Thursday, July 11, 2013

The tests will survive even if school doesn't.


The US Department of Education reassures the public about funding: The new tests will survive, even if school doesn't.

Press Conference held by the US Department of Education.
Language Magazine 12 (3): 19, 2012.
Dolores Umbridge, Assistant Secretary of Education, US Department of Education, reassured educators and parents today that the huge budget cuts mandated by the new budget agreement will not harm our children. "The essentials, the new tests, will remain intact," she announced. "The Department of Education is firm on its plans to require end- of-year tests, formative tests, and, we are hoping, fall pre-tests in all subjects. We are also firm in our resolve to require pre-kindergarten screening, and, as planned, all tests will be administered on-line."
Reporter H. Potter from the Hogwarts Daily led the question and answer portion of the press conference with this question: "What about the huge expense of the tests? It has been estimated that just getting each student connected to the internet will cost billions."
In response, Umbridge admitted that the new budget was a "game changer": "Yes, of course we will have to cut back elsewhere. The Department of Education has planned for these immediate steps: The first step will be to fully adopt the Teach For America model: All teachers will be hired for two-year terms. This will eliminate extra pay for seniority and, of course, retirement benefits, so teachers will no longer be able to live in luxury when they retire. Second, cuts are also planned for other non-essentials. We will immediately eliminate wasteful programs such as free breakfast/lunch programs, school nurses, and libraries. School, we believe, should not be a welfare program."
Mr. Potter then commented: "Why not just get rid of public schools while you're at it?"
Umbridge responded that this option was also "on the table": "This is a creative idea that we have been discussing. We would, of course, keep the tests. It would be up to the families to help students prepare for the tests, which will be a great incentive for private school and tutoring entrepreneurs. In doing this, we are simply taking the idea of school turnarounds to the next level: We will turnaround every school in the country, and replace them with vigorous private-sector services that focus students on test preparation.
And to make sure we remain financially solvent during the coming hard times, a modest fee would be charged for taking each test. The tests, of course, would be required for every student up to age 16 to make sure all students are making adequate progress in mastering 21st century skills."
Umbridge concluded by restating her pledge: "Remember what Secretary Duncan has been saying: 'Don't act softly and tinker on the margins.' Our plans are to use the crisis as a way of making things better. It forces us to eliminate useless programs, and sharpens and intensifies our focus on what really counts: Tests."
Mr. Potter managed to get in one more question: "We all agree that some testing is a good idea, but isn't this too much testing?"
As she was leaving the podium, Ms. Umbridge answered: "You can never have too much testing." 

The US is not failing at teacher preparation.


The US is not failing at teacher preparation.
Submitted to the San Francisco Chronicle, July 11, 2013

Contrary to claims made by a group of California superintendents ("U.S. failing at teacher prep," July 10), the US is not failing at teacher preparation. Quite the contrary.

When we control for the effects of poverty, American students rank near the top of the world on international tests. Also, graduates of American schools go on to perform impressively in the real world: According to the 2013 Global Innovation Index, which is based partly on new patents and the publication of scientific and technical journal articles, the US economy ranks 5th in the world out of 142. It is hard to conclude from these results that we have a problem in teacher education or teacher quality.

The conclusions in "U.S. failing in teacher prep" are based on a report that only considered factors such as admissions standards and course offerings. As Susan Ohanian has pointed out, this is like judging restaurants on the basis of their menus.

Stephen Krashen

Original article: http://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/article/U-S-failing-to-adequately-prepare-teachers-4656045.php

Sources:
Control for poverty: Payne, K. and Biddle, B. 1999. Poor school funding, child poverty, and mathematics achievement. Educational Researcher 28 (6): 4-13; Carnoy, M and Rothstein, R. 2013, What Do International Tests Really Show Us about U.S. Student Performance. Washington DC: Economic Policy Institute. 2012. http://www.epi.org/).



A surplus, not a shortage, of STEM workers

Sent to Austin-American Statesman, April 16, 2013

Lonny Stern’s claim that Investment in science, math is good business (April 15) is based on his assertion that there are 2.5 STEM jobs available for every unemployed person.

Mr. Stern may want to consult research done by Rutgers Professor Hal Salzman, who concludes that there are two to three qualified graduates for each science/tech opening: There appears to be surplus, not a shortage, of STEM-trained workers. Studies have also shown that there is a "PhD glut": According to the Atlantic (Feb, 2013), the US is 
producing more Ph.D.s in science than the market can absorb.

