Big changes are coming for education. The New Yorker profile on Secretary of Education Arne Duncan.
I'm reading the Rise of the Tea Party Movement.
Dave Eggers talks about Howard Zinn and JD Salinger. Trace Holden Caulfield's footsteps around Manhattan. Salinger wasn't a recluse.
Apt. 11d 
If Secretary Duncan makes a big splash, then crossword writers won’t have to go to this guy quite so often.
LikeLike
I like the idea of more nuanced measures for schools. I’m not sold on test scores as being the only measure of student improvement—mostly because my daughter has a learning disability and is probably never going to impress anyone on the basis of standardized test scores (most folks who meet her assume she’s a “gifted” kid based on her vocabulary and willingness to engage adults in conversation; her IQ test says “retarded”).
Her school has about a 70% attrition rate per year. It’s hard to educate kids under those circumstances—it’s always a different group of kids. There are two homeless shelters that send kids to that school. There’s (probably) a greater number of ADHD kids there (a perception I get in talking to parents who’ve identified as such–but that could be wrong; it’s a self-selected group of parents that goes to meetings and informative seminars at the school.).
And the teachers bust their asses. Seriously. It’s a really busy school. Has a parent educator, a full-time social worker, a reading specialist, the whole nine yards. One of the things that the school has done in the (fairly) recent past that I know has helped my daughter (and me) is “looping”—having the teacher move up a grade along with the kids, so teachers get the same class for two years (sans the attrition kids).
Good Lord has that helped. Reduction of the mutual “learning curve” between teacher/student helps. Not to mention elimination of having to prove myself (to the teacher) to be the “good” single mother, rather than the deadbeat out-all-night-in-the-taverns, bringing-home-a-different-dude-all-the-time-single-mother. (oh yeah. teachers set the bar pretty low for parents, too.)
One thing I think would help even more is a longer school day. My daughter’s school has an after-school recreational program run by the Boys & Girls Clubs, but an actual longer school day would be of more benefit. I’d also like to see more music in her school—I seriously believe in the music/math connection, and can see it in action. My daughter does a hell of a lot better on her math homework on the days she’s had music class. I wish music was an every day class, not an every week class. With a longer school day, that could be possible.
And yes, that is going to entail the proverbial “throwing more money” at the problem. One way to do that is to fund schools via the statewide income tax, rather than property taxes. Property tax school funding entrenches inequality (while all the while offering “plausible deniability”).
LikeLike
“(most folks who meet her assume she’s a “gifted” kid based on her vocabulary and willingness to engage adults in conversation; her IQ test says “retarded”).”
Presumably she is both gifted and learning disabled. I’ve been reading about this stuff, and apparently, when you do IQ and achievement testing (this is more what a private psychologist would do, rather than the school stuff), you look at the scores in different areas, which may be radically different. I believe the current thinking is that a child counts as gifted as long as they have a strong area. What some of the gifted experts say is that the defining feature of giftedness in children is asynchrony, meaning exactly this sort of unevenness in development.
This isn’t super important now, since it sounds like you’re happy with your school, but over the next couple of years, it could pay off to get her tested privately (it costs around $600 and it takes hours) so that you have something to wave around if she winds up in an inappropriate track down the road, particularly in high school.
LikeLike
I find it interesting that Duncan is viewed as such a success outside of Chicago. Within Chicago I would argue this is not the consensus.
LikeLike
How long has it been since Perot got Texas to uncouple property taxes from school budgets? Or if not uncouple, at least loosen the link. There should be enough experience in by now to see if that helped, which would matter for La Lubu’s question on property tax vs income tax.
LikeLike
I don’t have cites, but the uncoupling hasn’t been a magic solution — we also have state funding for public schools in our neck of the woods (not through income tax, but through sales tax, which has its own issues).
Not depending on local revenues has created a few different kinds of issues. First, statewide, people are less willing to support education spending, because the money goes everywhere, they’re less likely to see the direct benefits in their own schools. So, we spend less per capita on average than the NE states with high education spending. This lower spending can’t be “fixed” with local tax levies (though in WA, they do allow some amount of money to be raised through local levies). Second, WA (and I think, TX), allow schools to develop “private foundations” that fund services within the school through donations. This allows parents to direct their money directly to their own schools in rich areas.
