Group items tagged

Secretary Duncan said, U.S. educational reform policy is motivated by a belief that the U.S. educational system is particularly failing disadvantaged children. Yet an analysis of international test score levels and trends shows that in important ways disadvantaged U.S. children perform better, relative to children in comparable nations, than do middle-class and advantaged children. More careful analysis of these levels and trends may lead policymakers to reconsider their assumption that almost all improvement efforts should be directed to the education of disadvantaged children and few such efforts to the education of middle-class and advantaged children

A re-estimated U.S. average PISA score that adjusted for a student population in the United States that is more disadvantaged than populations in otherwise similar post-industrial countries, and for the over-sampling of students from the most-disadvantaged schools in a recent U.S. international assessment sample, finds that the U.S. average score in both reading and mathematics would be higher than official reports indicate (in the case of mathematics, substantially higher).

Disadvantaged and lower-middle-class U.S. students perform better (and in most cases, substantially better) than comparable students in similar post-industrial countries in reading. In math, disadvantaged and lower-middle-class U.S. students perform about the same as comparable students in similar post-industrial countries.

he Educational Policy Improvement Center (EPIC) in Oregon, in a formal study asked higher education faculty what skills and knowledge they believe contribute to preparing students to succeed in college. Conley’s definition of college and career readiness is very basic: The level of preparation a student needs to succeed – without remediation – in credit-bearing general education courses or a two-year certificate program.1 The State of Colorado has also adopted this definition for college readiness.2 Such a definition might satisfy some community college and university faculty, but it is not comprehensive enough to really describe the preparation students need for the world of work or college level studies. There are productive behaviors that faculty expect in students and that employers expect in employees as well. EPIC went further to define college and career readiness by expanding the definition into one that is more comprehensive. The expansion includes more of the habits, skills, and attitudes that faculty and employers know are essential to success. It includes four areas:Key Content Knowledge (writing, simple research, core/GE subject area knowledge) Key Cognitive Strategies (inquisitiveness, reasoning, intellectual openness, precision and accuracy) Key Learning Skills and Techniques (self-control, note taking, time management) Key Transition Knowledge and Skills (understanding college or work as a system, interpersonal and social skills, culture of college)

nother resource for higher education faculty to consider is the work done by Arthur L. Costa regarding habits of mind for effective participation in the workplace and beyond. Costa’s recommended habits of mind are popular today and can be used for college students and employees alike. The 16 Habits of mind5 Persisting Communicating with clarity and precision Managing impulsivity Gathering data through all senses Listening with understanding and empathy Creating, imagining, innovating Thinking flexibly Responding with wonderment and awe Metacognition Taking responsible risks Striving for greater accuracy and precision Finding humor Questioning and problem posing Thinking interdependently Applying past knowledge to new situations Remaining open to continuous learning

Policy recommendation: Immediately implement a new teacher evaluation system based 50% on student assessment data. Prohibit the use of experience or degree level as a basis for compensation.

Policy recommendation:  Set in place a strategy to turn over all host district schools, across all grade levels to the charter operator.

Conclusions & Implications: The strongest correlate of true teaching effectiveness was the estimate of teacher contribution to student achievement on the same test a year later. However, this correlation was only modest (.30). All other measures including effectiveness measures based on alternative tests and student, parent and administrator perceptions of teacher effectiveness were less correlated with the original value-added estimate, thus raising questions about the usefulness of any of these other measures. Because the value-added measure turns out to be the best predictor of itself in a subsequent year, this estimate alone trumps all others in terms of usefulness for making decisions regarding teacher retention (especially in times of staffing reduction) and should also be considered a primary factor in compensation decisions. Note that while it may appear that school administrators, students and their parents have highly consistent views regarding which teachers are more and less effective (note the higher correlations across administrator ratings of teachers, and student and parent ratings), we consider these findings unimportant because none of these perception-based ratings were as correlated with the original value-added estimate as the value-added estimate was with itself (which of course, is the TRUE measure of effectiveness).

nd here is the issue that I pose in Now You See It, the one that keeps me up at night:   how do you prepare kids for an increasingly indefinite, rapidly changing job world, in an era of high-speed technological change and global competitiveness, where what is required for success is (I’m quoting the first set of problems the bubble test is not intended to address) is:  “intellectual dexterity, higher order thinking, associational thinking, problem solving, collaborative thinking, complex analysis, the ability to apply learning to other problems, complexity and causality that do not have one right answer”

  What would be amazing is if we could solve the problems of variability and efficiency with a peer-driven system that actually motivates and rewards real learning.  What would be equally amazing is if we could find a system that solves variability and efficiency and, at the same time, supports learning communities (for informal learning), teachers (in the classroom), and workforce trainers (in the workplace) who strive for complex, ongoing, lifelong, connected collaborative learning.  

The bubble test solves the problem of variability and efficiency.   The profound problem of education that remains, once the issue of variability and efficiency is solved.  If we find a better solution to variability and efficiency than the bubble test, we can then concentrate on the real learning objective of school:  how best to prepare our kids to thrive in the life that they will lead once they are no longer in school. 

to make all of the politically unpopular choices that had been put off for decades

year after year, our schools have been run for the benefit of the adults in the system, not for the benefit of the kids.

first time someone dared to question an entrenched practice that had only served the interests of adults.

“THE biggest myth is that if we save all the poor kids, we will destroy the planet,” says Hans Rosling

that it no longer makes sense to consider the world as divided between developing and industrialised countries; and that people everywhere respond similarly to increasing levels of wealth and health, with higher material aspirations and smaller families.

The best measure of political stability of a country, he believes, is whether fertility rates are falling, because that indicates that women are being educated and basic health services are being provided.