Teach Effectively!

Two organizations interested in improving the quality of education in the US have joined together to solicit support for their efforts. The organizations—Great Schools, and ED in 08—created a quiz that challenges parents to take a quiz about their knowledge of math or science (or both) and compare their results to those of students in the US and other countries. They’re using it to promote their agenda that they dub “Strong American Schools.” The image at the right opens a pop-up window from Ed in 08 for you to take the quiz.

Links for the sponsors: Great Schools (“the parent’s guide to K-12 Education”; interesting that they used the singular possesive) and Ed in 08.

The Division for Learning Disabilities (DLD) of the Council for Exceptional Children holds a conference annually in late October or early November. This year it is in Philadelphia (PA, US) and it features a batch of presentations that promise to be helpful to teachers, coaches, and administrators interested in learning how to implement evidence-based instructional practices.

Check the agenda for the next Fall Conference 24 and 25 October 2008 and then register! Learn about DLD’s “Bridging the Gap Between Research and Practice” and learn how you can participate in this outstanding professional development opportunity.

Please note that I am connected with DLD (long-time member, former president, currently executive director and co-editor of the Web site), but I’d be pushing this conference even if I wasn’t affiliated with it.

According to an analysis by Gregory J. Palardy and Russell W. Rumberger, differences in teacher effectiveness have larger effects on young children’s outcomes in reading and math than do differences in teachers’ backgrounds factors such as level of education and types of certifications held. The teacher quality effects were also substantially greater than the effects for children’s families’ SES in their study and than the effects for class-size reduction (25 25 versus 15 students per classroom) reported in another study.

Professors Palardy and Rumberger arrived at this conclusion by analyzing data from a large data set that is representative of students in the US. They used a sophisticated analytic approach that permitted them to assess the effects of inputs, processes, and outputs at the school, classroom, and individual student levels.

This study uses Early Childhood Longitudinal Study data to investigate the importance of three general aspects of teacher effects—teacher background qualifications, attitudes, and instructional practices—to reading and math achievement gains in first grade. The results indicate that compared with instructional practices, background qualifications have less robust associations with achievement gains. These findings suggest that the No Child Left Behind Act’s “highly qualified teacher” provision, which screens teachers on the basis of their background qualifications, is insufficient for ensuring that classrooms are led by teachers who are effective in raising student achievement. To meet that objective, educational policy needs to be directed toward improving aspects of teaching, such as instructional practices and teacher attitudes.

Palardy, G. J., & Rumberger, R. W. (2008). Teacher effectiveness in first grade: The importance of background qualifications, attitudes, and instructional practices for student learning. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30, 111-140.

Link to the abstract.

My colleague Dan Willingham has posted a marvelous video that’s an introduction to thinking about neuroscience and education. Under the title “Brain-based Education: Fad or Breakthrough,” he illustrates important elements about what are reasoned extrapolations from cognitive neuroscience to education and what are not.

• D-Ed Reckoning
• Eduwonkette
• Will Talheimers’ Will at Work (an unusually well reasoned commentary on digital learning): Be Skeptical of Brain-Based Learning

Update (7 June 2008): A couple of days ago, Dan posted a new version of the video; I’ve modified the links in the box accordingly.

This time the folks at “Weapons of Math Destruction” have raised the spectre of the Follow Through study of early education models. The cartoon characters (has a ring to it, doesn’t it?) are examining a graph showing the results of a comparison of alternative models of instruction.
Continue reading ‘WMD on FT’

One of the folks at the Access Center wrote to me a while ago to promote its Web presence. There are some free resources available, and some readers might find them instructive.

The Access Center: Improving Outcomes for All Students k-8 (www.k8accesscenter.org), [is] a federally funded national technical assistance center. I am taking this time to introduce you to our free resources. Our resources focus on core content areas – language arts, math, and science – as well as on instructional and learning strategies to provide students with disabilities access to rigorous academic content. We have a series of professional development modules and information briefs that are available on our Web site as well as on a CD-ROM, if requested.
Continue reading ‘Access Center materials’

Don Hirsch published an editorial in Education Week that tells it true. We need, he argues, to place a greater emphasis on what and how we teach during children’s early school years. Of course, he champions his recommendation for adopting a clear curriculum during the early years, too. But, the big idea is that the primary and elementary grades are very important if students are to be able to excel in high school and college.
Continue reading ‘Hirsch hits homer’

Yep, those folks at “Weapons of Math Destruction” apparently do not find constructivist approaches to teaching arithmetic and mathematics palatable. In this cartoon, the school administrators have crossed out practice and skills and a parent is responding by preparing to (ahem) regurgitate or recovering from having regurgitated.

Follow this link to get to the full site where you can explore at your leisure.