The Education Gadfly Weekly

College Board
August 29, 2006

Young Mr. Heichert may have racked up a perfect SAT score, but the national results are nothing to crow about. This week the College Board released its data on the Class of 2006 SAT test-takers, and there's plenty of interesting information. Most notable is that in the areas of critical reading (formerly known as "verbal") and math, student scores for both males and females declined big-time. The rate of decline in math was the same for boys and girls (down 2 points each from last year), but in critical reading the male slump was worse (down 8 points, while girls' scores declined 3). It was the sharpest downturn in 31 years, one that the College Board, seemingly fishing or maybe wishing, chalks up to changes in student test-taking patterns. Namely, fewer students are taking the SAT a second time. Those who do, says the College Board, usually see a 30-point increase in scores. Maybe so--or maybe that's just an attempt to collect more test-taking fees, which, since beginning the new SAT, have risen by 41 percent (from $29.50 to $41.50). Some good SAT news is found among minority-student performance. ESL students scored 5 points better than last year in critical reading and 2 points better in math. African American and Mexican American reading scores climbed 1 point each over last year. But the biggest news is the changes in the exam itself. Overall testing time expanded by almost an hour to accommodate a new writing section, which uses multiple choice questions and an essay to test students' ability to spot errors in grammar and to organize and construct their own cogent prose using solid evidence and sound language. Across the board, girls outscored boys on this section by a wide margin (11 points). Math got harder, too, as material from third-year college-preparatory courses was added. Critical reading lost the notorious "analogies" section. But the most interesting finding may be that grade inflation is alive and well. The share of twelfth graders reporting grade-point averages of A+, A, or A- is up 7 percent from 10 years ago and 16 points from 19 years ago, though average SAT scores remained stable. The press release and data are available here.

Jason C. Snipes, Glee Ivory Holton, Fred Doolittle, and Laura Sztejnberg
MDRC
July 2006

This report evaluates the effectiveness of Project Graduation Really Achieves Dreams (GRAD), a national high school improvement program first launched in Houston and now active in 12 school districts--and much touted and lauded and financed by all manner of high profile folk. The program seeks to improve high school achievement by intervening in elementary and middle schools where teachers implement specific and demanding reading and math curricula with an eye toward ensuring that students are better prepared when they reach 9^th grade. But does it work? With support from the Ford Foundation, the MDRC research group looked at test scores in fifty-two elementary schools in four districts (Houston; Atlanta; Columbus, Ohio; and Newark, New Jersey), and at scores in three Houston high schools, as well as other high schools in Atlanta and Columbus. At the elementary level, Project GRAD participants didn't fare any better on state tests than students in similar local schools, but on national tests minor improvement was evident--in that GRAD students' scores declined less than those of other youngsters. The high school study yields less than dazzling results. Students at Project GRAD's flagship, Houston's Jefferson Davis High, were more likely than other students to complete a core academic curriculum on time. The positive effects were not, however, evident in other high schools. The report posits that Project GRAD may need more time to demonstrate its effectiveness (although it started nearly 13 years ago and has benefited from tens of millions of dollars of Congressional pork). It also puts forth some ways that Project GRAD could increase its effectiveness. On the whole, not too scintillating. But you can still read the two studies here. 

Last year alone, forty-four states bet the farm--the Phat Farm?--on physical education classes. They're hiring more phys ed teachers, requiring more classroom hours, and bringing in state directors to get American youths' modern-day "Battle of the Bulge" under control. But these politicians should put their money on another cash cow, er, horse (or maybe start setting a better example themselves). First, PE does increase the amount of vigorous physical activity girls partake in but doesn't have the same effect for boys. And the news isn't all good for girls, either. Those taking more PE report spending less time doing light exercise outside class. And for both genders, more PE time doesn't result in weight loss or an improved Body Mass Index number. Part of the problem is that gym class is none too energetic. In one Texas county, just over 3.5 minutes of vigorous activity was reported per 40 minutes of class. Still, for all the hubbub over child obesity, it's hard to take these PE concerns seriously when many schools have restricted the most rigorous PE games, and still offer greasy pizza and French fries at lunch. Our solution? Get rid of those frivolous school busses and make the kiddos walk back and forth to school--uphill both ways.

"Not Your Father's PE: Obesity, Exercise, and the Role of Schools," by John Cawley, Chad Meyerhoefer, and David Newhouse, Education Next, Fall 2006

"More time in PE doesn't add up," by Nanci Hellmeich, USA Today, August 23, 2006

A.A. Milne had it right: The greatest joy of childhood is the freedom to do nothing. But one can't do nothing forever, as Christopher Robin reminded Pooh in the last of Milne's classic children's stories.

