The problem is not a lack of technology. The problem is poverty.

Comment on "Education Needs to Change as Fast as Technology," by Zack Sims. Posted at

http://www.forbes.com/sites/techonomy/2014/05/23/education-needs-to-change-as-fast-as-technology/

Mr. Sims hasn't done his homework. He points out that the "US is ranked by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the U.S. is 31st in math achievement, 24th in science, and 21st in reading." But a number of studies have shown that when we control for the effect of poverty, our students rank near the top of the world.

Mr. Sims also has a great deal of faith in flipped classrooms. But there is no research supporting this faith.  This technology is being pushed on classrooms without proper research.

The problem is not a lack of technology. The problem is poverty. The US child poverty rate is an inexcusable 24%.

Sources:

Control for effect of poverty: Payne, K. and Biddle, B. 1999. Poor school funding, child poverty, and mathematics achievement. Educational Researcher 28 (6): 4-13; Bracey, G. 2009. The Bracey Report on the Condition of Public Education. Boulder and Tempe: Education and the Public Interest Center & Education Policy Research Unit. http://epicpolicy.org/publication/Bracey-Report. Berliner, D. 2011. The Context for Interpreting PISA Results in the USA: Negativism, Chauvinism, Misunderstanding, and the Potential to Distort the Educational Systems of Nations. In Pereyra, M., Kottoff, H-G., & Cowan, R. (Eds.). PISA under examination: Changing knowledge, changing tests, and changing schools. Amsterdam: Sense Publishers. Tienken, C. 2010. Common core state standards: I wonder? Kappa Delta Phi Record 47 (1): 14-17. 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/).

Lack of evidence for flipped classrooms: http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/mar13/vol70/num06/Evidence-on-Flipped-Classrooms-Is-Still-Coming-In.aspx

Fairtest: http://www.fairtest.org/common-core-assessments-factsheet

Free Advertising for Duolingo

Sent to the Japan Times, May 23, 2014
Contrary to the impression given by The Japan Times's free commercial for Duolingo ("Duolingo chief shakes up language learning," May 23), there is no clear evidence that Duolinguo is effective in teaching foreign languages. The only research study done assessing the impact of Duolingo, which was funded by Duolingo, did not produce strong results: Forty-four percent of the subjects, mostly college graduates and many with advanced degrees, did not finish the 22-hour course and 25% of the subjects completed eight hours or less, with one subject doing only two hours.
In contrast, there are hundreds of published papers in respected scientific journals demonstrating what really does work in teaching foreign languages, and unlike Duolingo, these approaches do not require a computer.
For example, studies show that methods based on story telling and easy reading result in profound gains for beginners in English and other languages. For intermediate students, self-selected pleasure reading has been shown to be more effective than traditional methods for developing vocabulary, grammar, spelling, and writing style. Also, reading can be so pleasant that students are often eager to do it on their own.
Many of these studies have been done with those acquiring English as a second language in Japan, and they have been published in scholarly journals all over the world.  I hope that the Japan Times, its readers, and Duolingo CEO Luis von Ahn (who has no background in language education research), will study the work of some of the prominent scholars in Japan who have done quality research in this area, including Profs. Beniko Mason, David Beglar, and Atsuko Takase. 
Stephen Krashen

Some Sources:
Mason, B.,Vanata, M., Jander, K., Borsch, R., and Krashen, S. 2009. The effects and efficiency of hearing stories on vocabulary acquisition by students of German as a second foreign language in Japan. The Indonesian Journal of English Language Teaching, 5(1), 1-14.
Mason, B. 2011. Impressive gains on the TOEIC after one year of comprehensible input, with no output or grammar study. International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching 7(1). (ijflt.com)
Krashen, S. 2014. Does Duolingo "trump" university-level language learning? International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching 9(1):13-15.
Vesselinov, R. and Grego, J. 2012. Duolingo effectiveness study. Final Report. static.duolingo.com/s3/DuolingoReport_Final.pdf

Original article: Duolingo chief shakes up language learninghttp://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2014/05/23/national/duolingo-chief-shakes-up-language-learning/#.U3-O8y9efhM

In education, satire is obsolete (Alfie Kohn)

Quite a few people who reacted to my post (see below) thought it was real. It wasn't. It was an attempt at satire. Part of its failure was my fault, for not making it clear that it was satire. And part was the situation we are now living in, a situation so bizarre that this kind of announcement is believable. The reaction confirms Alfie Kohn's statement: In education, satire is now obsolete.

