Florida seems to be the happening place for interesting education news this month. First there was the school board member who took and failed the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test, and now there is an expose by the Miami Herald about the low numbers of low-income students in South Florida being served by charter schools. In many cases, the charter schools have 30 percentage points or more FEWER low-income students than the community they serve and than the enrollment in the traditional public school serving the same area. The paper also notes that they are many fewer black students (1/5th of charter students in Miami-Dade are black, compared to 1/3 of traditional schools) and many more Hispanic students (nearly 90% of charter school students in Miami-Dade are Hispanic, compared to 58% in the public schools).
The school also talks about schools with higher percentages of gifted and talented students, even though enrollment is supposed to be determined through a blind lottery. Some question whether the charter schools are targeting such populations, despite state and federal laws that prohibit discrimination or favoritism.
I can't go into all the details, but I encourage people to read the original article here. However, I can understand the charter schools' rebuttals. The truth is that applying to charter schools requires more energy, attention, and knowledge than it does to go to a regular public school. I don't find it far-fetched to believe that families with more--more money, more time, more gifted students, more educated parents--apply to these schools at much higher rates, and thus are a disproportionate segment of charter school student.
I also find it reasonable when charter schools argue that it is hard to find safe, appropriate, and affordable space for a school in downtown urban settings, and so most in Miami are located in the suburbs, which is not where the neediest kids live. Also, because charter schools are not required to provide transportation, only 40% of the charter schools in Miami-Dade have buses. That is a huge obstacle for most of the urban poor, which effectively eliminates the possibility of attending such innovative schools.
So while I don't know that there is active discrimination going on, the article demonstrates why the rush to increase charter schools (as was passed this year by the new Republican majority here in North Carolina) could end up making our schools even more separate and unequal than they already are.
Showing posts with label educational research. Show all posts
Showing posts with label educational research. Show all posts
Friday, December 16, 2011
Sunday, November 13, 2011
New Study finds Average Test Scores for Middle Schoolers at Network-run Charter Schools Not Significantly Different than Public Schools
There was another study released this month that showed that, counter to public beliefs, the average test scores at charter schools run as a network (multiple charter schools run by the same management company, such as the KIPP and SEED schools featured in Waiting For Superman) is not statistically different than the averages at typical public schools.
But, as is so often the case with statistics, that statement obscures what is really happening. Among the 22 schools in the study, close to half had test scores in reading and math were higher than the norm for regular public schools. But about another third had test scores in those subjects that were significantly worse than public schools, with the remainder on par with the schools.
So, that means that taken as a whole, charter schools aren't doing any better than public schools. If your child goes to any individual charter school, though, there is a good chance that it will outperform the average public school. However, there is also a fair chance that it will do worse that its typical neighbors.
Once again, I don't mean to bad mouth charter schools; some are obviously doing an exemplary job, such as Raleigh Charter School here in our area. However, parents need to know that charter schools are not the panacea that many educational reformers make them out to be. Charter schools are experiments, and like all experiments, some will work out well, while others will be a failure. There are a high percentage of these network-run schools that even though they have all the things these reformers want--longer class hours, performance-based payment for teachers, etc.--they have lower test scores than the average middle school
If you want to see the report, which was done by Mathematica Policy Research and the Center on Reinventing Public Education (CRPE) at the University of Washington, you can access it here.
But, as is so often the case with statistics, that statement obscures what is really happening. Among the 22 schools in the study, close to half had test scores in reading and math were higher than the norm for regular public schools. But about another third had test scores in those subjects that were significantly worse than public schools, with the remainder on par with the schools.
So, that means that taken as a whole, charter schools aren't doing any better than public schools. If your child goes to any individual charter school, though, there is a good chance that it will outperform the average public school. However, there is also a fair chance that it will do worse that its typical neighbors.
Once again, I don't mean to bad mouth charter schools; some are obviously doing an exemplary job, such as Raleigh Charter School here in our area. However, parents need to know that charter schools are not the panacea that many educational reformers make them out to be. Charter schools are experiments, and like all experiments, some will work out well, while others will be a failure. There are a high percentage of these network-run schools that even though they have all the things these reformers want--longer class hours, performance-based payment for teachers, etc.--they have lower test scores than the average middle school
If you want to see the report, which was done by Mathematica Policy Research and the Center on Reinventing Public Education (CRPE) at the University of Washington, you can access it here.
Sunday, October 9, 2011
MacArthur Genius Grant Goes to Educational Researcher Who Showed Economic Incentives Don't Work
Among this year's recipients of the so-called "genius grants" by the MacArthur Foundation, which give promising unconventional achievers in diverse fields $500,000 with no strings attached to apply to their work, is education economist Roland G. Fryer, Jr. Fryer is the founder and director of Harvard University's Education Innovation Laboratory and a research associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research. His work has concentrated on trying to explain and address the educational achievement gaps among minority students.
Clearly, that is an important topic worthy of funding. And Fryer has been involved in many different studies. But what I found really interesting about this grant is that Fryer's arguably most significant studies where two that showed that financial incentives (i.e., paying people for higher test scores) DID NOT WORK. In the first study, they tried offering more money to teachers for higher test scores; in the second, they did the same thing for students. In neither case, however, did the money do anything to improve educational achievement (as measured by test scores, at least).
Here is a great quote by Fryer in talking about how these studies have radically changed his ideas of trying to improve education by linking higher compensation to higher scores:
In short, it is NOT that teachers are lazy (OK, maybe some are, but not most). It's that nobody knows how to consistently improve the many different factors that can inhibit educational achievement. Dangling financial carrots in front of them for higher test scores has been shown to be useless at best, and insulting, morale sapping, and counterproductive at worst.
It doesn't take a genius to figure out this is a failing policy.
Clearly, that is an important topic worthy of funding. And Fryer has been involved in many different studies. But what I found really interesting about this grant is that Fryer's arguably most significant studies where two that showed that financial incentives (i.e., paying people for higher test scores) DID NOT WORK. In the first study, they tried offering more money to teachers for higher test scores; in the second, they did the same thing for students. In neither case, however, did the money do anything to improve educational achievement (as measured by test scores, at least).
Here is a great quote by Fryer in talking about how these studies have radically changed his ideas of trying to improve education by linking higher compensation to higher scores:
"Economists always assume people know how to produce something. Incentives work if you are lazy, not if you don't know how to do something. So that's spawned some new theoretical ideas for me. What if people don't know how to produce something? What do optimal incentives look like in that environment?"I just think this is a great point to hear in our recent environment of blaming educational problems on bad teacher and evil teacher unions. As I've said often before, we need to stop trying to impose the business model on schools, because education is not the same as just trying to sell more widgets. Outstanding education, particularly during a time when more than one child out of every five is living in poverty, is a complex and ever-changing business. Tying teacher pay directly to test scores is only likely to exacerbate the situation, because it drives teachers who need the extra salary money to move from high poverty schools, where the test scores may depend on how many of the children taking the test even had enough food in the past day to be able to focus on the exam, to the schools they know kids are likely to perform better, just on their life circumstances alone.
In short, it is NOT that teachers are lazy (OK, maybe some are, but not most). It's that nobody knows how to consistently improve the many different factors that can inhibit educational achievement. Dangling financial carrots in front of them for higher test scores has been shown to be useless at best, and insulting, morale sapping, and counterproductive at worst.
It doesn't take a genius to figure out this is a failing policy.
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
How to Improve American Civics Education
I mentioned Constitution Day last week, but at the time I didn't realize that a major new report on civics education was released on that day. Guardian of Democracy: The Civic Mission of Schools, a study conducted by the Annenberg Center for Public Policy at the University of Pennsylvania and some other partners, is refreshing in that it is NOT one of those cries-of-alarm-with-no-solutions reports that remind me of Charles Dudley Warner's quip that "Everybody talks about the weather, but nobody does anything about it." Rather, it delineates what IS effective civics education, along with the many benefits associated with such education, and tries to rally public support into making this a higher priority in our educational system.
The report begins with the usual statistics showing American students having an appalling lack of knowledge about the American system. For example, the latest national exam on civics found that less than 1/3 of all eight graders could correctly explain the historical significance of the Declaration of Independence, and 2/3 of all American students had scores below the proficiency level. While most schools report having some kind of mandatory civics education, most admit that time and resources for that subject have been squeezed in order to focus on the subjects on which the students and schools will be judged in the No Child Left Behind program.
