The Education Gadfly Weekly

Harold Pashler, Mark McDaniel, Doug Rohrer, and Robert Bjork
Psychological Science in the Public Interest
December 2009

It is not easy to take on the illustrious Howard Gardner and the widespread belief in American ed schools that children’s “learning styles” differ in significant ways and must be taught to appropriately. But UVa psychology professor Dan Willingham began the debunking process in 2004 and this literature review continues it. The authors looked for rigorous studies that satisfied three methodological criteria: Students were divided into learning-style based groups, students were randomly assigned a type of teaching method, and students in all groups had to sit for the same test. Then, in order for the positive findings to hold water, the study had to have strong findings: that a student with one learning style achieves the best outcome with a method that differs significantly from another instructional style achieving the best outcome for students with other learning styles. Perhaps unsurprisingly, such rigorous studies are scarce; and when they do exist, they provide no evidence that differentiated learning-style instruction has a positive effect on student achievement. The bottom line is that this fad, like others before it, is probably groundless, and we may want to reconsider the many dollars invested in its implementation and use. You can read the report here or find it for free here.

Carol C. Burris, Kevin G. Welner, and Jennifer W. Bezoza
The Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice 
December 2009

Arriving just days after our own report on detracking in Massachusetts, the Great Lakes Center takes a look at the effects of tracking on low-level learners. It should be noted that this outfit is a pseudo research front for the teachers’ unions of the Great Lakes states (Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, etc.) and spends most of its energies and resources bashing studies that they don’t like. That said, this report’s conclusions are not completely off the wall. The authors plainly abhor tracking, or as they term it, “curricular stratification,” calling it both racist and classist. Not only are low-level classes disproportionately filled with minority students, but a minority student with the same grades as his white peer is more likely to be placed in a low-level track. Surely they are right that no child should be relegated to watered-down classes or dead-end tracks to nowhere. And encouraging more students to take rigorous courses is altogether praiseworthy. If only the report stopped there. It also tells states to eradicate tracking completely (they even include sample statutory language) and admonishes districts to routinely evaluate the makeup of classes to check for de facto tracking. They also favor PR campaigns aimed at parents and communities on the benefits of detracking. It’s one thing to lop off the lowest tracks in a school; it’s quite another to eliminate super-charged learning opportunities for the highest achieving kids, regardless of their race or class. Read the full brief here.

Christopher Condon and Matthew Clifford
Learning Point Associates
December 2009

This short brief from Learning Point Associates takes a look at eight widely-used principal evaluation systems. To be considered, systems had to serve the purpose of performance evaluation, be publically available, and pass psychometric tests of reliability (answers are consistent when a test-taker retakes the test, all other factors constant) and validity (the assessment areas had to be realistically measurable). Of the eight systems that qualified, one was the clear winner: the Vanderbilt Assessment of Leadership in Education or VAL-ED. It also happens to be the newest of these systems (created in 2006). Perhaps the advent of more data and the development of newer data-driven technologies and methods have improved the prospects of principal evaluation. Analysts cited VAL-ED’s “360-degree approach” and twenty minute-seventy-two item format as strengths of the system, which also produces a quantitative assessment profile instead of the more common qualitative evaluation, and makes the important connection between teacher and principal ratings. This got it a high score in the validity category. But most notable was its nearly perfect score on the reliability metric, meaning test scores were stable and consistent for each individual who took the test. As the role of effective principals in forging and leading effective schools becomes clearer, principal evaluation matters more. For those who want to know more about the current state of these systems, this is a good place to start. Read it here.

Berkeley High School has long faced a stubborn achievement gap between its white and minority pupils. What to do? At a recent meeting of the school's governance council, a proposal was put forward to eliminate science labs, which predominantly serve high-achievers, so as to redirect resources to underperforming students. Though the measure is only in its infancy, a council vote on whether or not to consider the idea was virtually unanimously in favor. Not a good sign. BHS presently offers twenty-six lab classes (out of ninety-eight total science classes), in subjects from chemistry to human anatomy and physiology. Science teachers at the school are understandably aghast but council member Paul Gibson claims that information presented to the council makes it sound like the labs are mostly populated by white students. Even if that's so, isn't the answer to make rigorous labs more accessible to minority students, rather than to jettison an effective learning environment for their peers? And even for race- and class-obsessed Berkeley, isn't this a bridge too far?