"I'm not going to do nothing no more," Christopher Robin said.

"Never again?" asked Pooh.

"Well, not so much. They don't let you."

"They" are the adults, whose world Christopher Robin is about to enter, presumably as a student. But some adults believe--at least in the realm of homework--that nothing is exactly what children should be doing.

That's Alfie Kohn's solution. Author of The Homework Myth and prosecutor of all that smacks of excellence or rigor in the American classroom, he claims that the evidence that homework boosts academic achievement is "dubious." Worse, he thinks homework damages kids' emotional development by working them into the ground after the school bell rings.

Hear hear, Sara Bennett and Nancy Kalish, authors of The Case against Homework and militant moms on the path to reclaim childhood for children everywhere, would say. Armed mainly with circumstantial evidence and anecdotes, Bennett (a defense attorney) and Kalish push the no-homework argument to the extreme. Not only is it ineffective in improving academic performance, they say, but it's literally killing our children and destroying the time they have to spend with their families.

Just as some educators like to blame the No Child Left Behind Act for the decline of recess, Bennett and Kalish blame everything--childhood obesity, the surge in childhood diabetes, depression, the collapse of the family dinner hour--on homework. Kohn is more reserved, but equally convinced that homework is taking away childhood and replacing it with stress and tears.

But are kids doing too much? Surely, some students are weighted down, by their 87 pound backpacks carrying huge textbooks, if not by actual academic learning. But not most kids, or even all that many. And those who are tend to be from economically stable families in high-intensity programs. Kohn even admits as much. He cites a 1995 study showing American students spend on average just 1.7 hours a night on homework, compared with 2.7 hours for students in other nations. "On the other hand," he continues, "U.S. 12th graders who took advanced math and science" reported having homework more often than their international peers.

According to Tom Loveless of the Brookings Institution, roughly 5 percent of American schoolchildren have more than two hours of homework per night. "Those horror stories," he said in 2003, "they're true. . . . But the question is whether or not they are typical. And they are not." The Washington Post's Jay Mathews agrees.

Bennett and Kalish have persuaded themselves that the horror stories are typical, and they have the anecdotes--but little else--to "prove" it. The stories are wrenching. But is homework to blame for kids' sedentary lifestyles? "Many things contribute to childhood obesity," they write, "but we believe [emphasis added] that homework overload is a big factor that's . . . ignored."

Again, Loveless: Not only are kids not generally overwhelmed by homework, but it "is not a priority" for them. Part-time work, for example, is more important to most high school students than schoolwork. So, too, are socializing and television. Moreover, almost half of high school students know they should do homework, but don't.

The real problem with both books is that nowhere in their litanies of "so-and-so said" is voice given to schools that value homework as a key to academic success. The KIPP Academies, for example, a nation-wide network of high-performing charter schools, mostly middle schools, require not only longer days and school years (students attend mandatory  summer sessions of 3 to 4 weeks), but students also grapple with two to three hours of homework each night.

And KIPP's record of success speaks for itself. Last year, for example, 100 percent of KIPP's Gaston, N.C., eighth-grade class received above-grade-level scores in reading and math; 79 percent of all KIPP alumni nationwide go on to college, and KIPP Washington, D.C., is the highest performing middle school in the nation's capital. And these are not anomalies.

Homework works. Just as a musician can't learn an instrument only by attending class and never practicing, nor can an athlete master a sport simply by watching others play it, students can't master math, reading and history without extensive practice.

So why admit that the evidence against homework's effectiveness is inconclusive (as Kohn does), yet still support its demise? Why rest on hunches (as Bennett and Kalish do) and argue that homework leads to obesity, depression, and family dysfunction?

Because it's hard to say good-bye to childhood. But say good-bye we all must. And homework is one sturdy bridge that helps lead our children safely to the other side.

This appeared in slightly different form in the August 27 New York Post.

Rocker Eddie Van Halen had a famously tough time concentrating in class and now, thanks to a provocative study by Thomas Dee of Stanford, we know why. Eddie Van Halen's teacher was a woman. Dee's report, which appears in the fall issue of Education Next, compared a survey of nearly 25,000 eighth-graders conducted in 1988 with test score data and found that students learn more from teachers of their same sex. More bad news for boys, since the proportion of teachers who are male is at an all-time low (at around 20 percent). And gender not only influences academic achievement; it influences attitudes, too. Dee found that male students were more likely to be considered disruptive in classes with female teachers, and female students were less apt to look forward to classes, or ask questions in classes, taught by men. Of course, everyone from Dee himself to the NEA's Reg Weaver (who apparently thinks teachers' "culture" matters, but gender doesn't) has cautioned against making hasty generalizations or drawing presumptive policy implications from these findings about same-sex education. But it wouldn't be hasty to accelerate the adoption of alternate routes to the profession, which famously bring more men into teaching than ed schools do. Troops-to-Teachers: Bring ‘em on.

