Thursday, June 12, 2014

The Key to Student Success


Sent to the Bergen County Record (New Jersey)
Hat-tip: Jim Trelease
"We are likely to find that the problems of housing and education, instead of preceding the elimination of poverty, will themselves be affected if poverty is first abolished.” (Martin Luther King, 1967, Final Words of Advice).

Readers of The Record might be interesting in knowing that Christoper de Vinck's column, "Key to student success lies in the home" (June 11) is going viral, as they say these days.  It is a clear statement of the insanity gripping education, and points clearly to the most important issues: Poverty and parent-child relationships. 

A great of evidence supports Mr. de Vinck's argument: Study after study confirms that middle-class American children in well-funded schools outperform nearly every country in the world on international tests: As de Vinck states, the problem is not teachers, unions, or lack of technology, it is poverty.  Poverty means insufficent nutrition, lack of health care, and lack of access to books, all of which are associated with poor school performance.  It is also likely that poverty and the stress it places on parents contributes to what Mr. de Vinck calls "chaos in the home."

The billions we are cheerfully spending on "rigorous" standards and massive testing needs to be spent on protecting children from poverty and working toward full employment at a living wage.

Stephen Krashen

De Vinck column:

Opinion: Key to student success lies in the home
http://www.northjersey.com/opinion/opinion-key-to-student-success-lies-in-the-home-1.1032741
June 10, 2014
By CHRISTOPHER DE VINCK
The Bergen Record
Christopher de Vinck is the language arts supervisor at Clifton High School in New Jersey. His 13th book is “Moments of Grace” (Paulist Press).
LET’S CREATE a national program called “No Child Left behind,” and flood the schools with standardized tests. Let’s change the name and call it “Race to the Top.” Let’s put kids in uniforms. Let’s increase the school day. Let’s pay teachers less money. Let’s pay teachers more money. Let’s create charter schools. Let’s create schools just for boys. Let’s create schools just for girls. Let’s have kids pray in school. Let’s create common core standards. Let’s blame the college teacher-education programs. Let’s blame the teachers. Let’s blame the parents. Let’s give the governors and the business community the keys to the schools. Let’s flood the schools with technology. Let’s call schools boring. Let’s blame the curriculum.
Don’t you see how foolish we have been? Don’t you see that all of these initiatives are focused on the politics of education and not education? Don’t you realize that none of these attempts has made any difference in the education of children for the past 40 years?
Based on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (the nation’s report card), the average reading scores for 17-year-olds today is not significantly different from the scores in 1971.
For the past 43 years our nation has been dodging the real reasons why our system of education has been stagnant.
Stable homes
I have worked in public education for my entire career, 38 years of tending to high school students as a teacher and as an administrator day after day, month after month, year after year. I can say with certitude why many students are doing poorly in school: Kids from financially stable homes are more successful students than kids from financially chaotic homes. Kids who come from homes with socially stable adults stay in school and succeed, and kids who live with socially chaotic adults don’t succeed in school and drop out at a significantly high rate.
Poor education in this country has nothing to do with the quality of the teachers, curriculum, computers, buildings, race, uniforms and ideology. The problems in our system of education stem from children who are not nourished intellectually, emotionally, physically and spiritually at home each day.
The problem in our education system is that we are working with the ideal as to what schools should be with our blatant, national refusal to tend to the realities of what many children’s homes are truly like.
Children who live in chaos at home are the very same children who look nice in uniforms, look angelic with their hands folded in prayer and who ache inside to be loved.
Reading and love
The children who are read to each night are the children who succeed in school. The children who are kissed each night with the words “I love you” whispered into their hearts are the children who are confident. The children who wake up to eggs and juice in the morning are the successful children with physical energy. Children who limit their exposure to social media are the children who are dazzled with the school’s teachers and curriculum. The children who sit at the dinner table and talk about their day are the children who love school.
Vision of their future
Helen Keller wrote that “knowledge is love and light and vision.” Children gain that love at home. The school turns the lights on in the classroom, and the teachers guide the children to the vision of their future.
Without love at home, there is no education.
As Plato wrote more than 2,000 years ago, “Knowledge which is acquired under compulsion obtains no hold on the mind.”
Education reform is not hiding in the tests. Education reform is hiding in the home.


Sunday, June 8, 2014

LA Times editorial and some reactions re bilingual education and SB 1174

" Over the last 16 years, academic research has largely found that good bilingual programs are just as effective at teaching English skills, and often slightly better at it, than classes that immerse students in English."
This is better coverage than we usually get. But the research 16 years ago was quite positive about bilingual education. And too bad the LA Times is not aware of the McField and McField study. We need to do a better job of spreading the word.  Amazing that they published the ignorant Chris Daley "flat earth" letter.

