Gentlemen, we have run out of money. It is time to start thinking.
Sir Ernest Rutherford, Nobel Laureate—physics
Key messages from Rising Above the Gathering Storm—Revisited : Approaching Category 5, National Academies Press available at WWW.nap.edu
The original report sponsored by members of congress of both parties painted a bleak picture of our situation competitively. There were two glaring problems where recommendations were made. One was to increase government support for basic scientific research. The second and the biggest single cause of the problem was the poor performance of American K-12 schools. The initial report came out in 2005. The committee that prepared this new report unanimously agreed that our nation’s outlook has worsened.
“Further, . . . our overall public school system, or more accurately 14,000 school systems—has shown little sign of improvement especially in math and science. Finally, many other nations have been markedly progressing, thereby affecting America’s relative ability to compete for new factories, research laboratories, administrative centers—and jobs.” Thus, we are falling behind the competition because they are improving rapidly and we are plodding in a comfortable circle getting nowhere.
Thus, if Americans wish to continue our lifestyle we have to be competitive.
A sampling of factoids listed in the report:
• The World Economic Forum ranks the United States 48th in quality of math and science education.
• In 2009, 51% of United States patents were awarded to non-U.S. companies.
• Of Wal-Mart’s 6000 suppliers, 5000 are in China.
• United States consumers spend considerably more on potato chips than the US Government spends on Energy R&D.
• In 2000 the number of foreign students studying physical science and engineering in United States graduate schools surpassed the number of United States students.
• GE has now located the majority of its R&D personnel outside the United States.
• In the 2009 rankings of the Information technology and Innovation Foundation the U.S. was in sixth place in global innovation-based competitiveness, but ranked fortieth in rate of change over the past decade.
• Sixty-nine percent of United States public school students in 5th through 8th grade are taught mathematics by a teacher without a degree or certificate in mathematics.
• Ninety-three percent of United States public school students in 5th through 8th grade are taught physical science by a teacher without a degree or certificate in physical science.
• The United States ranks 27th among developed nations in the proportion of college students receiving undergraduate degrees in science or engineering.
• The United States ranks 20th in high school completion rate among industrialized nations and 16th in college completion rate.
• According to the ACT College Readiness report, 78% of high school graduates did not meet the readiness benchmark levels for one or more entry-level college courses in mathematics, science, reading, and English.
The Gathering Storm (2005) concluded that the best measure of competitiveness is Quality Jobs. Jobs to a large degree define the quality of life of individual citizens. The evidence is that good jobs are created as a direct or indirect of advances in science and technology. A variety of studies over the last decades indicate that over 50% of quality jobs are a direct result of technological innovation. Advancement in communication speeds and travel and shipping speeds has meant that we now have to compete with those who are half a world away. Delhi, Beijing, and Denver are next door neighbors now.
“[T]he committee . . . expressed its commitment to help America to be among those nations whom it hopes will enjoy a truly global prosperity. In [that] regard, the committee concluded that the United States appears to be on a course that will lead to a declining, not increasing standard of living for our children and grandchildren.”
Recommendations, I am only listing the first one because without it all the rest will be futile.
• Move the United States K-12 education system in mathematics and science to a leading position by global standards.
Friday, September 24, 2010
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Congratulations Status Quo-ers
If you look at the 2009 and 2010 Math CSAP (state achievement tests) for one of the larger school districts in Colorado you will see that the status quo has been preserved although with a slight downward bias.
2009 Math CSAP
2010 Math CSAP
This performance is typical of large districts in Colorado. Since the methods used in Colorado are basically the same throughout the nation with a few exceptions it is highly likely that the national picture is essentially the same. In the most important metric, that of tenth grade proficient or better the result is down.
I am very familiar with the district whose charts are shown. There has been much talk of improving math instruction for a decade or more. It has been a war between the “expert” educators and the parents and outside math experts. It comes down to this. The outside experts know that the curricula used especially in elementary schools will not provide the foundational math knowledge required to be successful in middle school and beyond.
The educators have chosen to use an approach that converts the elementary teacher into a “facilitator” for the constructivist/discovery processes that are the predominant approach. While there are several curricula of this type the district has chosen EveryDay Math as the standard approach and is “rolling it out” as fast as they can to all of the schools in the district. This choice is made to try to “cover up” the fact that a large percentage of elementary teachers do not have the requisite math knowledge to teach math in a way that would provide the foundation the students require. If you doubt this and have a strong stomach you can read Liping Ma’s book Knowing and Teaching Elementary Mathematics, Teachers' Understanding of Fundamental Mathematics in China and the United States.