The post was inspired by the news that 69% of Californians said they liked the Common Core standards after hearing a brief statement about them. The statement said only that they "are designed to ensure that students graduating from high school have the knowledge and skills they need to enter college programs or the workforce." I'm surprised anybody would object.

I owe more than a hat-tip to Andy Borowitz, who writes amazing political satire. Follow him on borowitzreport.com.

OVERWHELMING SUPPORT FOR THE COMMON CORE!!!

There is now no doubt: Americans overwhelmingly support the common core. In a poll organized by the Pearson Publishing Company, 96% strongly agreed with the statement, "Schools should teach important things." By a wide margin, those surveyed also agreed that "teachers should help students learn stuff."

Education Secretary Arne Duncan announed that "This poll is a real-game changer. Despite the complaints of nay-sayers, the public has finally got the message about the common core."

In a separate poll carried out among staff members of the US Department of Education, 92% demonstrated their familiarity with learning theory, responding that they recognized the name "Piaget." Of those who did, however, 82% associated the name with a watch company.

(Hat-tip: Andy Borowitz)

OVERWHELMING SUPPORT FOR THE COMMON CORE!!!

There is now no doubt: Americans overwhelmingly support the common core. In a poll organized by the Pearson Publishing Company, 96% strongly agreed with the statement, "Schools should teach important things." By a wide margin, those surveyed also agreed that "teachers should help students learn stuff."

Education Secretary Arne Duncan announced that "This poll is a real-game changer. Despite the complaints of nay-sayers, the public has finally got the message about the common core."

In a separate poll carried out among staff members of the US Department of Education, 92% demonstrated their familiarity with learning theory, responding that they recognized the name "Piaget." Of those who did, however, 82% associated the name with a watch company. 

Hat-tip: Andy Borowitz

The common core: Don't forget what the real problem is.

Sent to the Seattle Times, May 15, 2014

I think the common core math standards are lousy on purpose, made lousy so that parents will complain ("2+2=What? Parents rail against Common Core math," May 15).
The common core architects will then make some adjustments, enough to stop the most vigorous complaints. Many complainers will then be satisfied and the public will be impressed with how open-minded the common core directors are.
But the common core itself will remain unchallenged. The common core was designed by non-educators, has no research supporting it, and will be enforced by more testing than we have ever seen on this planet.  It will also cost billions, and the plan to test all students online ensures massive and increasing technology expenditures forever.
Parents are right to protest the math standards, but should not forget what the real problem is.

Stephen Krashen

original article http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2023611545_apxcommoncorecomplicatedmath.html?syndication=rss

Does Shanghai have the world's best public schools?

Does Shanghai have the world's best public schools?
Sent to Newsweek

"Lessons from the world's best public school" (May 9) considers Shanghai to be the "world's best education system" (p. 30), because Shanghai's scores on international tests such as the PISA are at the top of the world. As Newsweek notes, however, Shanghai is "one of China's richest cities" (p. 31) and the children of migrant workers are excluded from their public schools. 

In contrast, American students' PISA scores are unspectacular. But  children are not excluded from school in the US,  and American schools must deal with a very high rate of child poverty, 24%, the second highest among 34 advanced economic countries.

Any comparison of educational programs must consider the effect of poverty.  Every study ever done has shown that poverty has a devastating effect on school performance.  Poverty means, among other things, food deprivation, lack of health care, and lack of access to books.

When researchers control for the effect of poverty, American scores are among the best in the world. When we examine middle class American students in well-funded schools, their scores are close to Shanghai's and ahead of all other countries tested. 

The current move in the US to become more like China in education, with more competition and more rigorous examinations, will do nothing to improve student achievement in the US. The problem is poverty. 


Stephen Krashen

Original article: http://www.newsweek.com/2014/05/09/shanghai-high-confidential-249224.html

Sources:

Level of poverty:
UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre (2012), ‘Measuring Child Poverty: New league tables of child poverty in the world’s rich countries’, Innocenti Report Card 10, UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre, Florence.