This report was most interesting, however (at least in my opinion), when it looked at the different types of programs that were offered and the subsequent scores of those different types of students on various 21st century skills, such as critical thinking and the ability to work cooperatively with others with a diverse background. This study identified two different approaches to civics education: the Traditional Education approach, which mostly involved teacher lectures and a traditional textbook, which many times focused on the mechanics of democracy, such as voting and party politics, etc., and the Open Discussion Classroom, in which teachers encouraged open-ended discussions of issues in which students expressed different opinions and where differences on issues might be left unresolved.
The study broke the schools into four categories:
The report begins with the usual statistics showing American students having an appalling lack of knowledge about the American system. For example, the latest national exam on civics found that less than 1/3 of all eight graders could correctly explain the historical significance of the Declaration of Independence, and 2/3 of all American students had scores below the proficiency level. While most schools report having some kind of mandatory civics education, most admit that time and resources for that subject have been squeezed in order to focus on the subjects on which the students and schools will be judged in the No Child Left Behind program.
This report was most interesting, however (at least in my opinion), when it looked at the different types of programs that were offered and the subsequent scores of those different types of students on various 21st century skills, such as critical thinking and the ability to work cooperatively with others with a diverse background. This study identified two different approaches to civics education: the Traditional Education approach, which mostly involved teacher lectures and a traditional textbook, which many times focused on the mechanics of democracy, such as voting and party politics, etc., and the Open Discussion Classroom, in which teachers encouraged open-ended discussions of issues in which students expressed different opinions and where differences on issues might be left unresolved.
The study broke the schools into four categories:
- Low amount of Traditional civics education, Low amount of Open Discussion
- High amount of Traditional civics education, Low amount of Open Discussion
- Low amount of Traditional civics education, High amount of Open Discussion
- High amount of Traditional civics education, High amount of Open Discussion
I'm sure you will all be SHOCKED to find out that the schools with low levels of both approaches did the worst, and the ones with high levels of both did the best. However, of the 12 different sets of knowledge, skills, and attitudes studied, in NO case did #2 (lots of Tradition but little Discussion) beat either #3 or #4--the two sets with high amounts of Open Discussion. And, in fact, #3 (little Traditional, lots of Discussion) beat #4 (lots of Traditional, lots of Discussion) in two of the 12 areas, and tied with them on another two.
So, in short, it seems like we get a lot more bang for our buck by having students discuss issues, hold differing opinions, argue the pros and cons with each other, and sometimes simply agreeing to disagree, than we do with all the traditional textbook approaches to civic education.
There is lots more to the report--lots of statistics showing the better civics education relates to fewer drop-outs, less violence in school, better work habits, higher educational attainment and salaries, etc.--and lots of suggestions of ways we can vastly improve this critical aspect of American education. You can read about them in the report, which you can download from this link.
But the bottom line, to my reading, at least, is to leave the book behind and let students get involved in real research, debates, and action about real political issues. Makes a lot of sense to me.... It is certainly the way I try to approach civics education, as do a number of my homeschooling friends. And it makes one more reason why I am glad we are able to homeschool.
Thursday, September 15, 2011
Poverty: The Factor Educational Reformers Don't Want to Consider
Amidst all the debates about charter schools and Race to the Top and No Child Left Behind, educators may have missed the latest report that 22% of children are now living in poverty--the highest figure since 1993. But that is a shame, because that fact is likely to have more of an impact on student test scores than all the policies enacted by all the politicians put together.
At the end of last year, there was a whole hullabaloo about the fact that US students only scored around average or below on the international PISA test scores. YIKES! AMERICAN SCHOOLS ARE FAILURES!!!!!
Except, on further analysis of the data, it doesn't really reflect poorly on American schools. Instead, our poor showing internationally doesn't really seem to be based on our school system at all. Rather, it speaks to the shocking fact that in a country of such abundance, one out of every five children lives in poverty....one of the highest levels of poverty among the OECD countries with whom we have been compared.
How can I say that? Because the National Association of Secondary School Principles analyzed the data by separating it by the level of poverty in the schools (as measured by the number of students eligible for free or reduced lunch programs). IN EVERY CASE, the US students came in FIRST when compared to countries in the same poverty range (in many cases, the other countries has MUCH lower poverty rates, but at least fell into a comparable range).
So, for American kids who went to school in relatively rich schools (defined as schools where less than 10% of students had incomes low enough to qualify for lunch programs)....well, they kicked the butts of the top-ranked Finnish students (with a mere 3.4% of poverty level) by scoring 551 to the Finnish 536:
Source for all figures: NASSP
OK, well, how about our poor schools and our REALLY poor schools? Even compared to the OECD countries that have a higher than 50% poverty rate (Austria, Turkey, Chile, and Mexico), the US students still did better. So, when you compared apples to apples, the US students always came up on top, no matter how sweet or sour the apple selection was.
So according to the data, US education is doing an exemplary job at all levels--high income through low income student populations. Why, then, is "school reform" so fixated on blaming bad teachers and their "gang," the EVIL teachers' unions, for all of our educational woes?
My answer? It's back to my educational days as an existentialist. Existentialism argues that people will do anything to avoid facing up to their own responsibility. It is so much easier to blame uncaring and inadequate teachers, and one-sided teachers unions, and regulation-bound public school administrators, than to ask ourselves: How is it, that in a country that has so much, and so many live such abundant lives, that somewhere between one-fifth and one-quarter of our children live in poverty?
Hey, rather than admit that I'm part of the systemic poverty problem, I would rather blame those uncaring teachers and inflexible administrators myself. The thing is, I don't actually know any educators like that....
At the end of last year, there was a whole hullabaloo about the fact that US students only scored around average or below on the international PISA test scores. YIKES! AMERICAN SCHOOLS ARE FAILURES!!!!!
Except, on further analysis of the data, it doesn't really reflect poorly on American schools. Instead, our poor showing internationally doesn't really seem to be based on our school system at all. Rather, it speaks to the shocking fact that in a country of such abundance, one out of every five children lives in poverty....one of the highest levels of poverty among the OECD countries with whom we have been compared.
How can I say that? Because the National Association of Secondary School Principles analyzed the data by separating it by the level of poverty in the schools (as measured by the number of students eligible for free or reduced lunch programs). IN EVERY CASE, the US students came in FIRST when compared to countries in the same poverty range (in many cases, the other countries has MUCH lower poverty rates, but at least fell into a comparable range).
So, for American kids who went to school in relatively rich schools (defined as schools where less than 10% of students had incomes low enough to qualify for lunch programs)....well, they kicked the butts of the top-ranked Finnish students (with a mere 3.4% of poverty level) by scoring 551 to the Finnish 536:
Country | Poverty Rate | PISA Score |
United States | <10% | 551 |
Finland | 3.4% | 536 |
Netherlands | 9.0% | 508 |
Belgium | 6.7% | 506 |
Norway | 3.6% | 503 |
Switzerland | 6.8% | 501 |
France | 7.3% | 496 |
Denmark | 2.4% | 495 |
Czech Republic | 7.2% | 478 |
OK, so that include all those Ivy League feeder prep schools and such... but what about just those middle/upper middle class schools, where, say, 10-24.9% of students qualify for lunch program?
|
Source for all figures: NASSP
OK, well, how about our poor schools and our REALLY poor schools? Even compared to the OECD countries that have a higher than 50% poverty rate (Austria, Turkey, Chile, and Mexico), the US students still did better. So, when you compared apples to apples, the US students always came up on top, no matter how sweet or sour the apple selection was.
So according to the data, US education is doing an exemplary job at all levels--high income through low income student populations. Why, then, is "school reform" so fixated on blaming bad teachers and their "gang," the EVIL teachers' unions, for all of our educational woes?
My answer? It's back to my educational days as an existentialist. Existentialism argues that people will do anything to avoid facing up to their own responsibility. It is so much easier to blame uncaring and inadequate teachers, and one-sided teachers unions, and regulation-bound public school administrators, than to ask ourselves: How is it, that in a country that has so much, and so many live such abundant lives, that somewhere between one-fifth and one-quarter of our children live in poverty?
