Teach Effectively!

Isabel Sawhill and Jon Baron published an editorial in Education Week calling for a new approach to the venerable Head Start program, one founded on evidence about effectiveness. They argue that in the wake of the discouraging Head Start Impact Study reported by US Department of Health & Human Services, it’s time to bring research into the nation’s play pre-schools.

A new approach is needed. One that has been suggested—defunding these programs—would amount to giving up the fight against major social problems such as educational failure and poverty that damage millions of American lives. A far better alternative is to use rigorous evidence about “what works” to evolve Head Start and other federal efforts into truly effective programs over time, and to use sophisticated models to trace their longer-term effects on children’s life prospects.

Continue reading ‘Evidence-based education in Head Start?’

Over on Zig Site, Siegfried Engelmann has a new series of articles in which Socrates questions fictitious educators about educational concepts. In the first, Socrates engages one Dr. Gibbs, a “prominent professor of education.” Here’s an excerpt:

Dr. Gibbs: Learning is extremely complicated and influenced by a host of factors, including motivation and parental attitudes. The point I try to make to my students is that every child is an individual who learns according to his or her time table, and in his or her unique way.

Socrates: You give us a lot to think about. But is there some fact or rule that describes all learning?

Dr. Gibbs. Of course not. The learner is what the learner does and what the learner has inherited. Learning is not some kind of cut-and-dried process. The most specific thing one could confidently say about all learning is that it occurs in a series of predictable stages, which have been described by Piaget and others.

Just imagine the hash that Socrates makes of such bologna!

In another, Socrates and Dr. Baram Rosenthal, an “educational guru,” discuss reading instruction. Catch ‘em at Zig Site. Look in the left rail.

In the spirit of the end-of-the-year and end-of-the-decade lists mania that seems to grip us (ahem!) periodically, over on On our Minds, Sarah Trabucchi had a post last week entitled “The Decade’s 10 Big Ideas in Education.” Ms. Trabucchi list was the product of the “education brains” at the publisher, Scholastic.

What’s on the list? It includes alternate paths to teaching, transformative technology, accountability, data-driven instruction, charter schools, the rise of digital content, a focus on adolescent literacy, books are the new black, it takes a village, the American Recovery & Reinvestment Act.
Continue reading ‘What matters in education?’

US Secretary of Education Arne Duncan spoke to the National Education Association today, calling on its members to work with him toward the goal of ensuring that “every child in America is learning from an effective teacher—no matter what it takes.”

That’s a noble goal. In my view, it requires that educators shed their allegiance to theory and adopt effective teaching practices. That’s what it takes.

To be sure, there is a lot of emphasis on high-stakes testing. Mr. Duncan even discussed it as one of the four features of his plan for reforming education. The effective teacher idea is another of the four. High-stakes tests (which need reform of their own, in my view—that’s another post) are only part of the game. Another is using evidence to guide instruction.

But even in the absence of results on high-stakes tests and from pristine research projects, educators can ascertain whether they’re using effective methods. That is, we can devise our own means of ascertaining whether teaching practices are effective at a more micro level. In a lot of ways, the process is relatively simple:

1. Identify goals and objectives in objectively measurable terms. How will we know if the students have learned X?
2. Identify the skills and knowledge that students will need to demonstrate mastery of those goals and objectives. What is required to show that a student can competently and independently do X?
3. Devise teaching algorithms for leading students to acquire the skills and knowledge identified in (ii).
   • Model: Demonstrate the skills for the students or tell them the knowledge;
   • Test: Have the students perform the skill or state the knowledge;
   • Coach: Reinforce and correct their performance;
   • Practice to mastery: Have them perform the skill or repeat the knowledge until they are facile with it and can do it under different, increasingly more challenging conditions.
4. Assess students’ competence according to the goals and objectives specified in (i).

Sure, I’ve simplified it here. Sure, the goals and objectives would need to be integrated in a fashion consistent with an epistemology of various subject areas. And, you’ll have to cut me a little slack about my use of words such as “tell” and “correct”; telling would need to include providing materials to read, for example. But the idea is just about as simple as I’ve sketched it here.