"Berkeley High May Cut Out Science Labs," by Eric Klein, East Bay Express, December 23, 2009

In this thoughtful U.S. News piece, Andy Rotherham sticks up for one of America’s most marginalized populations of students: the incarcerated. There are more than 100,000 behind-bars juveniles around the country, and they attend school just like other students, but do so in prisons or youth detention centers. The difference is that school comes to them, meaning, obviously, that they have no choice in the decision of which school to attend. That’s why it’s important that their schools be effective. Rotherham looks at the daily struggle to provide a quality education in two such institutions, New York’s Riker’s Island and Virginia’s Youth for Tomorrow. These schools are often burdened with ineffective teachers, low expectations for achievement, and students with needs more intense than their outside-the-bars peers. Yet these schools and their students are not given much attention; and “[t]o the extent [they] are discussed,” explains Rotherham, “the conversation often turns on diminished expectations or futility.” Similar troubles plague other kinds of alternative schools, where students may not be behind bars but are typically removed from the general school population for a specific reason. And though we could argue that these children took away their own choices by breaking the law, “We cannot simultaneously demand ‘zero tolerance’ and fail to build a network of quality alternative placements,” rightly reasons Rotherham.

“Prison Students Illustrate the Shortcomings of Public Schools,” by Andrew Rotherham, U.S. News and World Report, December 22, 2009

As 2009 comes to a close, it’s time to look forward as well as back. For many folks, it’s a time to consider purposeful ways of making the future different from the past (stop smoking, lose weight, quit kicking the cat, etc.). But instead of boring you with our own ambitious resolves for 2010, we spent our time pondering what other folks in the education policy world should be doing next year. (Ok, we admit, we tacked one of our own onto the end.) After all, that’s what a Gadfly does--it comments on the doings of others. Here’s hoping that our New Year’s Resolutions 2010 for Other People come true.

1. President Barack Obama resolves to shut down New York City’s rubber rooms--right after he closes Guantanamo. Unlike with Gitmo terrorists, though, he shouldn’t bother looking for jurisdictions to take those teachers.

2. Gene Wilhoit and Dane Lind resolve to get Texas and Alaska to sign on to the Common Core initiative by adding curricular units on “Lone Star History and The Art of Secession” and “The Contributions of Hockey Moms to American Society.”

3. Michelle Rhee resolves not to appear on John Merrow’s Newshour segment more than once a week.

4. Brad Ferro, public school gym teacher in the Bronx and current rubber-room inmate, resolves to take anger-management classes, at least while the reality TV show cameras are rolling.

5. Greg Toppo resolves to keep his tweets to fewer than ten a day.

6. Senator Harkin resolves to learn the value of a dollar.

7. Representative Kline resolves to accept that the federal government isn’t the Antichrist.

8. Whitney Tilson resolves to use the phrase “Stop the Presses!!!” no more than once a week (and with no more than three accompanying exclamation points).

9. Randi Weingarten resolves to cede Dennis Van Roekel some of her airtime--but not too much.

10. If you hadn’t yet noticed, Gadfly is about to turn ten years old. To commemorate this crossroads, he’s decided he needs a makeover--new clothes, new ‘do, new style. But he wants you, his loyal readers, to take a peek in the dressing room as he tries on his new duds. So we’ll be checking in with you, in the form of a survey, over the next few weeks to figure out how the ‘Fly should look in the ‘10s. Stay tuned.

Join us as we revisit some of 2009’s highlights (and lowlights), from NCLB to the stimulus, from Sarah Palin to de facto segregation.

On No Child Left Behind…
Take away all the jargon, emotion, envy, confusion, and embarrassment and much of the No Child Left Behind debate comes down to this: Which schools are good, which are bad, and does NCLB do a decent job of telling the difference?

The short answer, provided by a major new study from Fordham and the Kingsbury Center at the Northwest Evaluation Association, is no, not by a mile.

The analysis is complex and the report is long but its premise is simple: Take a set of real schools, pretend that we can drag them across the map and drop them down in various states, and see how many would make "Adequate Yearly Progress" (AYP) in each place. If the U.S. had something akin to a shared notion of what it means to be a good or bad school, we wouldn't see a whole lot of variation.

Yet we found nearly the opposite. In a few of the 28 states we studied (e.g., Wisconsin, Arizona), almost all of the elementary schools in our sample made AYP, while in other jurisdictions (e.g., Massachusetts, Nevada), almost none did. Putting it bluntly, most of the schools in our sample would be considered failures in some states but perfectly okay, even praiseworthy, in others. These are the same exact schools, mind you. Same students. Same teachers. Same achievement. What's different--sometimes drastically different--are the arcane AYP rules that vary from state to state.

