Archive for July, 2010

Broad and Full of Holes

Wednesday, July 21st, 2010

The National Research Council has released what they call a conceptual framework for new standards in science (read the whole thing here), and a quick read of the document has left us concerned. The writers stress that “th[e] framework is intended to guide the development of standards, curriculum, and assessments for science” by providing “a broad description of the content and sequencing for student learning and skill development in science, but not at the level of detail of grade-by-grade standards.”

Broad, indeed. The NRC’s insistence on vague, big-picture thinking about science has created a document that is practically useless. To provide a “broad description” of science knowledge, the writers identify core ideas so general (e.g., “What is energy?”) that it’s possible to imagine any quality of standards, curriculum, and assessments (everything from excellent and clear to shoddy and vague) spinning off of this framework.  When it comes down to it, the NRC document’s just a list of stuff.  And maybe not all of the most important stuff, either.  We’ve caught wind of concern among some of the nation’s most prominent scientists that sections of the framework are not current with the latest science.  And by “latest” we mean knowledge that has already been around for a hundred years or more.

So broad and full of holes. We hope NRC’s next draft is better.

Lynne Munson and James Elias

The Weingarten Curriculum

Friday, July 9th, 2010

Randi Weingarten’s keynote address to the AFT convention in Seattle (read it here) identifies three “foundations” for lifting student achievement: good teaching, curriculum, and accountability. Sara Mead, writing at Eduwonk, takes exception to some things Weingarten has to say about education reform, but she agrees with Weingarten’s emphasis on high-quality, coherent curriculum. So let us now praise the AFT for its hard work improving school curricula and promoting the importance of good curricula. (Curriculum, Mead points out, is something reformers tend to ignore.)

Take a close look at Weingarten’s section on curriculum. She begins by actually naming the subjects that make up a comprehensive education: “All students need rich, well-rounded curricula that ground them in areas ranging from foreign languages to phys ed, civics to the sciences, history to health, as well as literature, mathematics and the arts,” but Weingarten also points out that solid, liberal arts curricula “aren’t routinely in place” and that teachers are “forced to [make up curriculum] every single day.”

That doesn’t make sense and it isn’t what high-performing nations do. Weingarten suggests that America take a good look at countries – she names Finland, but there are many others – that outperform us on international assessments. None have narrow, ad-hoc curricula. All have strong, coherent, comprehensive liberal arts curricula. Maybe America should dare to try something that works?

James Elias

NEA Teachers: “Hooray for the core subjects!!!!”

Thursday, July 8th, 2010

The take on our friend (and board co-chair) Diane Ravitch’s latest book, The Death and Life of the Great American School System, is that it is all about how she changed her mind about reform ideas such as choice and charters.  But there’s another storyline embedded deeply throughout the book, and it’s not about what has failed, but what would work:  a comprehensive, content-rich curriculum for all students. 

This week Diane spoke before 10,000 teachers at the NEA convention.  And at least twice during her speech she talked about the need for every student’s education to include not just basic skills but also…and here she began listing the subject that comprise a complete education:  the arts, history, geography, civics, foreign languages, mathematics, science, physical education, and health.

But she could never complete the list because, as Diane explains, “they were applauding so loud that I never finished the sentence.  This happened each time I enumerated the subjects that were sacrificed to high stakes testing and test prep. I would start naming the subjects and the applause grew and grew and no one heard me mention physical education and health because of the din of applause.”

I wonder if they were applauding loud enough for Arne to hear.  Because, despite talk about wanting to address the narrowing of the curriculum, the only policies his Dept of Ed has proposed would narrow it more…

Lynne Munson

Thinking Critically About Robert Atkinson

Wednesday, July 7th, 2010

Robert Atkinson, the head of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, has published a piece in the Huffington Post lamenting the incompetence of recent college graduates he’s hired over the years. He’s frustrated that America’s top schools can’t mint “graduates who can write basic sentences and do basic math.” Atkinson’s job applicants were unable to perform basic tasks on a short do-at-home test emailed to the applicants before they are selected for an interview. Atkinson says that ”[t]he questions are pretty simple: “Go to this person’s bio online and write a three or four -sentence version of their bio for us to include in a conference packet,” or, “Enter these eight items in a spreadsheet and tell us the average for the ones that end in an odd number.””

According to Atkinson, these grads can’t perform these tasks because colleges teach content rather than skills, and Atkinson believes that “for most college graduates and for most jobs (one exception being science and engineering jobs), it really doesn’t matter if they learn English literature or 20th century comic books. What does matter is if they acquire needed skills. And this kind of 21st century skill acquisition is at best something they pick up by chance in the course of learning about French literature or 20th century American politics. The result is that too many graduates have grown in knowledge on various subjects but not developed practical skills.”

Ignore, for a minute, that students actually don’t know all that much basic stuff. (This lack of knowledge is what Don Hirsch has called “the most significant deficit in most American students’ education.”) Look at the sample tasks from Atkinson’s test: Writing three or four sentences about something. Calculating the average of a few numbers. Don’t you think students should be able to do these things long before they arrive for orientation? (Hint: Many of them can’t.) But is it really a good use of time to have college professors diagramming sentences and demonstrating long division? If, as Atkinson puts it, “the American K-12 system is a failure,” is the best solution turning seminar rooms into fourth grade classrooms?

Atkinson thinks that’s part of the answer. He wants “a national test that all college grads should take to measure skills competency. This wouldn’t measure whether you know that Adolph Hitler was Chancellor of Germany or other “facts,” but rather skills like logic, reasoning, basic writing and math, etc.” There are already a couple of tests that try to do this. And the no-stakes NAEP assessment (the gold standard for ed testing) of reading ability for 12th graders shows that “students who leave school at the end of our K-12 education cannot read, learn, or communicate very well…because the schools are not effectively imparting the knowledge that the effective use of standard language depends on.” So Atkinson’s suggestion that students would learn skills if only we didn’t spend so much time on knowledge-building just doesn’t make sense because skill proficiency is contingent on domain knowledge.

The second component of Atkinson’s fix is a national survey of employers to find out what kind of skills they’re looking for. This is necessary because “most college students don’t even know the types of skills that are valued by the industries they want to work in. For example, do managers in accounting firms prefer young workers who can quickly and accurately proofread a spreadsheet or give a persuasive power point presentation?” Well, the Partnership for 21st Century Skills already does this kind of survey. Atkinson just wants one done by somebody else (the U.S. Department of Education). Atkinson’s survey would include questions on which schools produced the best employees (a very objective metric), and he believes that “doing so would help parents and prospective college students make decisions on which school is best for them.” There you have it: College is for learning how to write memos. Not all that other stuff. I’m glad I got out before the humanities were really and truly dead.

James Elias