LikeLike
PS: I still think it’s better than hyper-local funding schemes. But, then, I’m one of those people who is particularly disturbed by inequities.
LikeLike
I don’t have cites, but the uncoupling hasn’t been a magic solution — we also have state funding for public schools in our neck of the woods (not through income tax, but through sales tax, which has its own issues).
Same in New Jersey, although there’s a bifurcated system here, where you pay through property taxes, and then state income tax “levels” the poorer districts — so Camden gets 95% of its funding from the state/federal, while we get closer to 5% (mostly for special ed stuff). While imperfect as a funding mechanism (my property taxes pay for both my school system, as well as subsidize richer people in poorer districts), it does get to the same result. New Jersey has some of the better public schools in the country, but that’s mostly because we’re among the richer states, and no matter how much you tax the rich, they will still (overall) have well educated children.
There’s nothing magic, however, about our poor, equally funded, areas.
LikeLike
Our scheme re-distributes the funds (from sales tax), per student, based on a formula I don’t completely understand (and adders for different levels of special needs). I’m feeling like that’s different than the equalization that Ragtime is describing. I know Laura (NJ, right) complains that people at least perceive that special needs impose a local burden, rather than a state wide one, which is not true in WA, at least as far as funding is concerned (well, to the extent that the funding formulas appropriately reflect the cost of the education a child with additional needs).
I’m not sure what I think of the “subsidy” of the rich person (are we defining that as high income) who lives in the inexpensive house (and pays less property taxes). Seems like that’s an issue of relying on property taxes for funding, independent of how it’s redistributed.
LikeLike
There’s nothing magic, however, about our poor, equally funded, areas.
Poor, equally funded areas could be in improvement in certain circumstances, especially for the modal (i.e. bog standard) kid. Lots of educational outcomes are dependent on the kids in the school and their parents. If there is equal funding, you’ll likely have less of the pooling of every kid who is likely to take his or her studies seriously in one district.
LikeLike
I’m not sure what I think of the “subsidy” of the rich person (are we defining that as high income) who lives in the inexpensive house (and pays less property taxes).
I’m not a fan of thinking that way either. Faulting somebody well-off for not consuming to the limit of their income and self-segregating on economic class seems very wrong for a variety of social, political, and ecological reasons.
LikeLike
Poor, equally funded areas could be in improvement in certain circumstances, especially for the modal (i.e. bog standard) kid. Lots of educational outcomes are dependent on the kids in the school and their parents. If there is equal funding, you’ll likely have less of the pooling of every kid who is likely to take his or her studies seriously in one district.
While that is correct in theory, in practice it breaks down. Parents (including us) move to the best school district that they can afford, and school performance is stratified, with lower class (but equally funded) schools performing consistently with underfunded poor schools in other states.
LikeLike
Ragtime, I’m sure it will break-down in some situations, but equalizing funding certainly cuts down the reasons for shopping for a school district. I probably come to this from a different perspective. We don’t live in the best school district we can afford, having decided on Catholic schools before moving. Also, having been raised in a county with 2,500 square miles and only 4 high schools, I perhaps over-estimate the importance of regions where picking a school district isn’t really an option.
But don’t forget that there are a very large number of people who define ‘best’ school district in ways that your average university-orbiting parent would not. For example, every year there are local stories about lawsuits and hearings as to whether this promising 16 year-old running back really moved to this or the other district.
LikeLike
I think it’s inevitable for parents to want to give their kids a leg up. To my mind, people don’t fully grok this point: that unequal resources are an overt goal for many parents. Particularly if you haven’t given your kid a genetic advantage (i.e., you know full well your kid’s no genius) you’ll do whatever you can to provide advantage in other ways.
I just don’t think it’s effective to fight this parental urge. We’d be much better off guaranteeing some sort of basement level of education. And I disagree with making it a dollar-per-pupil value, as it’s been shown again and again that kids in bad schools require more cash per pupil for similar outcomes when compared to middle-class kids who read at home, etc.
LikeLike
“To my mind, people don’t fully grok this point: that unequal resources are an overt goal for many parents.”