Such variation surely existed before NCLB. Does it matter that it exists now?...Read the rest here.

By Chester E. Finn, Jr., Michael J. Petrilli, and Amber Winkler

"The accountability illusion," From Checker’s, Mike’s, and Amber’s Desks, February 19, 2009

On universal preschool…
President Obama has pledged to spend $10 billion more a year on "zero to five" education, and his 2010 budget makes a $2 billion "down payment" on that commitment. (Billions more are already in the "stimulus" package.) Any number of congressional leaders want more preschool, as do dozens of governors. Not to mention the National Education Association and the megabucks Pew Charitable Trusts, which is underwriting national and state-level advocacy campaigns on behalf of universal pre-kindergarten. At least three states are already on board.

Underlying all this activity and interest is the proposition that government--state and federal--should pay for at least a year of preschool for every American 4-year-old. One rationale is to boost overall educational achievement. Another is to close school-readiness gaps between the haves and have-nots. 

Almost nobody is against it. Yet everybody should pause before embracing it. 

For all its surface appeal, universal preschool is an unwise use of tax dollars. In a time of ballooning deficits, expansion of preschool programs would use large sums on behalf of families that don't need this subsidy while not providing nearly enough help to the smaller number of children who need it most. It fails to overhaul expensive but woefully ineffectual efforts such as Head Start. And it dumps 5-year-olds, ready or not, into public-school classrooms that today are unable even to make and sustain their own achievement gains, much less to capitalize on any advances these youngsters bring from preschool. (Part of the energy behind universal pre-K is school systems--and teachers unions--maneuvering to expand their own mandates, revenue, and membership rolls.)...Read the rest here.

By Chester E. Finn, Jr.

"Slow the preschool bandwagon," From Checker’s Desk, May 14, 2009

On anti-intellectualism in American schools…
"She was hungry, loved politics, had charm and energy, loved walking onto the stage, waving and doing the stump speech. All good. But she was not thoughtful. She was a gifted retail politician who displayed the disadvantages of being born into a point of view (in her case a form of conservatism; elsewhere and in other circumstances, it could have been a form of liberalism) and swallowing it whole: She never learned how the other sides think, or why."

--Peggy Noonan, "Farewell to Harms," Wall Street Journal, July 11, 2009

It's well known that feelings about Sarah Palin tend to run from red hot to ice cold, and for her supporters, statements like the one above are to be dismissed as ugly, unfair caricatures, developed at the hands of the liberal media and their acolytes of Beltway and Manhattan insiders.

And those supporters might be right. I've never met Sarah Palin; I don't know for sure how her mind works, or what she's read, or how thoughtful she might be. Like most Americans, all I know is what I've seen on television, in her speeches, debates, and interviews. Based on all of that, Noonan's characterization seems plausible.

But here's why it matters: There are lots of people in America who never learn "how the other sides think, or why." And that's a big problem for our country, and one that's likely only to grow worse as our education policies focus obsessively on making young people "college and career ready," the mantra repeated constantly by government officials, major foundations, and policy pundits across the political spectrum.

Sarah Palin was ready for college (five of them in fact). She was ready for a career (in the demanding commercial fisheries industry). But is that enough? Is it enough for any of our young people, even if they don't plan to run for higher office? Don't they need to be ready for citizenship, too?...

Duncan and his team are pushing for structural changes in the system; they, like most reformers these days, are ignoring the "stuff" of education--what students actually need to learn in order to become good Americans....But these Democratic reformers had better be careful. An obsessive focus on nothing but basic skills in reading and math, which can be chopped into little bits of data with which we can make all manner of decisions, will result in a generation of students who will make Palin sound like Socrates....Read the rest here.

By Michael J. Petrilli

"Sarah Palin, anti-intellectualism, and the plight of the liberal arts," From Mike’s Desk, July 16, 2009

On the stimulus…
The Department of Education reported the other day that, of the $97.4 billion in economic-stimulus funding that Congress steered its way, 69 percent was “obligated” by September 30th....In other words, Washington spent almost $68 billion more on education in fiscal 2009 than it otherwise would have. Though this is less than 10 percent of total “stimulus” spending, it’s a whopping big number by historic standards of federal aid to schools and colleges.