Control for poverty:
Payne, K. and Biddle, B. 1999. Poor school funding, child poverty, and mathematics achievement. Educational Researcher 28 (6): 4-13; Bracey, G. 2009. The Bracey Report on the Condition of Public Education. Boulder and Tempe: Education and the Public Interest Center & Education Policy Research Unit. http://epicpolicy.org/publication/Bracey-Report. Berliner, D. 2011. The Context for Interpreting PISA Results in the USA: Negativism, Chauvinism, Misunderstanding, and the Potential to Distort the Educational Systems of Nations. In Pereyra, M., Kottoff, H-G., & Cowan, R. (Eds.). PISA under examination: Changing knowledge, changing tests, and changing schools. Amsterdam: Sense Publishers. Tienken, C. 2010. Common core state standards: I wonder? Kappa Delta Phi Record 47 (1): 14-17. 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/). Krashen, S.  2010. How poverty affected U.S. PISA scores. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/answer-sheet/research/how-poverty-affected-us-pisa-s.html

“Poverty means poor nutrition, inadequate health care, and lack of access to books”:
Berliner, D. 2009. Poverty and Potential:  Out-of-School Factors and School Success.  Boulder and Tempe: Education and the Public Interest Center & Education Policy Research Unit. http://epicpolicy.org/publication/poverty-and-potential;   Krashen, S. 1997. Bridging inequity with books. Educational Leadership  55(4): 18-22.

Increasing testing does not mean greater achievement:
Nichols, S., Glass, G., and Berliner, D. 2006. High-stakes testing and student achievement: Does accountability increase student learning? Education Policy Archives 14(1).  http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v14n1/. OECD. Tienken, C., 2011. Common core standards: An example of data-less decision-making. Journal of Scholarship and Practice. American Association of School Administrators [AASA], 7(4): 3-18. http://www.aasa.org/jsp.aspx.

Response to Southern Poverty Law Center Statement on the Common Core

Response to: Public Schools in the Crosshairs: Far-Right Propaganda and the Common Core State Standards (Southern Poverty Law Center).

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/publications/Public-Schools-in-the-Crosshairs-Far-Right-Propaganda-and-the-Common-Core-State-Standards

 I agree that the debate about the common core must be rooted in the facts, and that the "propoganda machine on the right" has "polluted the debate" with outrageous accusations. There are, however, serious and legitimate arguments against the common core.

The stated reason for the common core is the supposedly poor performance of American students. But  when researchers control for the effect of poverty, American students' international test scores are at the top of the world.  Our  overall scores are unspectacular (but not terrible) because we have so much child poverty, 24%, the second highest among all economically advanced countries. 

Poverty means poor diet, inadequate health care, and little or no access to books. All of these have devastating effects on school performance.  The best teaching has little effect when children are hungry, ill and have nothing to read.

The common core not only ignores the real problem; it does nothing to protect children from the effects of poverty. It only offers us a an extremely expensive plan with no basis in the research: There is no research supporting "tough" standards or nonstop testing. Also, studies show that increasing testing does not improve school achievement.

The common core is a bad solution that is aimed at the wrong problem. 

Stephen Krashen

SOURCES:

Levels of poverty:

UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre 2012, ‘Measuring Child Poverty: New league tables of child poverty in the world’s rich countries’, Innocenti Report Card 10, UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre, Florence.

Control for poverty:

Payne, K. and Biddle, B. 1999. Poor school funding, child poverty, and mathematics achievement. Educational Researcher 28 (6): 4-13; Bracey, G. 2009. The Bracey Report on the Condition of Public Education. Boulder and Tempe: Education and the Public Interest Center & Education Policy Research Unit. http://epicpolicy.org/publication/Bracey-Report. Berliner, D. 2011. The Context for Interpreting PISA Results in the USA: Negativism, Chauvinism, Misunderstanding, and the Potential to Distort the Educational Systems of Nations. In Pereyra, M., Kottoff, H-G., & Cowan, R. (Eds.). PISA under examination: Changing knowledge, changing tests, and changing schools. Amsterdam: Sense Publishers. Tienken, C. 2010. Common core state standards: I wonder? Kappa Delta Phi Record 47 (1): 14-17. 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/).

“Poverty means poor nutrition, inadequate health care, and lack of access to books”:

Berliner, D. 2009. Poverty and Potential:  Out-of-School Factors and School Success.  Boulder and Tempe: Education and the Public Interest Center & Education Policy Research Unit. http://epicpolicy.org/publication/poverty-and-potential;   Krashen, S. 1997. Bridging inequity with books. Educational Leadership  55(4): 18-22.

Increasing testing does not mean greater achievement:

Nichols, S., Glass, G., and Berliner, D. 2006. High-stakes testing and student achievement: Does accountability increase student learning? Education Policy Archives 14(1).  http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v14n1/. OECD. Tienken, C., 2011. Common core standards: An example of data-less decision-making. Journal of Scholarship and Practice. American Association of School Administrators [AASA], 7(4): 3-18. http://www.aasa.org/jsp.aspx.