One frequently hears arguments that redirect blame from failing schools (and their teachers and principals) to ubiquitous social monsters that are bigger and hairier (poverty, broken families, crime) but also impossible to hold accountable. I get this. There are undeniable correlations between student achievement and socioeconomic status.
One frequently hears arguments that redirect blame from failing schools (and their teachers and principals) to ubiquitous social monsters that are bigger and hairier (poverty, broken families, crime) but also impossible to hold accountable. I get this. There are undeniable correlations between student achievement and socioeconomic status. When I taught in Camden, New Jersey (then the second poorest city in the US) I could empathize when my colleagues said—in so many words—that a student’s failure simply wasn’t their fault. Having been schooled in Teach For America’s no excuses curriculum, this abdication of blame was foreign to me. But seeing up close the level of poverty that ravaged our school’s neighborhood, and the kinds of unspeakable problems that come with that, I couldn’t help but make peace (if not always agreeing) with the tendency for educators in persistently failing schools to point to the outside social forces that make their work so difficult. (Read the rest here.)
Over at the Education Next blog, Martha Derthick laments the decline of “stately” schools. Derthick specifically highlights the turn-of-the-twentieth-century school buildings in Ohio’s Queen City (which are also featured in 2001’s An Expression of the Community: Cincinnati Public Schools’ Legacy of Art and Architecture). The decline of stately schools has been hastened here in Ohio, where over the past decade the state has poured billions of dollars into renovating and replacing our public schools with the new, modernist buildings Derthick describes. A visit to any of Ohio’s newly built schools will confirm that we’ve moved away from buildings of beauty to buildings of function. I’m certainly in favor of preserving the historic buildings whenever possible, but I see the upside to modernization as well. I attended elementary and high school in the Buckeye State in early 20th century buildings much like those she talks about, both of which have since been replaced with new facilities. But alongside the aesthetic transformations have also come much-needed improvements for modern-day learning. (Read the rest here.)
Louise S. Mead and Anton Mates
National Center for Science Education
August, 2009
Nationally, state science standards regarding the teaching of evolution in our schools have improved a little since 2000 when the Fordham Foundation last surveyed the landscape. According to this latest survey from the National Center for Science Education (see here), 40 states and territories do an adequate job, up from 31. The survey shows that science standards tend to cover evolution more extensively than they did a decade ago, and that the average quality of the treatment has increased.
Ironically, however, creationist language is also becoming more common in state standards. And, there are still outliers such as Texas, Louisiana and nine other states that were marked unsatisfactory with an “F.” Texas is cited as a particularly troubling example. Amendments to the Texas Educational Knowledge and Skills document now require the presentation of creationist claims about the complexity of the cell, the completeness of the fossil record, and the age of the universe. Ohio and other states – notably Kansas – went this route a few years ago and, fortunately, veered back towards the tenets of science.
Ohio grades a “B” in this new report. The state’s science standards are now being reviewed again and it appears evolution will be treated in an educationally valid and scientific manner. Kansas gets an “A” this time around. On the other hand, Oklahoma’s standards don’t even mention the word evolution. Some states wiggle. Missouri’s standards ignore human evolution, which is kind of a fallback position for anti-evolution types who, when faced with scientific reality, grudgingly argue that it may work for microbes and monkeys but not for us.
There are still lots of people of influence who believe the Earth is about 16,000 years old or, that at least the idea needs to be seriously discussed. Mead and Mates believe any discussion of alternatives to evolution that are not based on science automatically marginalizes evolution teaching and that, obviously, is what the creationist and intelligent design clique have in mind. These people remain influential. Their opposition, for example, may have discouraged any American film distributor from carrying the new film of Darwin’s life (see here). I may have to go to Canada to see it. I mean, where’s the controversy over unending sequels to “Halloween”?
Unfortunately, however, even if educational sanity and scientific accuracy are reflected in state science standards in Ohio and elsewhere, there’s no guarantee the standards will be carried out in classrooms. This could be simply because a teacher doesn’t want to teach them or because the teacher is incapable of adequately teaching science because he or she lacks the knowledge and training to do so. The dire need for competent math and science teachers in classrooms across the nation can short circuit the best of plans. At least rigorous standards ensure there is a resource for less-well-prepared teachers. Read the report here.