What has all that extra money actually bought? The main answer, trumpeted by the Obama Administration in a new 250-page document, is jobs, jobs, jobs….It’s a fact that employment was an explicit purpose of stimulus funding--Congress said as much--and with today’s jobless rate over ten percent only a churl would deny the humanitarian value as well as the political appeal of this. That said, turning schools into a jobs program--while well-run public organizations and private firms use the economic crisis to purge weak performers, cherry-pick talent, and position themselves to be more productive going forward--is a dubious way to tone them up for the 21st century.

And a tone-up--even a makeover--is what they need....

Primary-secondary enrollments rose by about 10 percent since 1970 but the teacher rolls grew by 61 percent during the same period--an addition of some 1.4 million instructional personnel....Let’s at least acknowledge that all these added employees have not boosted the performance of our schools and colleges. Seen in that light, today’s recession, however painful for individuals who might lose their jobs, could have had a useful purgative effect on the education workforce as in other fields....Such close analysts as Stanford economist Eric Hanushek estimate that substantial gains in pupil achievement would follow from (permanently) ridding K-12 education of the weakest ten percent of today’s teachers--even if that means adding a few pupils to the classrooms of those that remain....

The beneficiary teachers are surely grateful. Their unions are undeniably pleased.But this isnot the audacious change that was promised--and that is needed. Indeed, the fifty million young people who will end up repaying these ninety-seven billion borrowed dollars might want to inquire about a refund....Read the rest here.

By Chester E. Finn, Jr. and Frederick M. Hess

"Union jobs or education reforms?," From Checker’s and Rick’s Desks, November 12, 2009

On de facto segregation…
Try this education Rorschach. Imagine a public school that’s knocking the roof off of the state test. Its classes are led by energetic, passionate, thoughtful teachers who engage their students in rigorous study. The curriculum is rich and varied, with plenty of time for history and science, art and music, along with the 3 Rs. Its classrooms are orderly, its students respectful to one another and to adults. But it’s not dour; there’s a sense of joy, even wonder, at the school. It’s a lively, bright, warm place to be.

Now add this one wrinkle: all of its students are poor and black (or Hispanic). It is as “segregated” as Southern schools before Brown. Here’s the test: Do you think this school is unabashedly worth celebrating? Replicating? Viewing as a national model?

There’s no right or wrong answer, but the thought experiment illumines a divide within the education world. If you said “yes, this is a wonderful achievement that we’ve created these sorts of schools,” then count yourself within the (now-mainstream) education-reform community. You look at the typical KIPP school or Amistad Academy or any of the other “high flying” high-poverty, all-minority schools and say “see: it can be done.” You embrace the “no excuses” battle cry. Even schools full of poor and black/brown kids can achieve tremendous results--and we should have more of them.

If, on the other hand, you find this picture regrettable, somewhat sad, maybe even unsettling, your inclinations are more aligned with the traditional civil rights view. Sure, you acknowledge that great “black” schools are better than terrible ones, yet you don’t count this as a success, not really. After all, academic learning is just one part of schools’ missions; helping to create the next generation of citizens is another. And in our diverse, multicultural world, kids need to learn how to work and play with all kinds of people, not just those who look like them.

Here’s a related suggestion: What about creating a lot more racially- and economically-integrated charter schools? Both High Tech High and Denver School of Science and Technology, [for example], must forego federal charter start-up funds because they refuse to use a standard lottery. [S]chools like these need help. Federal law mandates that charter schools not use admissions requirements--if a school is oversubscribed, it must use a random lottery to decide who gets in. It’s not that they want to keep low-income kids out; rather, they want to make sure that enough low-income children can get in. Because these schools are so popular, including among savvy, middle class parents, the applicant pool naturally skews toward better-educated, wealthier families....Read the rest here.

By Michael J. Petrilli

"Is 'separate but equal' the best we can do?," From Mike’s Desk, December 3, 2009

What do you get when schools are on vacation, lawmakers are in recess, and readers are distracted by the holidays? Fluff. This Boxing Day, New York Times readers were treated to a titillating story--on page A14 no less--about the number of hours the federal Department of Education estimates it will take states to complete their Race to the Top applications. Let’s just say that states have their work cut out for them. 681 hours worth. (Sam Dillon, author of the piece, allays confusion thusly: “Not 680, not 700, but 681 hours.”) How much is that in HR terms? One fulltime civil servant working for seventeen weeks. And it’s 39 more hours than July’s time estimate, since the Department says the rules have become more complicated. Such estimates seem to be required by the Office of Budget and Management, though ED says states are free to spend more or less time on their applications. As for the states, most find the number laughably low, having already devoted many more hours to this task. Ah, the holiday season. Now, how will you recoup the two minutes you just spent reading this?