The methods the administrators use to protect the status quo are very effective. The first arrow in their quiver is to listen attentively to the outside input, pretending to value it. The next step when it is obvious that the outside input is serious and has staying power is to hire “expert” consultants to evaluate the math curriculum and alignment for the district. This, of course, takes lots of time and money. It also is worthless because the “experts” who do the analysis are education insiders who don’t understand math either. This is because the education schools do not teach subjects with rigor. They concentrate only on process.
A third arrow in the quiver is to set goals that on the surface appear to be stretching in nature and to the benefit of the students. However, in years of observing this process it is obvious that there is no intention to actually do anything to meet the goals. They are only there to mollify the critics until they lose interest.
There is no closed loop process in place in education. There is no quality control in education. No one is tasked to close the loop and point out with vigor that goals aren’t being met. No one is tasked to point out that the kids are not being served nearly well enough. While the board of education could provide this function, they don’t have the moxie or skill. They have been trained by the “expert” educators to be rubber stampers of the administrator proposals, and most of all to “be nice.”
Thus, the children continue to be ill served but the educators are happy because they were able to avoid change which might require them to work harder and learn more. So, congratulations educators on successfully protecting your ability to continue to harm kids.
2009 Math CSAP
2010 Math CSAP
This performance is typical of large districts in Colorado. Since the methods used in Colorado are basically the same throughout the nation with a few exceptions it is highly likely that the national picture is essentially the same. In the most important metric, that of tenth grade proficient or better the result is down.
I am very familiar with the district whose charts are shown. There has been much talk of improving math instruction for a decade or more. It has been a war between the “expert” educators and the parents and outside math experts. It comes down to this. The outside experts know that the curricula used especially in elementary schools will not provide the foundational math knowledge required to be successful in middle school and beyond.
The educators have chosen to use an approach that converts the elementary teacher into a “facilitator” for the constructivist/discovery processes that are the predominant approach. While there are several curricula of this type the district has chosen EveryDay Math as the standard approach and is “rolling it out” as fast as they can to all of the schools in the district. This choice is made to try to “cover up” the fact that a large percentage of elementary teachers do not have the requisite math knowledge to teach math in a way that would provide the foundation the students require. If you doubt this and have a strong stomach you can read Liping Ma’s book Knowing and Teaching Elementary Mathematics, Teachers' Understanding of Fundamental Mathematics in China and the United States.
The methods the administrators use to protect the status quo are very effective. The first arrow in their quiver is to listen attentively to the outside input, pretending to value it. The next step when it is obvious that the outside input is serious and has staying power is to hire “expert” consultants to evaluate the math curriculum and alignment for the district. This, of course, takes lots of time and money. It also is worthless because the “experts” who do the analysis are education insiders who don’t understand math either. This is because the education schools do not teach subjects with rigor. They concentrate only on process.
A third arrow in the quiver is to set goals that on the surface appear to be stretching in nature and to the benefit of the students. However, in years of observing this process it is obvious that there is no intention to actually do anything to meet the goals. They are only there to mollify the critics until they lose interest.
There is no closed loop process in place in education. There is no quality control in education. No one is tasked to close the loop and point out with vigor that goals aren’t being met. No one is tasked to point out that the kids are not being served nearly well enough. While the board of education could provide this function, they don’t have the moxie or skill. They have been trained by the “expert” educators to be rubber stampers of the administrator proposals, and most of all to “be nice.”
Thus, the children continue to be ill served but the educators are happy because they were able to avoid change which might require them to work harder and learn more. So, congratulations educators on successfully protecting your ability to continue to harm kids.
Friday, September 3, 2010
How do you get the pigs to move? Move the feed trough.
The analog question is “How do you get the education fiefdom to move?” Move the government money so that they have to move away from their erroneous beliefs to continue getting paid. First, we need to realize that the national and state departments of education are card-carrying fiefdom members. They have been brainwashed to believe incorrect dogma as all the other educators and hence are blind to the real problems and their solutions. Any efforts to improve (reform) our failed education system must acknowledge that fact. Unless the continuing supply of money is threatened, beneficial reforms will simply not be carried out effectively. That is, if the fox is guarding the hen house the chickens are going to continue being eaten.