Two recently released studies have the potential to influence policy related to teacher mentoring programs and school staffing. These studies are especially poignant for Ohio as it moves to restructure its new teacher induction programs (see here).
A study by Mathematica Policy Research (see here) found that highly structured mentoring programs for new teachers yield marginal results. These programs are known as comprehensive teacher inductions and are common in districts across the country. Such programs rely on carefully selected mentors with an intensive curriculum. They are commonly designed to support new teachers and reduce teacher turnover. In contrast, less formal mentoring programs, referred to as traditional induction programs, are usually site-based and involve a new teacher being paired up with a veteran teacher within their content area or grade level in their building.
The Mathematica study involved 1,009 teachers in 418 elementary schools in 17 medium and large urban school districts in 13 states. It examined a treatment group of teachers exposed to the more intensive and comprehensive teacher induction, and an equivalent control group exposed to a less structured mentoring process. Researchers used surveys and school data to measure teachers’ backgrounds; receipt of induction services and alternative support services; attitudes and outcomes related to classroom practices, student achievement, and teacher retention. The researchers found that the treatment and control groups showed no discernable difference over a two year period in student achievement and teacher retention.
Conversely, a study to be released in October by C. Kirabo Jackson and Elias Bruegmann (see the abstract here) reports that good teaching has spillover effects. The study showed that teachers with a record of proven excellence helped to raise the performance of their peers.
The results from these studies can have far-reaching implications for how future mentoring programs are designed. School districts currently expend considerable time and resources creating and running comprehensive teacher inductions. Now that there is empirical proof that these inductions are not making an impact in comparison to less demanding and less costly ones, resources should be devoted to other areas of professional development.
In Ohio, new teachers have been required to go through a lengthy mentoring process to obtain a professional certificate. This program, known as Praxis III (see here), is comprehensive in nature and bases the decision to license a teacher on only one or two observed lessons. Gov. Strickland’s education reform plan addresses this shortfall by proposing a four-year teacher residency program before attaining professional licensure, though many details about the residency program are still being worked out.
Bruegmann and Jackson’s study also raises the issue of proximity and access to quality mentors. They found that the spillover effect occurs when experienced teachers are in the same building or grade level as their colleagues. Many new teachers tend to begin their careers in at-risk schools and then migrate to schools they consider ‘better’ as they gain experience. The end result is an imbalance of experience in schools within a district. Under the Praxis III system, it is possible for teachers to end up with mentors located in another building and outside of their content area. Logistical hurdles aside, larger districts should consider ways of placing their best veteran teachers as mentors in schools that have the highest numbers of new teachers.
It would be wise on the part of those crafting the new teacher induction programs in Ohio to examine these reports when designing the mentoring aspects of the residency.
Over at the Education Next blog, Martha Derthick laments the decline of “stately” schools. Derthick specifically highlights the turn-of-the-twentieth-century school buildings in Ohio’s Queen City (which are also featured in 2001’s An Expression of the Community: Cincinnati Public Schools’ Legacy of Art and Architecture). The decline of stately schools has been hastened here in Ohio, where over the past decade the state has poured billions of dollars into renovating and replacing our public schools with the new, modernist buildings Derthick describes. A visit to any of Ohio’s newly built schools will confirm that we’ve moved away from buildings of beauty to buildings of function. I’m certainly in favor of preserving the historic buildings whenever possible, but I see the upside to modernization as well. I attended elementary and high school in the Buckeye State in early 20th century buildings much like those she talks about, both of which have since been replaced with new facilities. But alongside the aesthetic transformations have also come much-needed improvements for modern-day learning. (Read the rest here.)
One frequently hears arguments that redirect blame from failing schools (and their teachers and principals) to ubiquitous social monsters that are bigger and hairier (poverty, broken families, crime) but also impossible to hold accountable. I get this. There are undeniable correlations between student achievement and socioeconomic status. When I taught in Camden, New Jersey (then the second poorest city in the US) I could empathize when my colleagues said—in so many words—that a student’s failure simply wasn’t their fault. Having been schooled in Teach For America’s no excuses curriculum, this abdication of blame was foreign to me. But seeing up close the level of poverty that ravaged our school’s neighborhood, and the kinds of unspeakable problems that come with that, I couldn’t help but make peace (if not always agreeing) with the tendency for educators in persistently failing schools to point to the outside social forces that make their work so difficult. (Read the rest here.)