"Study: Teacher's gender affects learning," by Ben Feller, Associated Press, August 28, 2006

Standards-based reform is one of the two driving engines of education improvement in the United States and has been at least since 1989. (The other engine, of course, is school choice in its infinite variety.) Though many states commenced this process on their own, federal encouragement--beginning with the Improving America's Schools and Goals 2000 Acts, both passed in 1994, then NCLB in 2001--has caused them all to do so.

Over the past decade, 49 states and the District of Columbia have created, replaced, substantially revised, or augmented their English and math standards. NCLB, of course, raised the stakes inasmuch as states, districts, and schools are now judged by how well they are educating their students in relation to those standards. (Science will soon be tested, though it won't count.) Moreover, billions of dollars in federal aid now hinge on whether states hold their schools and districts to account for student learning as defined in those standards and measured on assessments that are supposed to be aligned with those standards.

Given all that, one would assume that, overall, state standards must be pretty robust. One would also be completely wrong.

Enter Fordham's latest report The State of State Standards 2006, which evaluates each state's English, math, science, U.S. history, and world history standards. (The individual subject evaluations were done, and reported, earlier. This report brings them all together with interpretation.) But for a handful of laudable exceptions, the academic standards in use in most states today range from mediocre to dreadful.

The average grade that states earned from our standards-raters is still C-minus, the same as in 2000 (this despite the fact that most states have since revised or replaced their standards). Two-thirds of U.S. children today attend school in states with academic standards in the C, D, and F ranges.

Yes, there's been much volatility. Some states--Georgia, Indiana, New Mexico, and New York--significantly improved their grades. But plenty of others deteriorated. The big backsliders include Nebraska, New Hampshire, Utah, and Wisconsin.

Looking at individual subjects, our reviewers found math standards generally getting worse while English got better. (Science and U.S. history stayed about the same; world history was not previously reviewed.)

What exactly do we mean by bad standards? Much the same as six years ago. Too many states still produce vague platitudes instead of clear expectations.

Knowledge is still subordinated to skills. Trendy educational fads like "multiple intelligences" and "constructivism" still sneak into state documents. And kitchen-sinkism is alive and well, as states refuse to make choices and instead develop encyclopedic standards that no teacher could possibly cover in the course of a year, thus rendering the standards useless rather than ambitious.

States fall short for four main reasons:

1. Consensus Instead of Vision. Many state standards are camels designed by committees. This leads to kitchen-sinkism (excuse the mixing of metaphors) as well as shoddy writing, convoluted organization, and educational confusion.
   
2. Dearth of Real Expertise. At the very least, university-level subject matter experts (mathematicians, historians, etc.) could help states minimize factual errors. A better strategy is to include such experts fully in the development of the standards themselves. After all, these professors understand their own disciplines better than anyone. (We're not talking about professors of "math education." We're talking about real mathematicians.) Yet the ethos of many states has clearly been that only K-12 educators can develop K-12 standards. The results are not pretty.
   
3. The Curse of 1990s' era National Standards. The standards developed by professional associations such as the National Council of Teachers of English and the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics continue to create havoc, as states embrace their faulty fads and anti-knowledge orientation.
   
4. Rampant Exceptionalism. Alternatively, many states continue to pretend that standards must be developed within their borders in order to be legitimate. As a result, they refuse to build on the excellent specimens devised by pacesetting states such as California, Indiana, and Massachusetts. (To learn how these three states managed to set such high expectations, read Joanne Jacobs's excellent essay here--or find it within the longer Fordham report.)

We've argued for a decade that solid standards are the foundation upon which modern education reform rests. They aren't sufficient for success, but they are necessary if a state wants to create strong incentives linked to test results that are based on the standards. The three-legged stool of standards, testing, and accountability must be sturdy lest the entire enterprise tip over.

But as our new study shows, most states continue to muck up the standards-setting process-and we see no end to it. The time has come to revisit the contentious but powerful alternative known as national standards and tests. How to do that? Start by reading our second new report, To Dream the Impossible Dream.

Yes, national standards face similar perils as state standards. If written by committee, or turned over to K-12 interest groups, they could turn out to be vague, politically correct, encyclopedic, and/or fuzzy. If linked with real consequences for schools, they could be pressured downward. They could even wind up doing more harm than good.