Hey, rather than admit that I'm part of the systemic poverty problem, I would rather blame those uncaring teachers and inflexible administrators myself. The thing is, I don't actually know any educators like that....
Sunday, August 28, 2011
Do Charter School Burn Out Teachers?
Do charter school burn out teachers? That is the question raised by a recent study by educational researcher at the University of California at Berkeley.
In the study, the authors were looking at the statistical factors related to teachers leaving their schools. Teacher longevity at schools is correlated with positive educational outcomes, both among standardized test results as well as family satisfaction, student relationship building, and other "softer" measures of educational quality.
So the study, which was focused only on teachers in the Los Angeles school system, which can differ in many ways from most of the school systems in this country, is written in educational-ese and contains lots of data and statistics and such. I glazed over the statistics analysis and chi squares methodology and such that is part of such academic research, and I have a Masters in Education. But I think this graphic, taken from the report, can express one of the most important conclusions:
Click here to see the map in its original size.
The bottom line of this graphic is that I count 30 schools that have a teacher turnover rate of over 40%, and of that number, all but two are charter schools, which means that 93% of such high turnover schools are charters (and I don't know the exact statistics, but I think charter schools are only about 10% of all the schools in LA). So clearly, teachers are much more likely to leave charter schools than traditional public schools.
The question that the study doesn't address, however, is why. Charter teachers tend to be young; is that why more of them leave? (although more leave charter schools than is average for schools in general). Charter schools tend to be newer, which is also associated with higher turnover, but not at the rates seen in this study among the charter schools. Are the young teachers who work at charter schools more naive and/or idealistic than other young teachers, and thus leave when their fantasies encounter real educational situations? Are the demands of charter schools so intense that teachers can only maintain them for a year or two? Do the (sometimes) for-profit charter schools pay their teachers and/or offer fewer benefits or other incentives that make their staff leave for traditional schools? All of these explanations have been offered, but none have been proven.
So I don't know how to explain this data. But I do have a belief (which is backed up by some data) that students are better served by teachers with more experience and/or commitment to the school in which they teach. Therefore, I think the high teacher turnover rates should be at least a yellow caution light for those who seek to expand rapidly the charter school program (such as the Republican legislators, who this year lifted the 100-school cap on charter schools in North Carolina).
In the study, the authors were looking at the statistical factors related to teachers leaving their schools. Teacher longevity at schools is correlated with positive educational outcomes, both among standardized test results as well as family satisfaction, student relationship building, and other "softer" measures of educational quality.
So the study, which was focused only on teachers in the Los Angeles school system, which can differ in many ways from most of the school systems in this country, is written in educational-ese and contains lots of data and statistics and such. I glazed over the statistics analysis and chi squares methodology and such that is part of such academic research, and I have a Masters in Education. But I think this graphic, taken from the report, can express one of the most important conclusions:
Annual Teacher Turnover by School Size in LAUSD 2002 - 2007
Click here to see the map in its original size.
The bottom line of this graphic is that I count 30 schools that have a teacher turnover rate of over 40%, and of that number, all but two are charter schools, which means that 93% of such high turnover schools are charters (and I don't know the exact statistics, but I think charter schools are only about 10% of all the schools in LA). So clearly, teachers are much more likely to leave charter schools than traditional public schools.
The question that the study doesn't address, however, is why. Charter teachers tend to be young; is that why more of them leave? (although more leave charter schools than is average for schools in general). Charter schools tend to be newer, which is also associated with higher turnover, but not at the rates seen in this study among the charter schools. Are the young teachers who work at charter schools more naive and/or idealistic than other young teachers, and thus leave when their fantasies encounter real educational situations? Are the demands of charter schools so intense that teachers can only maintain them for a year or two? Do the (sometimes) for-profit charter schools pay their teachers and/or offer fewer benefits or other incentives that make their staff leave for traditional schools? All of these explanations have been offered, but none have been proven.
So I don't know how to explain this data. But I do have a belief (which is backed up by some data) that students are better served by teachers with more experience and/or commitment to the school in which they teach. Therefore, I think the high teacher turnover rates should be at least a yellow caution light for those who seek to expand rapidly the charter school program (such as the Republican legislators, who this year lifted the 100-school cap on charter schools in North Carolina).
Friday, August 19, 2011
Yet Another Study Shows Public Colleges Provide Better Value for Post-Graduation Salaries
So the final in my trinity of recent studies that suggest that top students don't necessarily have to pay top dollar for good educational opportunities, I turn to the "payback" study done by SmartMoney magazine. Like yesterday's study, this one is based on the salaries earned by the graduates of top colleges, which I personally think is a dubious evaluation of the quality of education. Nonetheless, it is a major consideration of most families looking at college decisions, so it is worth at least noting what these studies are saying.
So the payback scale devised by this study looks at the average salary of graduates divided by the total fees (tuition and other charges by the college itself) over four years of earning a degree. So, for example, if the average student paid $25,000 a year for four years at College X, but earned an average salary at graduation of $150,000 a year, that school would have a payback scale of 150% ($150,000/$100,000 total costs). But if the average student paid $50,000 a year for four years, but earned an average salary of $175,000, that college would have a payback scale of only 87.5% ($175,000/200,000).
Let's acknowledge upfront that the payback scale favors some universities over others. For one thing, the schools that offer programs in business or science and technology are going to look better than those that are typical "liberal arts" colleges, whose graduates may be going into such field as social work, the arts, non-profit research, or--gasp!--education, whose salaries are typically lower. The scores also don't take into account average financial aid--which would benefit the Ivy League schools, whose endowments are rich enough to offer healthy aid packages to many students--or typical years to graduate--which would make many public universities look worse, because more of their students take longer to graduate than the presumed four years. So looking at these figures with somewhat of a grain of salt, what did SmartMoney magazine find?
Based on the payback scale, the highest performing colleges and universities were the top-tier public universities. According to SmartMoney magazine, the luckiest students are those living in Georgia: Georgia Institute of Technology was their #1 "payback" school (with a payback ration of 221), and University of Georgia was #4 (payback of 186). In general, the South and Midwest ruled the top of the payback scale, with the University of California at Berkeley being the only college on either coast breaking into the top 10 (it was #10 with a payback ratio of 146).
Alas for North Carolinians, no college in the state made the top 50 of the SmartCollege listing. Our neighboring states did better; South Carolina has Clemson University, which was #6 with a 160% ratio, and Virginia had both the University of Virginia at #16 (117%) and my alma mater, The College of Williams and Mary, at #18 (111%).
It is not until you get to #19 that you find a private school: the Ivy League university of Princeton, which as a payback scale of 102. The last 30 universities on the list are dominated by private schools, with the Ivy Leagues generally scoring higher than most of the other top-tier private colleges.
You can read the article to find out the specific details about the average salaries of the three types of schools--public, private, or Ivies--and the comparative relative costs. But the bottom line is still the same: going to a very expensive and exclusive university does not guarantee you a higher salaries, particularly when you compare the relative costs of earning your degree.
Now, my point in the three posts is not to bash the Ivy League schools, or private schools in general. But there can be so much pressure about getting into "the right school" or "the best school," and I hope looking at some of this data can help middle schoolers and high schooler feel less anxious about their postsecondary education.
And I do have to admit to a personal bias. When I was in high school, I applied (and got accepted, at least to some) to Ivy League and elite/expensive private schools, but I ended up choosing The College of William and Mary, which was one of my state schools, and thus a fraction of the cost of the others. I ended up getting an excellent education at a bargain price. But since I didn't have thousands of dollars of student loans hanging over my head, I was able to choose jobs that I really enjoyed and that I thought were really valuable--jobs in the non-profit world, and then in education (leading finally to homeschooling, where I get to PAY for the privilege of spending untold hours every day teaching children!). I've never had a high salary job, but I think I've had plenty of high impact jobs. Plus, I've always enjoyed and believed in what I did--which is something that is hard to put a price tag on.
So all I'm saying is--there is a lot to consider when choosing what college to attend. Don't feel that a fancy name alone is the yellow road that will bring you to your dreams.