EDITORIAL LOS ANGELES TIMES:  IS BILINGUAL EDUCATION WORTH BRINGING BACK?
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-bilingual-education-proposition-227-repeal-20140605-story.html
A lot has changed since 1998, when Proposition 227 all but wiped out bilingual instruction in California public schools. The matter is due for reconsideration; a bill that passed the state Senate last week would allow that to happen.
SB 1174, by state Sen. Ricardo Lara (D-Bell Gardens), would place a measure on the November 2016 ballot to repeal Proposition 227 and allow local school districts to decide whether they want to bring back bilingual education rather than continue with the current system, which aims to move students toward full-time English use as quickly as possible.
Over the last 16 years, academic research has largely found that good bilingual programs are just as effective at teaching English skills, and often slightly better at it, than classes that immerse students in English. Along the way, they also teach students literacy in their native language.
Another reason to consider bilingual education: Shortly after Proposition 227 passed, testing and accountability requirements were imposed on schools. The academic skills of students, including those who aren't fluent in English, are now measured every year. That means that if bilingual education is failing students, that failure will become clear quickly, and schools will face potential disciplinary measures if they don't fix the problem.
A third factor: The globalization of the economy means that bilingualism confers a significant advantage in the work world.
Yet there were good reasons Proposition 227 passed. Bilingual education is more expensive. The state suffered continual shortages of qualified bilingual teachers. Worse, bilingual education was often poorly done. It's important to consider the academic studies that have shown slightly better results for bilingual classes, but remember that those studies involved top-notch programs with outstanding teachers. California's public schools seldom came close to the model, and before Proposition 227, thousands of students were handed diplomas without ever having mastered English.
To persuade voters, supporters of bilingual education will have to demonstrate that they can overcome these obstacles.
Dual immersion programs, a subset of bilingual education in which students from different language backgrounds study in two languages, gaining fluency in both, have often succeeded and are increasingly popular. Such programs exist in California, but they have been small and have involved populations of motivated parents and students. Bringing them up to scale so that they work statewide might be difficult.
These are debates worth having, and SB 1174 would provide the forum for them.
Readers React: Bringing back bilingual education – LETTERS published in the LA Times, June 8
It's about time we reconsider the research that tells us that a transitional bilingual program leads to fluency in two languages. ("Is bilingual education worth bringing back?," Editorial, June 5)
Let's not fall into the trap of testing a subject in English that has been taught in the primary language. Let's not expect a child to be truly bilingual before five or six years of instruction. It's a gradual process. Let's find "top-notch programs with outstanding teachers."
Everyone needs a chance to succeed academically. It's possible. It will be good for all students, and for the future of Los Angeles.
Frances Goldstein
Sherman Oaks
The writer is a retired L.A. Unified School District bilingual education teacher.
SB 1174 by state Sen. Ricardo Lara (D-Bell Gardens) to allow for the return of bilingual education is a horrible idea.
In 1998, Proposition 227 passed easily, not because a bunch of xenophobes were behind it but because leaders in non-English-speaking communities supported it. They understood that to be successful, you had to know English.
Teaching a second language to all students is a great idea. This should start in the early grades, but non-English speakers should not be given credit for studying English or the language they already know.
All other instruction must be in English if our children are to have the skills they will need to succeed in a more competitive world.
Chris Daly
Yucaipa

Saturday, June 7, 2014

SAY WHAT?


" (Bill) Gates has said that one of the benefits of common standards would be to open the classroom to digital learning, making it easier for software developers — including Microsoft — to develop new products for the country’s 15,000 school districts.
In February, Microsoft announced that it was joining Pearson, the world’s largest educational publisher, to load Pearson’s Common Core classroom materials on Microsoft’s tablet, the Surface. That product allows Microsoft to compete for school district spending with Apple, whose iPad is the dominant tablet in classrooms.
Gates dismissed any suggestion that he is motivated by self-interest."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-bill-gates-pulled-off-the-swift-common-core-revolution/2014/06/07/a830e32e-ec34-11e3-9f5c-9075d5508f0a_story.html?wprss=rss_local

Inigo Montoya challenges common core testing program


Comment on Ed Week blog, ELLs Test-Drive New English-Language Proficiency Assessments

Posted at: http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/learning-the language/2014/06/wida_field_testing_new_english.html

Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. ...  (from: The Princess Bride).

We are told that ELLs are about to "test drive" the "New English-Language Proficiency Assessments." (June 5).