The area of early reading has been mapped according to this perspective on teaching. We can say how we would recognize a competent reader (i), what the component skills are (ii), and how to teach those skills. But the to-be-learned material doesn’t have to be elementary level reading. If the area is chemistry and the objectives were conducting an experiment using electrophoresis, I think we could perform a similar analysis.

Of course, the real trick will be to get people on board with such thinking. Mr. Duncan seems to want to do something like that, but he’s talking about things at a much grander scale.

Remarks of Arne Duncan to the National Education Association—Partners in Reform

Peter R. Orszag, Director of the US Office of Management and the Budget, posted an entry in the blog for his office that emphasizes points I make on Teach Effectively. Here’s the lead

Building Rigorous Evidence to Drive Policy

One of the principles motivating the President’s Budget is that, as a nation, we haven’t been making the right investments to build a new foundation for economic prosperity — and we need smarter investments in education, health care, and social services.

But, in making new investments, the emphasis has to be on “smarter.” Many programs were founded on good intentions and supported by compelling anecdotes, but don’t deliver results.

This is good stuff. “Smarter” is a worthwhile emphasis. Good intentions are the pavement for just about every reform in education, but that doesn’t mean that the path goes in the right direction. The path has to lead to better outcomes for students. If a path hasn’t been proven to go there, then educators should go a different way. So far, the “educational investments” are mostly words, so we’ll have to see how they evolve, of course.

Meanwhile, here’s a suggestion: In education, we need some way to reward practitioners who employ evidence in determining their actions. That means we need objective standards (not just what people say they are doing) for assessing the degree to which practice is guided by evidence. Then we need to collect the data about those folks’ (buildings’, local education agencies’) practices and their students’ outcomes.

Link to read the entire entry.

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.

Over at The Education Gadfly, Michael J. Petrilli has an editorial entitled “What if ‘improving teacher quality’ isn’t THE answer?” In it Mr. Petrilli goes through a pretty thoughtful discussion of some of the reservations that have been expressed about the improve-teacher-quality path for improving outcomes for students (e.g., recruiting a la Teach for America; alternative certification; incentives for teachers who take tough assignments). Ultimately, he comes to the conclusion that those paths are not likely to be fruitful.

So let’s summarize: we’re unlikely to fill all of America’s classrooms with teachers from the ranks of society’s “best and brightest.” And we’re particularly unlikely to do so in tough urban or rural areas, outside of a handful of hot cities where young college grads like to live. Which means that lots of our children–especially poor and minority children–are going to have teachers who may be good but are not likely to be great. These are teachers who themselves received so-so public school educations, attended so-so colleges, are raising families and thus probably don’t want to work sixty hours a week, but who do care about their students and want them to succeed.

Shouldn’t we be thinking about how to make these average teachers more effective, too, and augmenting them via technology and other stratagems, rather than putting all our eggs in the “superstar teacher” basket? (Look out for my thoughts about how to do that in a future Gadfly.)

I think Mr. Petrilli arrived at a close-to-right conclusion. It’s not a bull’s-eye shot (technology?), but we do need to begin helping average and below-average teachers teach more effectively. In fact, although he seems to have backed into it, teaching effectively is about our only hope for improving schools. Other solutions (recruiting smart people to teach) are still one or more steps removed from teaching effectively.

As Erin Johnson noted in one of the comments on Mr. Petrilli’s post, and echoing the very premise of Teach Effectively, what we need is less talk about teacher quality and more investment in teaching quality.

Link to Mr. Petrilli’s editorial.

Over on d-edreckoning, Ken De Rosa has a wonderful post explaining how some widely discussed educational constructs fail to have the impact that teaching effectively has. He’s constructed normal curves showing the relative effects of class size and socio-economic status on the average achievement when low-level achievement is the base.
Continue reading ‘Sucky pet reforms’