So the payback scale devised by this study looks at the average salary of graduates divided by the total fees (tuition and other charges by the college itself) over four years of earning a degree. So, for example, if the average student paid $25,000 a year for four years at College X, but earned an average salary at graduation of $150,000 a year, that school would have a payback scale of 150% ($150,000/$100,000 total costs). But if the average student paid $50,000 a year for four years, but earned an average salary of $175,000, that college would have a payback scale of only 87.5% ($175,000/200,000).
Let's acknowledge upfront that the payback scale favors some universities over others. For one thing, the schools that offer programs in business or science and technology are going to look better than those that are typical "liberal arts" colleges, whose graduates may be going into such field as social work, the arts, non-profit research, or--gasp!--education, whose salaries are typically lower. The scores also don't take into account average financial aid--which would benefit the Ivy League schools, whose endowments are rich enough to offer healthy aid packages to many students--or typical years to graduate--which would make many public universities look worse, because more of their students take longer to graduate than the presumed four years. So looking at these figures with somewhat of a grain of salt, what did SmartMoney magazine find?
Based on the payback scale, the highest performing colleges and universities were the top-tier public universities. According to SmartMoney magazine, the luckiest students are those living in Georgia: Georgia Institute of Technology was their #1 "payback" school (with a payback ration of 221), and University of Georgia was #4 (payback of 186). In general, the South and Midwest ruled the top of the payback scale, with the University of California at Berkeley being the only college on either coast breaking into the top 10 (it was #10 with a payback ratio of 146).
Alas for North Carolinians, no college in the state made the top 50 of the SmartCollege listing. Our neighboring states did better; South Carolina has Clemson University, which was #6 with a 160% ratio, and Virginia had both the University of Virginia at #16 (117%) and my alma mater, The College of Williams and Mary, at #18 (111%).
It is not until you get to #19 that you find a private school: the Ivy League university of Princeton, which as a payback scale of 102. The last 30 universities on the list are dominated by private schools, with the Ivy Leagues generally scoring higher than most of the other top-tier private colleges.
You can read the article to find out the specific details about the average salaries of the three types of schools--public, private, or Ivies--and the comparative relative costs. But the bottom line is still the same: going to a very expensive and exclusive university does not guarantee you a higher salaries, particularly when you compare the relative costs of earning your degree.
Now, my point in the three posts is not to bash the Ivy League schools, or private schools in general. But there can be so much pressure about getting into "the right school" or "the best school," and I hope looking at some of this data can help middle schoolers and high schooler feel less anxious about their postsecondary education.
And I do have to admit to a personal bias. When I was in high school, I applied (and got accepted, at least to some) to Ivy League and elite/expensive private schools, but I ended up choosing The College of William and Mary, which was one of my state schools, and thus a fraction of the cost of the others. I ended up getting an excellent education at a bargain price. But since I didn't have thousands of dollars of student loans hanging over my head, I was able to choose jobs that I really enjoyed and that I thought were really valuable--jobs in the non-profit world, and then in education (leading finally to homeschooling, where I get to PAY for the privilege of spending untold hours every day teaching children!). I've never had a high salary job, but I think I've had plenty of high impact jobs. Plus, I've always enjoyed and believed in what I did--which is something that is hard to put a price tag on.
So all I'm saying is--there is a lot to consider when choosing what college to attend. Don't feel that a fancy name alone is the yellow road that will bring you to your dreams.
Thursday, August 18, 2011
Study Casts Doubt on the Ability of Highly Competitive Universities to Raise Salaries
On the heels of my post yesterday about a study that showed that high achieving students end up with similar test scores whether they get into the most competitive high schools or not, a study this year by researchers at Princeton University discovered a similar phenomenon in regards to the most exclusive universities. In this 2011 study, they found that most high achieving high school students who applied to the most elite colleges, but ended up going to a less competitive school (whether because they weren't accepted or chose a different school), earned the same average salaries as their peers that graduated from the exclusive colleges (Ivy League-level schools).
This study is particularly interesting because it was a repeat of a study that the same economists published about 10 years ago. That study revealed the same thing--applicants to top tier universities who attended less elite colleges generally obtained comparable salaries to the graduates of the most exclusive schools. In the first study, however, the salaries were self-reported, which left room for some, padding, shall we say. But in this follow-up research, not only were many more people included, with the time span now reaching to careers of people in their 40s and 50s, but the data on salaries was taken from more objective sources, such as Social Security information. Still, the results were the same; there was no boost in income for graduates of top colleges compared to other students with comparable test scores and such who didn't attend those types of schools.
So, the bottom line is: Big name colleges are not required to earn the big bucks. If you have the grades and test scores, along with personal qualities like self-confidence and persistence that are related to applying to these types of schools, of a viable candidate for admission, ON THE AVERAGE, you will earn as much even if you attend a less prestigious college. Depending on how much you have to pay for the big name schools, in fact, you may be better off turning them down (if accepted) and pursuing an education at a less costly alternative.
There are some BIG caveats to this conclusion, however. Graduating from a highly competitive/Ivy League type university DID significantly increase the incomes of minority students (black and Latino), students from low income families, and those whose parents did not attend college. It appears that the elite colleges do provide those types of students with skills, habits, or networks that do advance their professional chances at gaining a larger salary.
But for white middle or upper income students, the debt they might occur to attend the most exclusive schools is not likely to translate to significantly higher salaries.
Of course, we hope that earning a lot of money is not the sole criteria by which we judge our universities. Income upon graduation is an even worse stand-in for educational quality than standardized tests are. However, there can be questions about the educational value of the highly elite schools. In many of them, the focus is really on graduate education, so that a majority of undergraduate classes are taught by graduate students, who may have only a shallow command of either teaching techniques or the subject area (and sometimes, even of the English language itself!).
This is all to say that students don't need to feel that their lives will be ruined if they don't get into their desired Ivy League schools. There are a lot more factors involved in finding the right school than simply the prestige of its name.
This study is particularly interesting because it was a repeat of a study that the same economists published about 10 years ago. That study revealed the same thing--applicants to top tier universities who attended less elite colleges generally obtained comparable salaries to the graduates of the most exclusive schools. In the first study, however, the salaries were self-reported, which left room for some, padding, shall we say. But in this follow-up research, not only were many more people included, with the time span now reaching to careers of people in their 40s and 50s, but the data on salaries was taken from more objective sources, such as Social Security information. Still, the results were the same; there was no boost in income for graduates of top colleges compared to other students with comparable test scores and such who didn't attend those types of schools.
So, the bottom line is: Big name colleges are not required to earn the big bucks. If you have the grades and test scores, along with personal qualities like self-confidence and persistence that are related to applying to these types of schools, of a viable candidate for admission, ON THE AVERAGE, you will earn as much even if you attend a less prestigious college. Depending on how much you have to pay for the big name schools, in fact, you may be better off turning them down (if accepted) and pursuing an education at a less costly alternative.
There are some BIG caveats to this conclusion, however. Graduating from a highly competitive/Ivy League type university DID significantly increase the incomes of minority students (black and Latino), students from low income families, and those whose parents did not attend college. It appears that the elite colleges do provide those types of students with skills, habits, or networks that do advance their professional chances at gaining a larger salary.
But for white middle or upper income students, the debt they might occur to attend the most exclusive schools is not likely to translate to significantly higher salaries.
Of course, we hope that earning a lot of money is not the sole criteria by which we judge our universities. Income upon graduation is an even worse stand-in for educational quality than standardized tests are. However, there can be questions about the educational value of the highly elite schools. In many of them, the focus is really on graduate education, so that a majority of undergraduate classes are taught by graduate students, who may have only a shallow command of either teaching techniques or the subject area (and sometimes, even of the English language itself!).
This is all to say that students don't need to feel that their lives will be ruined if they don't get into their desired Ivy League schools. There are a lot more factors involved in finding the right school than simply the prestige of its name.
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
Study Casts Doubt on the Ability of Highly Competitive High Schools to Raise Test Scores
While more and more applicants try to get into the country's most competitive high schools, a new study suggests that all that effort may not be worth it. The study, entitled "The Elite Illusion," by economists from MIT and Duke University, compared the students who gained entry to some of the nation's top examination schools (public school that students must apply and take entrance exams in order to attend) to their peers who didn't quite make the cut. They found that, three or four years, there were virtually no difference in test scores, including state standardized tests, SAT and ACT tests, and AP exams, between the two populations.