What does "test-drive" mean? I suspect it means that basic diagnostics such as internal reliability and item-analysis will be done. I suspect that it does not include the most important diagnostic: Validity, especially predictive validity.  Will there be any attempt to see if all this testing will do students any good?

Will the students be paid for their service?

Recommended reading (Outrageous self-promotion): Krashen, S. 2008. The fundamental principle: No unnecessary testing (NUT).  The Colorado Communicator vol 32,1. Page 7, 2008. Available for free download at: http://sdkrashen.com/articles.php?cat=4  (scroll down)




Friday, June 6, 2014

Arne Duncan suggests year-round school as a solution to the summer slide. I disagree.


Arne Duncan has suggested that year-round school is the solution to the summer slide.  Thanks to the common core, year-round school will make things worse.

Research tells us that those living in poverty have the least access to books. Students living in poverty also show the most summer loss, and those who read more over the summer make better gains in reading achievement. Providing more access to interesting reading material by investing in public libraries and librarians is an excellent way to deal with summer learning loss.
School during the summer means more common core, and less chance of pleasure reading happening. The common core discourages pleasure reading, because of its harsh set of standards, nonstop testing, and restriction to reading at or above "grade level," which for half of our students means a limitation to difficult reading (by definition, half of the students read below grade level, because grade level means the 50th percentile). In addition, there is less funding than ever for school libraries, thanks the huge amount of money being spent on online testing.
Some sources:
Poverty and access to books: Neuman, S. and Celano, D. 2001. Access to print in low-income and middle-income communities. Reading Research Quarterly 36(1): 8-26.

Summer loss and poverty, more reading and gains:
Allington, R. and McGill-Franzen, Anne. 2012. Summer Reading: Closing the Rich/Poor Reading Achievement Gap. New York: Teachers College Press.
Heyns, Barbara. 1975.  Summer Learning and the Effect of School. New York: Academic Press.
Kim, Jimmy. 2003. Summer reading and the ethnic achievement gap, Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk 9, no. 2:169-188.
Shin, Fay. and Krashen, Stephen. 2007. Summer Reading: Program and Evidence. New York: Allyn and Bacon.
The common core and reading: Krashen, S. 2013. Access to books and time to read versus the common core standards and tests.  English Journal 103(2): 21-39. (available at www.sdkrashen.com).

MORE MONEY FOR ON-LINE TESTING?

Posted as a comment on "Ed. Groups Urge More Federal Spending for Common-Core Tests," at: http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/DigitalEducation/2014/06/more_federal_funds_for_common-.html?cmp=ENL-EU-NEWS3

More money to support the biggest boondoggle in the history of education?

There is zero research supporting the value of on-line testing, and no plans to do even small scale studies. The amount of money on-line testing will cost will be staggering and will increase dramatically. Every student has to have access to an modern computer with up-to-date capacity, and just to keep up with changes, the computers will have to be replaced every three years and the entire infra-stucture might have to be altered or replaced. Moreover, we are increasing the amount of required testing far beyond NCLB levels, a move that also has no support in the research.

All this at a time when budgets are strained, and there is little or no money for essentials, for things that have been consistently shown to help students.

PS: One of the two groups pushing for more money for testing technology, CoSN, is itself financially supported by companies that are profiting from the increase in testing and technology in the schools: Pearson, Microsoft, Dell, (see: http://www.cosn.org/about/corporate-sponsorship/corporate-and-media-partners) and, of course, The Gates Foundation (http://www.aasa.org/ClosingtheGap.aspx), a major funder of the common core.

Monday, June 2, 2014

This should settle the bilingual education debate

Bilingual Programs Facilitate Students' Acquisition of English
Letter published in Education Week, July 9, 2014

 A recent Learning the Language blog post on California bilingual education is right: Things have changed dramatically since the dismantling of bilingual education in California caused by the passage of Proposition 227.
The most important change is that there is more evidence than ever that bilingual education works, and that bilingual education does a better job of helping children acquire English than all-English "immersion" programs do. In their paper "The Consistent Outcome of Bilingual Education Programs: A Meta-analysis of Meta-analyses," Grace McField and David McField considered comparisons of bilingual education and English immersion that had been included in previous meta-analyses. (Their study is published in The Miseducation of English Learners, edited by Grace McField and released by Information Age Publishing earlier this year.)
The authors concluded that, when both program quality and research quality are considered, the superiority of bilingual education was considerably larger than that reported in previous analyses. This should settle the argument: Bilingual programs, when set up correctly and evaluated correctly, do not prevent the acquisition of English—they facilitate it.

Stephen Krashen
Professor Emeritus of Education
University of Southern California