Interesting insight, though not one that many people I know would overtly admit to. And now, I’m thinking, that some who argue for an equal playing field are really just arguing for the “genetic advantage” squeaking through (and think they have kids who will win that way).
But, I think I need to understand what “not fighting” the parental urge amounts to. One scheme (used in our schools, but I think it will be diminished) is private fundraising for individual schools, that go to pay for things like extra teachers. I think this practice is going to be phased out, but at an extreme, it makes the public school a subsidized private school, with the price of entry being a house in the neighborhood.
LikeLike
The Cualfield map is fun. Several years ago my wife and I wrote out a map of the path of Ivan Bizdomni’s flight, in Master and Margarita, from the Patriarch Ponds (one of our favorite areas in Moscow) to the house of Berlioz, where the devil took up residence. It’s a fun path to follow, though some nice areas, and a fun sort of thing to do if you’re a real fan of a book.
LikeLike
I just feel the whole education conversation needs to turn away from the “fairness” argument, towards a “minimal threshold for a responsible citizen” argument.
To speak of fairness, and then treat the resources as zero-sum and reallocate them away from some and towards others, is asking for conflict. It would be much wiser to talk about a person’s future contribution to our society, and to orient our educational goals around that yardstick. As opposed to constantly comparing kids to each other (“My kid’s in the 97th percentile!”)
LikeLike
But don’t forget that there are a very large number of people who define ‘best’ school district in ways that your average university-orbiting parent would not.
That’s kind of the point, though. You can equalize funding, but without completely taking control of the school boards, you can’t take control of how much will be spent on science labs, band instruments, or football equipment. Our school system makes most of the sports stuff privately funded (pay $200 to be on the team, with a waiver if you can show financial need). Same with band instruments, but there’s still a huge band (I’m guessing poorer districts have to either provide instruments or not do music). That leaves more money to compensate teachers and have intellectually stimulating field trips and good science labs.
If our school district considered football and basketball funding as untouchable, like politicians think about defense and Social Security, it would be a completely different school system.
So, there likely exactly the same amount of “district shopping” by parents. I know when we were looking to move, we had all the district’s average SAT scores in mind, and had no idea what the football team’s record was last year. And — voila — we ended up in a district with like-minded parents and great schools.
And we have friends who still look at us cock-eyed, wondering why we would spend so much money for such a little house . . .
LikeLike
If our school district considered football and basketball funding as untouchable….
All of the school districts around here are like that.
LikeLike
Parents choose flawed indicators. Many parents look to buy houses in the most affluent community they can afford. SAT scores aren’t that reliable, at most they might reflect the community parents’ commitment to higher education for their children.
LikeLike
I have the impression that my children are a bit older than the average commenter on this site. I have come to find fees objectionable. I see them as a way for competitive, affluent parents to edge out the less affluent. All the families in a school district contribute to support the schools, through property taxes (or rents which pass through to pay the taxes.) IMHO, it is not ethical to allow a few parents to use the schools to groom their children for athletic prominence, at the expense of every other student. The entire “star athlete” system is rotten. Far too much administrative time is tied up in extracurricular athletics.
I would support a high school which had “no-cut” teams. If we’re really concerned about adolescent fitness, we should be willing to forego the chance at a championship, to allow all children attending public schools a chance to participate. I believe there are recent media reports of a study which shows that children play sports to have fun.
Our district assesses fees for many extracurricular activities (can you tell?) It’s a question of spending priorities. I feel that it is immoral to allow a two-tier system of “haves” and “have-nots” to emerge in the school’s culture. Our schools were different when we moved to this town. The fees were excused by budget difficulties, but they don’t go away. The middle class families are priced out of participating. I would rather have a plainer school system, which tries to offer the same opportunities to all. That is more equitable.
LikeLike
SAT scores aren’t that reliable, at most they might reflect the community parents’ commitment to higher education for their children.
Which is very important for making sure that you are not fighting against a school board with completely different goals than yours.
Our district assesses fees for many extracurricular activities (can you tell?) It’s a question of spending priorities. I feel that it is immoral to allow a two-tier system of “haves” and “have-nots” to emerge in the school’s culture.