“Extra Homework Applying for Education Grants,” by Sam Dillon, New York Times, December 26, 2009

Charter schools have a notoriously difficult time finding facilities, so they take put down in all sorts of incongruous places: churches, office buildings, warehouses. Next up, a former Kmart. This Blue Light Special rang in to the tune of just under $1 million for an 88,000 square-foot store outside of Memphis. “We’re going to bring that building up to first-class status,” croons Reverend Anthony Anderson, founder of Memphis Business Academy, the school that will occupy the space come August 2010. Where shelves of pastel-colored Martha Stewart towels and racks of Jaclyn Smith clothing once enticed frugal shoppers, students will sharpen their minds in state-of-the-art computer labs. With the purchase, the five-year-old school will be able to combine its middle and high school sections in one building and boost total enrollment from 400 to 700 students. Maybe Mr. Bluelight should be the new school mascot.

"Charter school buys old Kmart," by Alex Doniach, Memphis Commercial-Appeal, December 24, 2009

Carol C. Burris, Kevin G. Welner, and Jennifer W. Bezoza
The Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice 
December 2009

Arriving just days after our own report on detracking in Massachusetts, the Great Lakes Center takes a look at the effects of tracking on low-level learners. It should be noted that this outfit is a pseudo research front for the teachers’ unions of the Great Lakes states (Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, etc.) and spends most of its energies and resources bashing studies that they don’t like. That said, this report’s conclusions are not completely off the wall. The authors plainly abhor tracking, or as they term it, “curricular stratification,” calling it both racist and classist. Not only are low-level classes disproportionately filled with minority students, but a minority student with the same grades as his white peer is more likely to be placed in a low-level track. Surely they are right that no child should be relegated to watered-down classes or dead-end tracks to nowhere. And encouraging more students to take rigorous courses is altogether praiseworthy. If only the report stopped there. It also tells states to eradicate tracking completely (they even include sample statutory language) and admonishes districts to routinely evaluate the makeup of classes to check for de facto tracking. They also favor PR campaigns aimed at parents and communities on the benefits of detracking. It’s one thing to lop off the lowest tracks in a school; it’s quite another to eliminate super-charged learning opportunities for the highest achieving kids, regardless of their race or class. Read the full brief here.

Christopher Condon and Matthew Clifford
Learning Point Associates
December 2009

This short brief from Learning Point Associates takes a look at eight widely-used principal evaluation systems. To be considered, systems had to serve the purpose of performance evaluation, be publically available, and pass psychometric tests of reliability (answers are consistent when a test-taker retakes the test, all other factors constant) and validity (the assessment areas had to be realistically measurable). Of the eight systems that qualified, one was the clear winner: the Vanderbilt Assessment of Leadership in Education or VAL-ED. It also happens to be the newest of these systems (created in 2006). Perhaps the advent of more data and the development of newer data-driven technologies and methods have improved the prospects of principal evaluation. Analysts cited VAL-ED’s “360-degree approach” and twenty minute-seventy-two item format as strengths of the system, which also produces a quantitative assessment profile instead of the more common qualitative evaluation, and makes the important connection between teacher and principal ratings. This got it a high score in the validity category. But most notable was its nearly perfect score on the reliability metric, meaning test scores were stable and consistent for each individual who took the test. As the role of effective principals in forging and leading effective schools becomes clearer, principal evaluation matters more. For those who want to know more about the current state of these systems, this is a good place to start. Read it here.

Harold Pashler, Mark McDaniel, Doug Rohrer, and Robert Bjork
Psychological Science in the Public Interest
December 2009

It is not easy to take on the illustrious Howard Gardner and the widespread belief in American ed schools that children’s “learning styles” differ in significant ways and must be taught to appropriately. But UVa psychology professor Dan Willingham began the debunking process in 2004 and this literature review continues it. The authors looked for rigorous studies that satisfied three methodological criteria: Students were divided into learning-style based groups, students were randomly assigned a type of teaching method, and students in all groups had to sit for the same test. Then, in order for the positive findings to hold water, the study had to have strong findings: that a student with one learning style achieves the best outcome with a method that differs significantly from another instructional style achieving the best outcome for students with other learning styles. Perhaps unsurprisingly, such rigorous studies are scarce; and when they do exist, they provide no evidence that differentiated learning-style instruction has a positive effect on student achievement. The bottom line is that this fad, like others before it, is probably groundless, and we may want to reconsider the many dollars invested in its implementation and use. You can read the report here or find it for free here.