This obviously is a narrow study, and applies only to the top tier of students. Plus, of course, it conflates educational value and achievement with test scores, which readers of this blog know I find a dubious proposition.
However, it should alleviate some of the pressure on students to get into these top schools. It demonstrates that smart, hard working students can attain equivalent test scores without having to attend the one "magic" school set up for the top achievers. It also disputes one of the main arguments about these schools--that being around other top students will drive high achievers to superior performance. This study found that their test performance was no better than the top students left to pursue their education with a traditional school filled with "average" students.
If this is true, it may even behoove students NOT to attend such schools if they are planning on applying to the most competitive colleges. The thing is, the colleges all have a cap on how many students they will take from any one high school. For example, if Bill Gates could prove that he had rounded up the 1,000 most brilliant students in the country for an advanced Bill Gates High School, Harvard wouldn't accept all 1,000 of them, no matter how much smarter they might be. They would only take a small percentage--25 or 50 students maybe?--because they want a diverse, but still high achieving student body. A student with a 2200 SAT score who is number 1 in an average school that doesn't have a lot of Harvard applicants may stand a better chance than a student with a 2300 SAT score from an elite school that has dozens of other applicants also trying to get in.
It's just something to consider....
This is particularly interesting for homeschoolers to consider. Many families decide to have their homeschooled children go to school for their high school years for a whole variety of reasons. But certainly an important consideration is preparation for college and trying to make the students more competitive by having them in school with other high achieving students. But this study implies that elite peer relationships don't result in higher test scores.
For example, in our area, most of the homeschoolers I know who are going to school for high school want to get into Raleigh Charter High School, which was the Number 1 school in North Carolina in the Washington Post annual High School Challenge that ranks the best high schools in the country (although it was only 55th best on the national list). But it is not that much more likely to get into Raleigh Charter, which I think accepts 11% of eligible applicants through a lottery system, than to get into Harvard, which accepts about 7% of applicants.
Anyway, this study is reassuring for those other 89% that don't get into Raleigh Charter that by taking the right classes and doing the hard work, they can earn equally impressive test scores even at a "normal" school.
This obviously is a narrow study, and applies only to the top tier of students. Plus, of course, it conflates educational value and achievement with test scores, which readers of this blog know I find a dubious proposition.
However, it should alleviate some of the pressure on students to get into these top schools. It demonstrates that smart, hard working students can attain equivalent test scores without having to attend the one "magic" school set up for the top achievers. It also disputes one of the main arguments about these schools--that being around other top students will drive high achievers to superior performance. This study found that their test performance was no better than the top students left to pursue their education with a traditional school filled with "average" students.
If this is true, it may even behoove students NOT to attend such schools if they are planning on applying to the most competitive colleges. The thing is, the colleges all have a cap on how many students they will take from any one high school. For example, if Bill Gates could prove that he had rounded up the 1,000 most brilliant students in the country for an advanced Bill Gates High School, Harvard wouldn't accept all 1,000 of them, no matter how much smarter they might be. They would only take a small percentage--25 or 50 students maybe?--because they want a diverse, but still high achieving student body. A student with a 2200 SAT score who is number 1 in an average school that doesn't have a lot of Harvard applicants may stand a better chance than a student with a 2300 SAT score from an elite school that has dozens of other applicants also trying to get in.
It's just something to consider....
This is particularly interesting for homeschoolers to consider. Many families decide to have their homeschooled children go to school for their high school years for a whole variety of reasons. But certainly an important consideration is preparation for college and trying to make the students more competitive by having them in school with other high achieving students. But this study implies that elite peer relationships don't result in higher test scores.
For example, in our area, most of the homeschoolers I know who are going to school for high school want to get into Raleigh Charter High School, which was the Number 1 school in North Carolina in the Washington Post annual High School Challenge that ranks the best high schools in the country (although it was only 55th best on the national list). But it is not that much more likely to get into Raleigh Charter, which I think accepts 11% of eligible applicants through a lottery system, than to get into Harvard, which accepts about 7% of applicants.
Anyway, this study is reassuring for those other 89% that don't get into Raleigh Charter that by taking the right classes and doing the hard work, they can earn equally impressive test scores even at a "normal" school.
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
Are Middle Schools Hotbeds of Stress and Violence?
Are middle schools hotbeds of stress and violence? The grant makers at the Institute of Educational Studies seems to think so. They have just completed one study on trying to reduce violence in middle schools, and are starting two new studies examining middle school stress and the impact on student achievement.
In explaining the first study, IES gives statistics that say that more violence and bullying take place in middle schools than any other segment of education. In the latest year of data (2006-07 school year), when 4.3% of secondary students reported being victims of a crime at school, the rate of nonfatal violent crimes for students 12-14 was 67 incidents per 1,000 students, compared to 49 incidents per 1,000 students aged 15-18. There were also 41 incidents per 1,000 middle school students of experiencing a violent event, compared to high school (22 per 1,000) and elementary school (26 per 1,000).
Even scarier were the numbers related to school bullying. A daunting 44% of middle schools reported at least weekly, if not more frequent, incidents of bullying. That figure is double the statistics for both high schools (22%) and elementary (21%).
These are issues that just don't come up in homeschooling, or else occur rarely and are quickly dealt with by the parents. So maybe I'm naive, but it seems incredible to me that close to half of our middle schools are dealing with bullying on a weekly (or more) basis, and that isn't particularly a big topic for debate in educational policy.
Unfortunately, it doesn't look like things will be improving soon, at least according to the IES study. The grant was testing the effectiveness of two different approaches to reducing school violence and bullying--addressing the issues through curriculum and through a whole school atmosphere approach--but neither technique produced significantly different results in violence and bullying statistics compared to the control schools.
The two new IES grants are four-year programs to record the incidences of stress--one among the teachers, and one among the students. The student one is targeted to a new intervention program for middle school students experiencing trauma--I guess all those students who are victimized, as well as students with bad life events outside of school. The goal is to help them deal with these issues and thus perform better in school, as well in general life skills such as self confidence, dealing with depression, etc. The teacher study seeks to document the generally-posited idea that teaching in middle schools is the most stressful educational occupation. This study will follow teachers for three years to see if teacher stress results in worse student behavior and test scores.
So the main things these studies tell me is that I'm glad that neither my son nor I are dealing with an institutionalized middle school education. However, I hope they come up with some valuable data about the effects on students' educational scores of life factors that teachers can't control, and help loosen the reliance on test scores as the sole determination of educational quality. I also really hope they come up with some better coping skills for these poor bullied and stressed-out students and teachers.
In explaining the first study, IES gives statistics that say that more violence and bullying take place in middle schools than any other segment of education. In the latest year of data (2006-07 school year), when 4.3% of secondary students reported being victims of a crime at school, the rate of nonfatal violent crimes for students 12-14 was 67 incidents per 1,000 students, compared to 49 incidents per 1,000 students aged 15-18. There were also 41 incidents per 1,000 middle school students of experiencing a violent event, compared to high school (22 per 1,000) and elementary school (26 per 1,000).
Even scarier were the numbers related to school bullying. A daunting 44% of middle schools reported at least weekly, if not more frequent, incidents of bullying. That figure is double the statistics for both high schools (22%) and elementary (21%).
These are issues that just don't come up in homeschooling, or else occur rarely and are quickly dealt with by the parents. So maybe I'm naive, but it seems incredible to me that close to half of our middle schools are dealing with bullying on a weekly (or more) basis, and that isn't particularly a big topic for debate in educational policy.
Unfortunately, it doesn't look like things will be improving soon, at least according to the IES study. The grant was testing the effectiveness of two different approaches to reducing school violence and bullying--addressing the issues through curriculum and through a whole school atmosphere approach--but neither technique produced significantly different results in violence and bullying statistics compared to the control schools.
The two new IES grants are four-year programs to record the incidences of stress--one among the teachers, and one among the students. The student one is targeted to a new intervention program for middle school students experiencing trauma--I guess all those students who are victimized, as well as students with bad life events outside of school. The goal is to help them deal with these issues and thus perform better in school, as well in general life skills such as self confidence, dealing with depression, etc. The teacher study seeks to document the generally-posited idea that teaching in middle schools is the most stressful educational occupation. This study will follow teachers for three years to see if teacher stress results in worse student behavior and test scores.
