via the comments on this post. You can probably find the solution on the internet within a few clicks - so no cheating!

- Peter Beddow

…then I want to continue the one about the carbon footprint of an education.

A few posts back, I mentioned my growing concern about this issue. I described just one indicator of the impact American schooling has on the environment: mountains of unrecycled, barely used paper overflowing from the rubbish bins of elementary classrooms. One commentor noted that this phenomenon stands in stark relief against the experience of primary school students in the global context - particularly in Africa - who often hunt for prized scraps of paper on which to write.

I haven’t explored the issue enough to know what is really happening in the way of environmental education in American schools, nor am I fluent enough in the statistics to report on the way our educational habits affect the collective American carbon footprint. But my eyes are sufficient to see that this is indeed an issue worth talking about - and not because I think a 3rd grader’s paper waste is going to cause an environmental crisis.

A more pressing question is: What kind of crisis might we avert in that third-grader’s worldview if we teach them the value of the resources that come to them so easily? What kind of attitude do we perpetuate about the environment and the United States’ influence (for better or worse) on our global community if we fail to do so? What habits and attidues toward the environment and other cultures will our children begin to adopt, and how might these attitudes reappear in their adult choices?

How might these attitudes be reappearing in your own adult choices?

I’ve been privileged to work as a Research Assistant (RA) on a federally funded project, the principal investigators of which are Doug and Lynn Fuchs. Known to RA’s as the “Hot Math” project, this intervention involves 16-week whole-class instruction and one-on-one tutoring for students in 3rd grade classrooms across Davidson County. One goal of the research is to identify ways to help students with difficulties learn effective strategies for math problem solving.

Last fall, each of five RA’s conducted a full week of whole-class pre-testing in four 3rd grade classrooms each. We then spent two hours a week for 16 weeks in four classrooms each, teaching problem-solving strategies and coaching students as they began to use them. I loved having interaction with kids; as a first-year graduate student in secondary English education, I probably wouldn’t have had the opportunity to spend time in a school for any other reason, and I loved it. Being in the classroom helped me keep in mind the purpose of my education, and the reason Peabody even exists in the first place.

Now that post-testing is over, however, we RA’s are listening to tapes of our colleagues’ lessons, grading post-tests, and entering data in the computer. Right now (as I type this), I’m listening to a tape of a fellow RA giving a Hot Math lesson. I’m marking items off on a fidelity sheet to indicate that my colleague delivered instruction in the prescribed way. Yeah, this is a little boring. I’d say I have the ed. research doldrums.

But I am grateful that I have the experience of working on a project designed to help kids overcome challenges to their learning and achieve their potential. Thinking about that restores a little bit of the buzz — and I’m anxious to see (in the fall) what statistical analysis reveals about the intervention’s success.

– Rachel Bowers