Stephen Krashen


Original article: http://www.statesman.com/news/news/opinion/stern-investing-in-science-math-and-engineering-ed/nXMZ2/


Sources:
The Ph.D Bust: America's Awful Market for Young Scientists—in 7 Charts. http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/02/the-phd-bust-americas-awful-market-for-young-scientists-in-7-charts/273339/
Salzman, H. & Lowell, B. L. 2007. Into the Eye of the Storm: Assessing the Evidence on Science and Engineering Education, Quality, and Workforce Demand. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1034801
Salzman, H. and Lowell, L. 2008. Making the grade. Nature 453 (1): 28-30.
Salzman, H. 2012. No Shortage of Qualified American STEM Grads (5/25/12) http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/should-foreign-stem-graduates-get-green-cards/no-shortage-of-qualified-american-stem-grads.
See also:
Teitelbaum, M. 2007. Testimony before the Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation. Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC, November 6, 2007

Saturday, July 6, 2013

Reading for pleasure works


Published in the Tampa Bay Times, July 5, 2013
Re: Summer school, less heat, June 29
Reading for pleasure works
Pinellas County's summer program is doing it the hard way: More classroom instruction in reading is not nearly as effective as encouraging free, voluntary self-selected reading.
The first study of the summer slump, done in 1975 by Barbara Heyns, showed that the difference in reading development between children from low and middle incomes is largely the result of lack of access to reading material over the summer. Heyns found that those who live closer to libraries read more, and both Heyns and Harvard scholar Jimmy Kim, 30 years later, found that children who read more over the summer made more gains in reading.
Also, Fay Shin and I reported that sixth-graders behind in reading who participated in a summer program focusing on self-selected reading and plenty of library time made dramatic gains in reading.
All this agrees with mountains of research showing that extensive reading for pleasure is far more effective than traditional classroom instruction in reading for boosting reading proficiency, as well as studies showing that better libraries mean higher reading proficiency.
Stephen Krashen, Los Angeles
http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/letters/saturdays-letters-keep-out-of-no-win-syrian-conflict/2130032

Friday, July 5, 2013

Teachers paying for books for students: A moral dilemma (published in 2005)


A moral dilemma and a solution
Stephen Krashen
Letter to the Editor, Reading Today, June/July 2005, p. 19

"Teachers dip into their own pockets for school supplies" (April/May issue, p. 41) should have been a lead story on page one of Reading Today, as well as in every newspaper in the United States. The National Education Association finding that the teachers polled spent average of nearly $1,200 out of their own pockets yearly in non-reimbursed school expenses confirms that schools are underfunded and also demonstrates the dedication of members of the teaching profession.
Of special interest to IRA members is how much teachers spend on books. The NEA reported that teachers spend an average of $250 of the total $1,200 on "books and videos" for their students. This is quite close to what others have found. In a recent article published in Reading Horizons, Christy Lao of San Francisco State University reported that the New York City teachers she interviewed spent an average of $378 per year of their own money on classroom library books for their students. If these data are typical, teachers are spending more on books than school libraries are. According to a survey published in the School Library Journal in 2003 by Marilyn Miller and Marilyn Shontz, school libraries now spend about $9 per year per student on books. There are about 50 million public school students in the United States. From this we can estimate that about $400 million is spent on books in school libraries, assuming 90% of all students in the U.S. have access to a school library.
If the average teacher spends $250 on books for students, this amounts to three quarters of a million dollars (3 million teachers nationwide). If Lao's figure of $378 is typical, they spend about a billion dollars, more than double the amount spent for books in school libraries. If teachers' practices reflect the need, this figure suggests that we should spend at least double the amount we are now spending on books.
Teachers face a serious moral dilemma. If they don't spend their own money on books, equipment, and even toilet paper, the students suffer, especially students from low- income families who often attend seriously underfunded schools and have little access to books outside of school. If teachers do spend their own money, there is no pressure on the system to supply these essentials. The only solution is to create pressure by doing studies such as the NEA and Lao did and by publicizing the results. 

A better way to evaluate schools of education (American education works)



Published in the Los Angeles Times July 9, 2013
Eli Broad's criticism of American schools of education as well as the letters commenting on his op-ed article missed an important, but apparently little known fact: our educational system has been highly successful.
When researchers control for poverty, American students' international test scores rank near the top of the world. 
The products of our educational system do very well: The US economy is currently ranked as the 5th most innovative in the world out of 142, according to the 2013 Global Innovation Index, which is based in part on the availability of education, new patents and the publication of scientific and technical journal articles.
Evaluating schools of education should be based on real world results, not descriptions of courses and admission standards. The kind of criticism Broad makes is like criticizing an Olympic gold medalist because experts have decided that she did not do enough sit-ups in training.
Stephen Krashen
Original article: 
Letters to the editor: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/letters/la-le-0705-friday-eli-broad-teachers-20130705,0,5455383.story

Wednesday, July 3, 2013

Van Roekel asks "What do you want instead (of the common core)?" My response.


NEA president Dennis Van Roekel has asked: “If you don’t want it (common core), what do you want instead?"

The question assumes that something is seriously wrong with American schools and that schools need to be fixed. We are always working to improve teaching, but there is no crisis in teaching. The real crisis is poverty.
What I want instead is: (1) dump the CC$$ (for a quick summary of arguments, please see:  http://skrashen.blogspot.com/2013/06/common-cores-claims-are-false.html   (2) protect children from the impact of poverty by investing more in food programs, health care, and libraries.  (3) pay for (2) by reducing testing. A lot.