So the main things these studies tell me is that I'm glad that neither my son nor I are dealing with an institutionalized middle school education. However, I hope they come up with some valuable data about the effects on students' educational scores of life factors that teachers can't control, and help loosen the reliance on test scores as the sole determination of educational quality. I also really hope they come up with some better coping skills for these poor bullied and stressed-out students and teachers.
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Should We Refrain from Telling Our Children that They Are Smart?
We are doing our annual testing right now, which reminds me of a debate about the use and consequences of praising your children's intelligence that has been popular lately. Sparked primarily by articles like The Secret to Raising Smart Kids (Hint: Don't Tell Your Kids That They Are), the theory goes that praising children's intelligence encourages them to think that their academic achievements are based on an inherent quality (intelligences) that they either have or don't have. If they think they don't have it, they won't try; if they think they do have it, they either coast by on their natural talents or try to avoid anything that might demonstrate that they don't have as much intelligence as you think they do.
The alternative advocated by psychological research Carol Dweck, on whose studies most of this advice comes from, is to praise the amount of effort that children put into their work. Dweck found that students who received effort-related praise continue to put more hard work into their studies and were willing to take on more challenging tasks to prove how much more hard work they could do.
It all sounds good. But I'm always suspicious of these media-pushed, black and white, simple panaceas for educational issues. So I did a little checking, and found an excellent article in The Chronicle of Higher Education entitled Carol Dweck's Attitude: It's Not About How Smart You Art. As I expected, this discussion shows that the whole situation is much more complicated than the one-page version being shared on parenting websites around the web.
The article shows that in three recent studies done to test that theory, student performance did not reflect the predictions of Dweck's framework. In one case, the researchers believed that the "hard work" mindset could be just as detrimental as the "innate intelligence" is supposed to be in Dweck's theory (that is, those who believe that their scores are due to hard work and who expect to do badly will self-sabotage their work by listening to distracting music so that they can blame their poor performance on the music, rather than on their work).
The Chronicle article also talks about Dweck's earlier work, which was focused on an outside control/deterministic viewpoint versus a self-determining perspective, When I read about this research, it seems to me that this locus of control is really what is most important, rather than the "innate intelligence" versus "hard work" perpective per se. That is, if you aren't convinced that your performance and your life is under your control, you can find "outside" factors to blame your failure on, whether that is blaming your parents' DNA contributions to your lack of intelligence, or bad music or outside life factors for your inability to do the work necessary.
Another thing to consider about this "praise the effort" system is the fact that is is diametrically opposed to the actual assessments students face in schools these days. With all the high-stake testing that is running education today, it makes NO DIFFERENCE whether the student worked really, really hard preparing for and taking the test, or goofed off all year and treated the test as a joke. If the hard-working students don't achieve the minimum score, they fail and are held back, and if the lazy goof-offs ace the test, they are promoted. So I think raising students' hopes about the value of hard work could be counter-productive or misleading when the bottom line is that amount of effort doesn't count at all; only the number of right answers does.
I found a briefing paper by the Association of American Colleges and Universities entitled Greater Expectations to Improve Student Learning that I found useful about the general issue of expectations in education. For example, it says that Americans are particularly attached to this whole "innate intelligence" scenario, while other cultures attribute much more to hard work rather than raw ability. I also thought Daniel T. Willingham's Ask the Cognitive Scientist column on How Praise Can Motivate--Or Stifle to be a great resource in thinking about this topic.
As is typical for me, I think the "either or" approach is wrong. So in our case, I've told my son that he is smart, because he is, and I will continue to tell him that. I'm kind of an encouraging, "praise-y" personality anyway, and I think it would feel unnatural and inauthentic of me to withhold my assessment of his intelligence because of some research studies.
However, I also tell him that because I know how smart he is, I have high expectations for the quality of his work, and what other parents or teachers accept as "good enough" for other students may not be "good enough" for what I expect from him. And we discuss the fact that quality is a factor of effort as well as natural talent. We talk a lot about all sorts of gifted people and how hard they had to work to manifest their gifts, even with their natural abilities. So Michael Jordan had an incredible body for basketball--but that didn't mean that he hasn't practiced for hours almost every day of his adult life. Likewise with Mozart, or Picasso, or Einstein, or Maya Angelou or anyone....it all takes work to refine and apply whatever natural abilities we might have.
Don't get me wrong--I think it is a good thing to read and consider research like this--IF you are looking at the full picture, which usually has a lot more nuances than the "sound bite" version we get in a single page in a magazine or website. But in the end, we have to do what feels right as parents and teachers. And usually, that is a more common sense, mixed approach than the typical distinct treatment populations of research studies.
So if you want to tell you children they are smart--go ahead! Just don't forget to tell them that isn't the whole picture.
The alternative advocated by psychological research Carol Dweck, on whose studies most of this advice comes from, is to praise the amount of effort that children put into their work. Dweck found that students who received effort-related praise continue to put more hard work into their studies and were willing to take on more challenging tasks to prove how much more hard work they could do.
It all sounds good. But I'm always suspicious of these media-pushed, black and white, simple panaceas for educational issues. So I did a little checking, and found an excellent article in The Chronicle of Higher Education entitled Carol Dweck's Attitude: It's Not About How Smart You Art. As I expected, this discussion shows that the whole situation is much more complicated than the one-page version being shared on parenting websites around the web.
The article shows that in three recent studies done to test that theory, student performance did not reflect the predictions of Dweck's framework. In one case, the researchers believed that the "hard work" mindset could be just as detrimental as the "innate intelligence" is supposed to be in Dweck's theory (that is, those who believe that their scores are due to hard work and who expect to do badly will self-sabotage their work by listening to distracting music so that they can blame their poor performance on the music, rather than on their work).
The Chronicle article also talks about Dweck's earlier work, which was focused on an outside control/deterministic viewpoint versus a self-determining perspective, When I read about this research, it seems to me that this locus of control is really what is most important, rather than the "innate intelligence" versus "hard work" perpective per se. That is, if you aren't convinced that your performance and your life is under your control, you can find "outside" factors to blame your failure on, whether that is blaming your parents' DNA contributions to your lack of intelligence, or bad music or outside life factors for your inability to do the work necessary.
Another thing to consider about this "praise the effort" system is the fact that is is diametrically opposed to the actual assessments students face in schools these days. With all the high-stake testing that is running education today, it makes NO DIFFERENCE whether the student worked really, really hard preparing for and taking the test, or goofed off all year and treated the test as a joke. If the hard-working students don't achieve the minimum score, they fail and are held back, and if the lazy goof-offs ace the test, they are promoted. So I think raising students' hopes about the value of hard work could be counter-productive or misleading when the bottom line is that amount of effort doesn't count at all; only the number of right answers does.
I found a briefing paper by the Association of American Colleges and Universities entitled Greater Expectations to Improve Student Learning that I found useful about the general issue of expectations in education. For example, it says that Americans are particularly attached to this whole "innate intelligence" scenario, while other cultures attribute much more to hard work rather than raw ability. I also thought Daniel T. Willingham's Ask the Cognitive Scientist column on How Praise Can Motivate--Or Stifle to be a great resource in thinking about this topic.
As is typical for me, I think the "either or" approach is wrong. So in our case, I've told my son that he is smart, because he is, and I will continue to tell him that. I'm kind of an encouraging, "praise-y" personality anyway, and I think it would feel unnatural and inauthentic of me to withhold my assessment of his intelligence because of some research studies.
However, I also tell him that because I know how smart he is, I have high expectations for the quality of his work, and what other parents or teachers accept as "good enough" for other students may not be "good enough" for what I expect from him. And we discuss the fact that quality is a factor of effort as well as natural talent. We talk a lot about all sorts of gifted people and how hard they had to work to manifest their gifts, even with their natural abilities. So Michael Jordan had an incredible body for basketball--but that didn't mean that he hasn't practiced for hours almost every day of his adult life. Likewise with Mozart, or Picasso, or Einstein, or Maya Angelou or anyone....it all takes work to refine and apply whatever natural abilities we might have.
