Writing for the Boston (MA, US) Globe under the headline “Seeking a kinder word for failure: Schools’ morale front and center,” Tracy Jan reported that Massachusetts school officials have debated what words to use to describe schools were too many students fail. Check this lead:
To soothe the bruised egos of educators and children in lackluster schools, Massachusetts officials are now pushing for kinder, gentler euphemisms for failure.
Continue reading ‘Stigmatizing schools’
Sphere: Related Content
Singapore Math was featured in an article by Mitchell Landsberg on the front of the Web site of the Los Angeles (CA, US) Times on 9 March 2008. To introduce his case study of the success of Singapore math, Mr. Landsberg used a clever bar-math-like lead:
Here’s a little math problem:
In 2005, just 45% of the fifth-graders at Ramona Elementary School in Hollywood scored at grade level on a standardized state test. In 2006, that figure rose to 76%. What was the difference?
If you answered 31 percentage points, you are correct. You could also express it as a 69% increase.
But there is another, more intriguing answer: The difference between the two years may have been Singapore math.
On it’s face, Singapore Math looks appealing. It has multiple strengths: teaching students algorithms; integrated and multiple repetitions; low reading load; etc. What it doesn’t really have is clear and powerful research support; in their synthesis of research on effective programs in elementary mathematics, Bob Slavin and Cynthia Lake could not find strong studies examining the effects of Singapore Math. We—educators concerned with providing effective instruction for students—need those studies.
Link to Mr. Landsberg’s article. Link to the review by Professors Slavin and Lake. Learn more about Singapore Math from a study by Alan Ginsberg and colleagues.
Sphere: Related Content
The frequently maligned local education agency of Washington (DC, US) is taking steps to improve the services it provides to students with disabilities, according to an article by V. Dion Haynes entitled “Special-Ed Getting New Computer System, Staff” and published 27 February 2008 in the Wasington Post. These changes stem from a suit—Blackman v. District of Columbia—in which parents claimed that their children were not receiving special education services in a timely manner.
The District school system plans to spend $4.3 million on a computer system designed to keep track of special education students’ academic life, replacing several systems plagued by bad data and an inability to communicate with one another.
During a news conference yesterday, D.C. State Superintendent of Education Deborah A. Gist also announced that the city plans to hire 30 full-time case management workers, at a cost of $3.2 million, so that students referred to special education can receive services more quickly
The initiatives are “a way in which we intend to serve students more effectively,” Gist said. She was joined by Mayor Adrian M. Fenty (D) at a news conference in the lobby of her office at Judiciary Square.
I am glad to see that the DC schools are responding to the issue of getting services to students quickly. Given the numbers of students served in large local education agencies, it is understandable that computer systems could be helpful. Including case managers also is quite sensible, and I hope that they can be authorized and prepared to work collaboratively with parents in ensuring the delivery of services.
What remains to be ensured, of course, is the quality of those services. I’m not talking about “Cadillac-vs-Chevrolet” quality of services. I’m referring to the nature or character of the services. Will the case managers broker evidence-based practices? Will the computers track progress on important relevant student outcomes and the services that produce those outcomes?
I hope that the DC schools place similar emphasis on preparing and empowering special education providers to deliver effective teaching practices.
Link to Mr. Haynes’ article.
Sphere: Related Content