Done right, however, they could put the whole country on the sturdy path to standards-based reform. And if great standards can be written in Sacramento or Indianapolis or Boston, perhaps they could be created in Washington, D.C. Some people say that national standards and tests will never happen, that they will prove (yet again) to be politically impossible. Perhaps. But we've grown just as skeptical about the chances of state standards getting any better. So we'll hedge our bets: we'll push for better state standards even as we fight for great national standards. For the sake of the country, we hope that one of those strategies will finally come to fruition.

Advocates of educational choice always wonder why, if the goal of education is lofty learning by students, people quarrel so fiercely about the means of getting there. Case in point: Jake Heichert, a high school senior from St. Paul, who designed his own lesson plans and curricula. They included sleeping through tests; doing homework in front of the television; subscribing to The Economist, Time, and Electronic Gaming Monthly; and reading books such as Guns, Germs, and Steel and the sci-fi classic Ender's Game. The result? He turned in perfect scores on both the SAT and the ACT, as well as on four AP tests. Jake's parents embrace a tight-loose model of child rearing. "The deal is, he gets good grades and we don't bother him," said his mother, Susan Heichert. So should Jake's plan of study be implemented across the United States? Just picture it: a nation of eager, self-motivated young adults balancing the rigors of intellectual discovery with NBC's Thursday night lineup. We say give it a shot. What's the worst that could happen?

"How did this St. Paul 18-year-old ace the SAT and ACT?" by Tad Vezner, St. Paul Pioneer Press, August 25, 2006

College Board
August 29, 2006

Young Mr. Heichert may have racked up a perfect SAT score, but the national results are nothing to crow about. This week the College Board released its data on the Class of 2006 SAT test-takers, and there's plenty of interesting information. Most notable is that in the areas of critical reading (formerly known as "verbal") and math, student scores for both males and females declined big-time. The rate of decline in math was the same for boys and girls (down 2 points each from last year), but in critical reading the male slump was worse (down 8 points, while girls' scores declined 3). It was the sharpest downturn in 31 years, one that the College Board, seemingly fishing or maybe wishing, chalks up to changes in student test-taking patterns. Namely, fewer students are taking the SAT a second time. Those who do, says the College Board, usually see a 30-point increase in scores. Maybe so--or maybe that's just an attempt to collect more test-taking fees, which, since beginning the new SAT, have risen by 41 percent (from $29.50 to $41.50). Some good SAT news is found among minority-student performance. ESL students scored 5 points better than last year in critical reading and 2 points better in math. African American and Mexican American reading scores climbed 1 point each over last year. But the biggest news is the changes in the exam itself. Overall testing time expanded by almost an hour to accommodate a new writing section, which uses multiple choice questions and an essay to test students' ability to spot errors in grammar and to organize and construct their own cogent prose using solid evidence and sound language. Across the board, girls outscored boys on this section by a wide margin (11 points). Math got harder, too, as material from third-year college-preparatory courses was added. Critical reading lost the notorious "analogies" section. But the most interesting finding may be that grade inflation is alive and well. The share of twelfth graders reporting grade-point averages of A+, A, or A- is up 7 percent from 10 years ago and 16 points from 19 years ago, though average SAT scores remained stable. The press release and data are available here.

Jason C. Snipes, Glee Ivory Holton, Fred Doolittle, and Laura Sztejnberg
MDRC
July 2006

This report evaluates the effectiveness of Project Graduation Really Achieves Dreams (GRAD), a national high school improvement program first launched in Houston and now active in 12 school districts--and much touted and lauded and financed by all manner of high profile folk. The program seeks to improve high school achievement by intervening in elementary and middle schools where teachers implement specific and demanding reading and math curricula with an eye toward ensuring that students are better prepared when they reach 9^th grade. But does it work? With support from the Ford Foundation, the MDRC research group looked at test scores in fifty-two elementary schools in four districts (Houston; Atlanta; Columbus, Ohio; and Newark, New Jersey), and at scores in three Houston high schools, as well as other high schools in Atlanta and Columbus. At the elementary level, Project GRAD participants didn't fare any better on state tests than students in similar local schools, but on national tests minor improvement was evident--in that GRAD students' scores declined less than those of other youngsters. The high school study yields less than dazzling results. Students at Project GRAD's flagship, Houston's Jefferson Davis High, were more likely than other students to complete a core academic curriculum on time. The positive effects were not, however, evident in other high schools. The report posits that Project GRAD may need more time to demonstrate its effectiveness (although it started nearly 13 years ago and has benefited from tens of millions of dollars of Congressional pork). It also puts forth some ways that Project GRAD could increase its effectiveness. On the whole, not too scintillating. But you can still read the two studies here.