Don't get me wrong--I think it is a good thing to read and consider research like this--IF you are looking at the full picture, which usually has a lot more nuances than the "sound bite" version we get in a single page in a magazine or website. But in the end, we have to do what feels right as parents and teachers. And usually, that is a more common sense, mixed approach than the typical distinct treatment populations of research studies.
So if you want to tell you children they are smart--go ahead! Just don't forget to tell them that isn't the whole picture.
Saturday, December 11, 2010
Is Studying a Foreign Language Still Important?
Every year, we are advised about all the additional stuff we need to be teaching our middle schoolers and high schoolers. We are told they need more science and math, more computers and technology, more business and finance work, more arts and music, more writing, more more more. But how can we fit it all in? If we are adding in additional years in traditional subjects, or including new subjects like information technology, what do we let fall by the wayside in a school day that only has so many hours?
One area I haven't heard as much about lately is foreign languages. On one hand, with all the emphasis on the globalization of our modern world, it seems it would be important to communicate to at least some section of the planet that doesn't speak English. On the other hand, are we just assuming that everyone else will continue to learn English, so there is no need for us to learn one of their languages?
However, at least on the college level, it seems that foreign language instruction has been growing steadily for at least the last decade. The Modern Language Association has just released the results of its 2009 comprehensive survey of enrollments in languages other than English among 2,514 US undergraduate and graduate institutions. It shows that foreign language enrollments in 2009 were at an all-time high of 1,682,627 students, having grown by 6.6% between 2006-2009 and by nearly 13% from 2002-2006.
The most popular language by far (it enrolls more students than all other foreign languages combined) is Spanish, which has long held the #1 position in foreign language studies with 864,986 students. The second most popular language is French, with 216,419 students, and followed by German with 96,349 enrolled. These languages, along with what has traditionally been the fourth-ranked language, Italian, continue to grow, but by relatively small percentages (from 2-5%).
The great leaps in enrollments, however, have come from what the MLA calls "less commonly taught languages" or LCTLs, which grew by 31.2% from 2002-2006, then by an additional 20.8% from 2005-2009. The biggest percentage gains were registered among the Arabic languages, where enrollments raised by 126.5% from 2002-2006, then by another 46.3% in 2006-2009. Any guesses about what the most popular LCTL is? Actually, it is American Sign Language (ASL), which was up by 16.4% to a total of 91,763 students and supplanting Italian as the fourth most popular language. Japanese, with 73,434 enrollments, was the most popular Asian language and was the 6th most popular language overall, followed by Chinese in 7th place with 60,976 students. The top ten list was rounded out with Arabic in 8th place (35,083 students), Latin in 9th (32,606), and Russian in 10th (26,883). The only languages among the top 15 that reported losing students were Ancient Greek (although some of that was explained by some schools that have reclassified their Greek classes) and Hebrew, both Modern and Biblical.
The good news, according to experts, is that language studies seem to be more stable now then they were in the 1980s and 1990s. So if your children are interested in pursuing a LCTL, there's a good chance they can find a college that will enable them to continue their studies at the postsecondary level. Overall, US colleges and universities reported offering a total of 217 LCTLs, which is 35 more languages than were available in 2006.
One area I haven't heard as much about lately is foreign languages. On one hand, with all the emphasis on the globalization of our modern world, it seems it would be important to communicate to at least some section of the planet that doesn't speak English. On the other hand, are we just assuming that everyone else will continue to learn English, so there is no need for us to learn one of their languages?
However, at least on the college level, it seems that foreign language instruction has been growing steadily for at least the last decade. The Modern Language Association has just released the results of its 2009 comprehensive survey of enrollments in languages other than English among 2,514 US undergraduate and graduate institutions. It shows that foreign language enrollments in 2009 were at an all-time high of 1,682,627 students, having grown by 6.6% between 2006-2009 and by nearly 13% from 2002-2006.
The most popular language by far (it enrolls more students than all other foreign languages combined) is Spanish, which has long held the #1 position in foreign language studies with 864,986 students. The second most popular language is French, with 216,419 students, and followed by German with 96,349 enrolled. These languages, along with what has traditionally been the fourth-ranked language, Italian, continue to grow, but by relatively small percentages (from 2-5%).
The great leaps in enrollments, however, have come from what the MLA calls "less commonly taught languages" or LCTLs, which grew by 31.2% from 2002-2006, then by an additional 20.8% from 2005-2009. The biggest percentage gains were registered among the Arabic languages, where enrollments raised by 126.5% from 2002-2006, then by another 46.3% in 2006-2009. Any guesses about what the most popular LCTL is? Actually, it is American Sign Language (ASL), which was up by 16.4% to a total of 91,763 students and supplanting Italian as the fourth most popular language. Japanese, with 73,434 enrollments, was the most popular Asian language and was the 6th most popular language overall, followed by Chinese in 7th place with 60,976 students. The top ten list was rounded out with Arabic in 8th place (35,083 students), Latin in 9th (32,606), and Russian in 10th (26,883). The only languages among the top 15 that reported losing students were Ancient Greek (although some of that was explained by some schools that have reclassified their Greek classes) and Hebrew, both Modern and Biblical.
The good news, according to experts, is that language studies seem to be more stable now then they were in the 1980s and 1990s. So if your children are interested in pursuing a LCTL, there's a good chance they can find a college that will enable them to continue their studies at the postsecondary level. Overall, US colleges and universities reported offering a total of 217 LCTLs, which is 35 more languages than were available in 2006.
Friday, December 10, 2010
Gates Teacher Effectiveness Study Links Good Teaching with Gains in Test Scores
Some preliminary results were published today from the $45 million Measures of Effective Teaching study being conducted by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. The goal of this research, which is examining 3,000 teachers from seven urban school districts, including the Charlotte-Mecklenburg system here in North Carolina, is to develop a fair and comprehensive way to assess a teacher's overall role on student achievement beyond simply how their students do in high-stakes testing (which is called "value-added"measurement).
The headline among most of the educational journals about these results is that individual teachers' "value-added" histories (how much their students have raised their test scores in the past) strongly predict how they will do in the future, even if they have changed schools or classes. So, those teachers whose students have increased their scores significantly in previous years usually continue to teach classes with strong test score increases at the end of the year. These factors were linked regardless of subject matter or grade level.
Less highlighted in the study reviews, however, is the fact that the teachers who did a good job in raising student scores also were consistently rated high by their students on good teaching practices, such as giving clear explanations, explaining the same thing in several different ways, and showing care and concern for their students. The teachers with the biggest gains were also highly and consistently rated by students from all their different classes for their classroom management skills as well as for their tendency to present challenging academic content. So, basically, what this study says to me is that good teaching lead to good test scores.
This is, perhaps, not a revolutionary concept. But what I think it does indicate is that the teachers who are most effective in raising student scores due so NOT by focusing on the ends--the tests--but by the means--the process of instruction. The researchers emphasize that these are preliminary results of a multi-year project, so we aren't supposed to be drawing hard and fast conclusions yet. However, I think it supports the notion that "teaching to the test" doesn't work to raise test scores; good teaching does. And I think any research that helps lead us away from focusing on the test so much and concentrating on identifying, sharing, and rewarding good teaching IN AND OF ITSELF is a good thing.
The headline among most of the educational journals about these results is that individual teachers' "value-added" histories (how much their students have raised their test scores in the past) strongly predict how they will do in the future, even if they have changed schools or classes. So, those teachers whose students have increased their scores significantly in previous years usually continue to teach classes with strong test score increases at the end of the year. These factors were linked regardless of subject matter or grade level.
Less highlighted in the study reviews, however, is the fact that the teachers who did a good job in raising student scores also were consistently rated high by their students on good teaching practices, such as giving clear explanations, explaining the same thing in several different ways, and showing care and concern for their students. The teachers with the biggest gains were also highly and consistently rated by students from all their different classes for their classroom management skills as well as for their tendency to present challenging academic content. So, basically, what this study says to me is that good teaching lead to good test scores.