I’m not sure what is gained (or is immoral) by having the football players pay to play football, rather than have them siphon money away from teacher salaries or educational equipment for it.
LikeLike
…rather than have them siphon money away from teacher salaries or educational equipment for it.
Ah, but in my opinion, our school district has chosen to affix fees to activities which should be supported by the school system, in order turn them into income-generating programs. The point of a fee is the later freedom to raise it, to meet a budget.
There are cuts which should be made in our current school budget. The fee system allows the administration to avoid laying anyone off, even as enrollment drops.
Bits and pieces of the “school experience” are being carved off, and sold to the highest bidders.
LikeLike
The fee system allows the administration to avoid laying anyone off, even as enrollment drops.
In Pittsburgh, they managed to avoid nearly all lay-offs despite a 25% enrollment drop without a fee system. Making assumptions about pension-plan returns that seemed laughable optimistic even in 2005 can free-up much more money than fees for sports.
It works brilliantly. If your budget is short by $100,000, you find $100,000 in cuts. If your pension plan is short by hundreds of millions of dollars, then you get the state legislature creating new ways to take more money from people. Once the revolution starts, I’ll have to decide whether to burn the banks or the school district offices first.
LikeLike
Drop of sunshine, is what you are, MH.
To return to my pet peeve, the privatization of at-school activities also seems to lead to stratification in the student body. The administration also structures the school day to make it difficult to participate in music, art, and athletics at the same time. One must choose. I’ve lost track of the number of parents who have advised me, “Well, I don’t worry about my kid because she’s in the band/an athlete/(insert fee-based activity here). The kids who are really unhappy are those without a group.” Well, that should be obvious. Could it be that dividing up the student body by fee-based activity also segregates it by family SES? No, that would be too simple (heavy sarcasm.)
I’m not a manic sports parent. It just angers me to see the PTA parent/country club types edging out the rest of the student body, with the administration’s cooperation. If you must erect financial barriers to participation in athletics, or band, or the chess team, etc., then you shouldn’t offer it at all. Somewhere along the line it flies in the face of what public education should be about.
LikeLike
Drop of sunshine, is what you are, MH.
I’m expecting a series of local government agencies to default and start a three-way cage-match between of taxpayers against bond holders against retired workers.
LikeLike
I suppose I should have added current government workers and those receiving public services to the cage match, but I don’t expect them to last past the first couple of punches.
LikeLike
Chess team is fee-based? Holy cow.
LikeLike
So, what do people here think about these suggestions?
LikeLike
Interesting but flawed. If Laura does a post on it, I’ll have more (as would E.D. Hirsch and Daniel Willingham).
LikeLike
If some millionaires want to subject their children to a school following that model, bully for them. Enough money can provide supplementary tutoring. It would have been absolutely wrong for my children, and I’m glad that they will all be old enough to not be subjected to this romantic vision.
By 12, the Op-ed contributor thinks children should: “They should be able to read a chapter book, write a story and a compelling essay; know how to add, subtract, divide and multiply numbers; detect patterns in complex phenomena; use evidence to support an opinion; be part of a group of people who are not their family; and engage in an exchange of ideas in conversation.”
What the heck does “detect patterns in complex phenomena” mean? I suspect it’s an expandable concept thrown in to deflect any specific criticism.
Missing from the list, off the top of my head: Fractions. Standard mathematical terminology. Grammar. History. Geography. Science.
“What they shouldn’t do is spend tedious hours learning isolated mathematical formulas or memorizing sheets of science facts that are unlikely to matter much in the long run.”
Well, my son who loves to memorize things would be really out of place in this school. Funnily enough, the facts he’s memorized allow him to understand things which haven’t been explicitly taught.
“A school day where every child is given ample opportunities to read and discuss books would give teachers more time to help those students who need more instruction in order to become good readers.”
OK, that was a feature of my kids’ public school classroom which really bothered me. My children read at home every day. They could read at home, and skip the bothersome trip to school, and school food, and the bullies, if the school day will offer no meaningful instruction. By all means, give students who need more instruction more time with teachers. But not in class. It’s disrespectful to the other students to basically “park” them with books, in holding patterns, while a few students receive private tutoring.