In the story The Three Little Pigs, the moral is that if you build a shoddy house you have no protection against the wolf. In education if you build your whole endeavor on a false foundation too many kids will not learn what they need to learn to compete in the global meritocracy. Some kids will learn no matter the system because their support system outside of school enables them to overcome the negative effect of the schools. Those who are not as fortunate need competent schools to teach them and they exist now only as exceptions.
The Fallacies
Curricula—the current approach was fostered by John Dewey and other Progressives. It goes by many names; process, content free, discovery, constructivist, and “how-to” chief among them. The problem is that this content-free approach does not allow our children to gain the factual knowledge required to understand what the process approach tells them. One more important aspect of the current approach is that any knowledge learned takes a lot longer than with the more traditional, proven content-rich, direct instruction methods we used to use before the Progressives drove us into a ditch. It is also the method used by our best global competitors whose kids learn so much more than ours.
E.D. Hirsch, in his book The Making of Americans, relates why content knowledge is critical. “To understand a piece of writing (including that on the Internet and in job-retraining manuals), you already have to know something about its subject matter. . . My research had led me to understand that reading and writing require unspoken background knowledge, silently assumed. I realized that if we want students to read and write well, we cannot take a laissez-faire attitude to the content of early schooling. In order to make competent readers and writers who possess the knowledge needed for communication, we would have to specify much of that content. Moreover, because much of the assumed knowledge required for reading and writing tends to be long lasting and intergenerational, much of that content would have to be traditional.”
According to ACT, the biggest college readiness problem in reading is, precisely, inability to comprehend “complex texts.” The point is that reading comprehension doesn’t improve simply by practicing the “skill” again and again. Readers need to build domain knowledge in order to handle texts at the higher levels. The current “how-to” skills approach that is used in the vast majority of our schools does not provide the knowledge level required for anything approaching complexity.
The situation for math is much the same. Instead of building the required foundational knowledge the emphasis is on discovery methods and calculators. This does not prepare children for algebra and higher math studies they are exposed to in middle and high school work. By the time that realization comes, too many students are so far behind that they give up on math and turn off.
Teacher Subject Knowledge—A huge problem in elementary school is that the teachers generally do not have nearly enough subject knowledge to teach the content required during what should be foundation building for future success in middle school, high school and post secondary education endeavors. Liping Ma’s study of elementary math teachers in America and China (Knowing and Teaching Elementary Mathematics) showed a huge gulf in the math knowledge of the two groups. The comparison was not favorable for American teachers who all had much more college level education than their Chinese counterparts. It is the quality of the post secondary training that counts not the quantity. Our education schools emphasize quantity. The Chinese emphasize quality.
Elementary teachers are brainwashed in the how-to skills approach for reading as well. They have not really studied in their education school training the structure of our language, its rules and usage with any rigor. Thus, they do not provide their students with basic knowledge which would be foundational to ever increasing reading (and writing) ability.
The Education Schools—for the most part these are “all the little puffer bellies all in a row” in their approach. And sadly it is the wrong approach of content-free methods at the expense of rigorous subject knowledge. There are a few exceptions (U of Virginia, Hillsdale College, etc) that are requiring subject knowledge rigor but the vast majority of new teachers whose certification is mostly based on their ed school training are not prepared to do the job that needs to be done. As long as the ed school degree is tantamount to certification there is no incentive for these “diploma mills” squeezing government money from the system and tuition from the students to clean up their acts.
To conclude, if we really care about improving the schools our kids attend, we need to get busy forcing the required changes on the educators. I say force because the educators have proven over the last many decades that they are incapable of leading the required change themselves. They aren’t expert in education even though they believe they are. Their results are the incontrovertible truth. The education leadership is “go along, get along” at best based on their worthless education school leadership degrees especially the doctorates which Arthur Levine in his Educating School Leaders said were of no value (worthless) in any public school administration job. Thus, they don’t know what to do, don’t want to change because they know they are overpaid and underworked now, and they don’t have the insider leadership moxie to change even if they wanted to. That is why they will have to be forced to change. That means that we will have to move the “pig” trough to a place that is better for our kids. The pigs will have to move to the new trough or starve. They will move. Not quietly but they will move. Each of the points above; content rich curricula, teachers who know the subjects to be certified, education schools who require subject knowledge rigor or risk being decertified, and education leaders who are paid for results not their position are all required.
We need to stop going off on tangents with other “improvement” initiatives until these problems are addressed. This is where the leverage is. Until the foundation is repaired all of the other cosmetic changes that cost so much money and time are a waste of valuable resources and our kids futures.