This is, perhaps, not a revolutionary concept. But what I think it does indicate is that the teachers who are most effective in raising student scores due so NOT by focusing on the ends--the tests--but by the means--the process of instruction. The researchers emphasize that these are preliminary results of a multi-year project, so we aren't supposed to be drawing hard and fast conclusions yet. However, I think it supports the notion that "teaching to the test" doesn't work to raise test scores; good teaching does. And I think any research that helps lead us away from focusing on the test so much and concentrating on identifying, sharing, and rewarding good teaching IN AND OF ITSELF is a good thing.
Monday, November 15, 2010
Should We Get Rid of Middle Schools?
Forget about just getting rid of F's--should be be getting rid of middle schools altogether? Researcher Peter Meyer of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute certainly seems to think we should, at least according to his article in Education Next entitled "The Middle School Mess." Meyer cites studies that show that students who attend K-8 grade schools, rather than stand-alone schools teaching 6th-8th grades, demonstrate fewer behavior problems, maintain higher rates of on-time high school graduation, and earn higher grades and higher standardized test scores.
So what's the problem with middle school? Meyer argues that the typical middle school does not put a high priority on academic achievement, and so does not demand sufficiently rigorous learning demands on the students in these grades.
According to Meyer, middle schools are a relatively recent invention. For most of the 20th century, 7th and 8th graders attended "Junior Highs" that were supposed to prepare them for high schools. But in the 1960's and 1970's, such institutions were attacked to putting too much pressure on the students, while not recognizing the developmental needs of early adolescents. The fear was that starting the academic preparation for college in junior high was forcing 12 and 13 year olds to focus solely on the core classes--math, reading and writing, and science. However, the educational theorists of the time protested that early adolescence should be a time for discovering and pursuing passions like art and music, journalism and drama, scouting and other outdoor experiences, and (in those time) topics like home and industrial education. Early adolescents, they felt, were dealing with a lot of physical, emotional, and hormonal changes, and needed time to explore not only these interests and potential study and/or career paths, but also to figure out who they were becoming and how they related to their family, peers, and world. Thus, middle schools were founded as a transitional time for 6th, 7th, and 8th graders to get used to the high school system of different classes with different teachers and other such attributes and to acquire subject-matter content and skills necessary to be successful in high school without overloading them with work so that they could try on different activities and ways of being as they matured into true adolescents.
So should we get rid of middle schools? I guess it depends on how much you buy into our current system of evaluating educational progress primarily, if not purely, by test scores and other quantifiable data. If one's priority is simply higher test scores, then our 1970's-style, more humanistically-designed middle schools are probably out of place. Meyer states that the recent trend is towards eliminating middle schools in favor of more K-8 institutions. However, I can see other curricular, economic, and practical rationales behind such schools, so I don't know without more research that a backlash against the middle school concept is fueling that trend.
My personal bias is that schools should be about developing happy, productive, well-rounded, and effective citizens, and I don't think that is measured by standardized tests. In fact, the current preoccupation with testing is one of the reason we have chosen to homeschool. And I would like to think that somewhere along the now 17+ years of institutionalized education that we now expect our children to attend there would be some kind of focus on developing aspects beyond being a highly-performing testing machine.
But, then, I know I'm an oddball. So what's your opinion? Do we need to get rid of middle schools, or at least get them on a more academically-focused track?
So what's the problem with middle school? Meyer argues that the typical middle school does not put a high priority on academic achievement, and so does not demand sufficiently rigorous learning demands on the students in these grades.
According to Meyer, middle schools are a relatively recent invention. For most of the 20th century, 7th and 8th graders attended "Junior Highs" that were supposed to prepare them for high schools. But in the 1960's and 1970's, such institutions were attacked to putting too much pressure on the students, while not recognizing the developmental needs of early adolescents. The fear was that starting the academic preparation for college in junior high was forcing 12 and 13 year olds to focus solely on the core classes--math, reading and writing, and science. However, the educational theorists of the time protested that early adolescence should be a time for discovering and pursuing passions like art and music, journalism and drama, scouting and other outdoor experiences, and (in those time) topics like home and industrial education. Early adolescents, they felt, were dealing with a lot of physical, emotional, and hormonal changes, and needed time to explore not only these interests and potential study and/or career paths, but also to figure out who they were becoming and how they related to their family, peers, and world. Thus, middle schools were founded as a transitional time for 6th, 7th, and 8th graders to get used to the high school system of different classes with different teachers and other such attributes and to acquire subject-matter content and skills necessary to be successful in high school without overloading them with work so that they could try on different activities and ways of being as they matured into true adolescents.
So should we get rid of middle schools? I guess it depends on how much you buy into our current system of evaluating educational progress primarily, if not purely, by test scores and other quantifiable data. If one's priority is simply higher test scores, then our 1970's-style, more humanistically-designed middle schools are probably out of place. Meyer states that the recent trend is towards eliminating middle schools in favor of more K-8 institutions. However, I can see other curricular, economic, and practical rationales behind such schools, so I don't know without more research that a backlash against the middle school concept is fueling that trend.
My personal bias is that schools should be about developing happy, productive, well-rounded, and effective citizens, and I don't think that is measured by standardized tests. In fact, the current preoccupation with testing is one of the reason we have chosen to homeschool. And I would like to think that somewhere along the now 17+ years of institutionalized education that we now expect our children to attend there would be some kind of focus on developing aspects beyond being a highly-performing testing machine.
But, then, I know I'm an oddball. So what's your opinion? Do we need to get rid of middle schools, or at least get them on a more academically-focused track?
Sunday, October 24, 2010
New Research Supports Critics of Wake County School Board Neighborhood Schools Policy
A new research study released on October 15, 2010 by The Century Foundation gives additional ammunition to the critics of the Wake County School Board's new efforts to move from economic diversity to neighborhood proximity as the basis for assignments to schools. The report, "Housing Policy is School Policy," shows that students from low socioeconomic backgrounds achieve significantly higher scores on standardized tests if they attend schools with low percentages of poverty when compared to their peers in high poverty schools, even though the latter students are targeted with much greater resources.
The study spent seven years following the educational progress of 858 elementary school students living in public housing in Montgomery County, Maryland. Montgomery County, a suburb of Washington, DC (where I used to live), is generally a very affluent and educated bedroom community for the Nation’s capitol; its demographics are very similar to the average population in Cary, NC, the affluent and educated bedroom community for the state’s capitol (which is where I live now). However, Montgomery County does one thing very differently; it requires developers to include public housing units along with all its middle/upper-middle class, or even elite development projects. Families applying for public housing are assigned to the different projects on a lottery basis.
Therefore, about half of the students in the study ended up going to a neighborhood school (possible because the neighborhoods themselves were socioeconomically diverse, due to the Montgomery County housing policy) where less than 20% of students qualified for the free school lunch program. The other half went to schools considered to be high-poverty because up to 60% of all students qualified for subsidized meals. This case is also special because since the housing is done by lottery, the students are distributed randomly between the two groups (as opposed to, for example, most charter schools, who enroll students of parents who motivated enough to jump through the hoops necessary to get their children into such special programs).
At the end of seven years, the poor students in the low-poverty schools has narrowed the gap between them and middle class or higher students by 50% in math and by 30% in reading. They achieved these gains even though the county gave the high-poverty schools an additional $2,000 per student for supplemental educational resources. Or, looking at it from the other perspective, an estimated $858,000 or so in additional funds targeted for high-poverty school students produced no effect, at least compared to simply sending them to low-poverty schools.
In truth, this is not a surprising discovery for professional educators. The original groundbreaking study of school inequality, the 1966 “Equality of Educational Opportunities” publication known as the Coleman Report, showed that the best predictors of student success in school were:
#1--Parental Income (of course, homeschoolers are an anomaly sub-popular in that regard) and
#2--Socioeconomic Status of the School attended.
In the nearly 45 years since that report, the data on the family’s socioeconomic status has not changed. Parental income still makes the biggest difference, statistically, in a student’s success than any other demographic feature--race, age, gender, etc. This study suggests that the second one has not changed either.
So the School Board can say what they like about ensuring the success of low-income students. But the research says that they are dismantling the system that has proven to be most effective is supporting those students. And even if there is extra money available to support additional resources for the high-poverty schools that would be created in high-poverty neighborhoods, it doesn't seem like it will produce any increase in educational achievement, at least in comparison to allowing them to remain in economically diverse schools.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)