LikeLike
OK, guys. You’re itching for an education post, I see. I’ll give you one in the morning.
LikeLike
“A school day where every child is given ample opportunities to read and discuss books would give teachers more time to help those students who need more instruction in order to become good readers.”
I’m not sure how the teacher is supposed to both supervise half a dozen animated book discussions and give private tutorials to struggling readers. That sounds like there would need to be at least two adults in the room, unless the class is really, really small. Now that I think of it, why are these two groups (the avid readers and the strugglers) doing their reading in the same room at the same time? Whatever happened to reading groups? Note the overemphasis on fiction. Also note the absence of foreign language, systematic art instruction, and music.
I think Engel’s approach is going to be developmentally inappropriate for a lot of kids, particularly the ones who embrace detail and would like nothing better than to tell the world about Blue Planet and the reproductive life of coral. As adults, we are able to approach the world at a very high level of abstraction, so it’s sometimes hard for us to remember how unsuitable abstract thought is for most children. Abstraction is more typical of adolescents, and perhaps a few gifted elementary kids. “Detect patterns in complex phenomena”! I’m not sure this would be developmentally appropriate for even a fraction of 25-year-olds.
LikeLike
That romantic vision sounds a lot like my kids school, in which they are absolutely thriving. They do not get private tutoring. They learn a lot of stuff, and they’re learning how to think.
I once joked that I thought my daughter wouldn’t really have anything interesting to say until she was 30 or so. But, she’s proven me wrong. We can now discuss books, almost as well as I can talk about them with a grown-up. Her grammatical knowledge (from books) is probably as good as mine. She can spell better than me, pretty much. Her knowledge of words and nuances is fabulous. And, she gets it all from her varied and extensive reading.
Her latest homework assignment was to read an article in the newspaper and summarize it. I had to offer her a few translations, but she read and understood an article on why the Cook Islands is a good place to hide your money, if you’re a crook, from the business section of the NYTimes.
My son now offers information on topics that’s new to me (Martin Luther King, for example, or Spanish customs, or on coral).
All of this works, though, because the kids’ classrooms are a community of learners. It’s not the teacher discussing books with the kids; they discuss them with each other. They offer each other insights.
(BTW, my kids are 6 and 9)
LikeLike
“Chess team is fee-based? Holy cow. ”
It has to be, if you’ve hired a chess coach. We’ve recently heard that the “select” soccer teams in the area come up with funds ($10K) to hire a coach. *That* was a conversation that freaked me out.
LikeLike
“I’m expecting a series of local government agencies to default and start a three-way cage-match between of taxpayers against bond holders against retired workers.”
Don’t forget to bring your Voltaire: Dans ce pay-ci, il est bon de tuer de temps en temps un financier pour encourager les autres. Otherwise bond holders are sure to win.
LikeLike
Bond holders. Hmm. Those would be in large part retired citizens, looking for safe, predictable tax-sheltered American investments?
A friend’s mother lost much of her savings when Fannie Mae went under. At one point, that was seen as a safe, conservative investment.
If municipal bonds start defaulting, how will cities & states finance their projects?
LikeLike
“Bond holders. Hmm. Those would be in large part retired citizens, looking for safe, predictable tax-sheltered American investments?”
Indeed. I discovered last year that my grandparents had bought a fair amount of Ford and GM bonds. I suppose the Ford bonds are OK, but we all know what happened to GM bondholders.
LikeLike
Doug, I’m just too shy to throw the first brick through a window.
But as to bond holders, the whole bailout has been about giving breaks to the wealthy and those who spent or gambled with money that doesn’t exist. Why should we expect a sudden concern for people who tried to save and invest on a small scale?
LikeLike
I was thinking about what bj said about her kids school, and it occurs to me that what she describes is essentially homeschool at school, and more specifically, unschooling.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unschooling
I was also thinking that bj’s kids’ school leverages off the cultural and social capital that the children bring to school (what I like to call the “Stone Soup” phenomenon). I really wonder how well that model works with classes of underprivileged children. In fact, I don’t wonder, because I know that schools that are successful with underprivileged children do not simply toss them into a book-rich environment and hope that it takes.
LikeLike