In the story The Three Little Pigs, the moral is that if you build a shoddy house you have no protection against the wolf. In education if you build your whole endeavor on a false foundation too many kids will not learn what they need to learn to compete in the global meritocracy. Some kids will learn no matter the system because their support system outside of school enables them to overcome the negative effect of the schools. Those who are not as fortunate need competent schools to teach them and they exist now only as exceptions.
The Fallacies
Curricula—the current approach was fostered by John Dewey and other Progressives. It goes by many names; process, content free, discovery, constructivist, and “how-to” chief among them. The problem is that this content-free approach does not allow our children to gain the factual knowledge required to understand what the process approach tells them. One more important aspect of the current approach is that any knowledge learned takes a lot longer than with the more traditional, proven content-rich, direct instruction methods we used to use before the Progressives drove us into a ditch. It is also the method used by our best global competitors whose kids learn so much more than ours.
E.D. Hirsch, in his book The Making of Americans, relates why content knowledge is critical. “To understand a piece of writing (including that on the Internet and in job-retraining manuals), you already have to know something about its subject matter. . . My research had led me to understand that reading and writing require unspoken background knowledge, silently assumed. I realized that if we want students to read and write well, we cannot take a laissez-faire attitude to the content of early schooling. In order to make competent readers and writers who possess the knowledge needed for communication, we would have to specify much of that content. Moreover, because much of the assumed knowledge required for reading and writing tends to be long lasting and intergenerational, much of that content would have to be traditional.”
According to ACT, the biggest college readiness problem in reading is, precisely, inability to comprehend “complex texts.” The point is that reading comprehension doesn’t improve simply by practicing the “skill” again and again. Readers need to build domain knowledge in order to handle texts at the higher levels. The current “how-to” skills approach that is used in the vast majority of our schools does not provide the knowledge level required for anything approaching complexity.
The situation for math is much the same. Instead of building the required foundational knowledge the emphasis is on discovery methods and calculators. This does not prepare children for algebra and higher math studies they are exposed to in middle and high school work. By the time that realization comes, too many students are so far behind that they give up on math and turn off.
Teacher Subject Knowledge—A huge problem in elementary school is that the teachers generally do not have nearly enough subject knowledge to teach the content required during what should be foundation building for future success in middle school, high school and post secondary education endeavors. Liping Ma’s study of elementary math teachers in America and China (Knowing and Teaching Elementary Mathematics) showed a huge gulf in the math knowledge of the two groups. The comparison was not favorable for American teachers who all had much more college level education than their Chinese counterparts. It is the quality of the post secondary training that counts not the quantity. Our education schools emphasize quantity. The Chinese emphasize quality.
Elementary teachers are brainwashed in the how-to skills approach for reading as well. They have not really studied in their education school training the structure of our language, its rules and usage with any rigor. Thus, they do not provide their students with basic knowledge which would be foundational to ever increasing reading (and writing) ability.
The Education Schools—for the most part these are “all the little puffer bellies all in a row” in their approach. And sadly it is the wrong approach of content-free methods at the expense of rigorous subject knowledge. There are a few exceptions (U of Virginia, Hillsdale College, etc) that are requiring subject knowledge rigor but the vast majority of new teachers whose certification is mostly based on their ed school training are not prepared to do the job that needs to be done. As long as the ed school degree is tantamount to certification there is no incentive for these “diploma mills” squeezing government money from the system and tuition from the students to clean up their acts.
To conclude, if we really care about improving the schools our kids attend, we need to get busy forcing the required changes on the educators. I say force because the educators have proven over the last many decades that they are incapable of leading the required change themselves. They aren’t expert in education even though they believe they are. Their results are the incontrovertible truth. The education leadership is “go along, get along” at best based on their worthless education school leadership degrees especially the doctorates which Arthur Levine in his Educating School Leaders said were of no value (worthless) in any public school administration job. Thus, they don’t know what to do, don’t want to change because they know they are overpaid and underworked now, and they don’t have the insider leadership moxie to change even if they wanted to. That is why they will have to be forced to change. That means that we will have to move the “pig” trough to a place that is better for our kids. The pigs will have to move to the new trough or starve. They will move. Not quietly but they will move. Each of the points above; content rich curricula, teachers who know the subjects to be certified, education schools who require subject knowledge rigor or risk being decertified, and education leaders who are paid for results not their position are all required.
We need to stop going off on tangents with other “improvement” initiatives until these problems are addressed. This is where the leverage is. Until the foundation is repaired all of the other cosmetic changes that cost so much money and time are a waste of valuable resources and our kids futures.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
