Giving Students Chocolate Increases Teaching Evaluation Ratings

From Empirical Legal Studies blog:  "A recent study to be published in an upcoming issue of Teaching of Psychology Journal, found that students who eat chocolate before filling out a course evaluation may give their professor a higher rating than they otherwise would."

The article has a wonderful title:  Fudging the Numbers: Distributing Chocolate Influences Student Evaluations of an Undergraduate Course.  Here is the abstract:

Student evaluations are an important source of information for instructors seeking to improve their teaching methods and for academic departments to evaluate an instructor's teaching effectiveness. Prior research has shown that student evaluations may be mediated by several unintended aspects of a course. In this study, we examined whether a positive event that is entirely external to the course would increase average student evaluations. Students from three different lectures taught by the same instructor evaluated the courses and instructor, with half offered chocolate before the evaluations took place. Overall, students in the chocolate condition rated the instructor more positively than did the non-chocolate control group. This result raises questions about how to standardize evaluation procedures to minimize and control for the influence of external factors on student evaluations.

Richland 1 looks to Mobile for overhaul

Posted on Sun, Oct. 28, 2007

Alabama district accomplished dramatic turnaround using drastic measures

By GINA SMITH
Staff Writer

School leaders in Mobile County, Ala., handed pink slips to every teacher, every principal, every cafeteria worker at its lowest performing schools, then rehired just the ones leaders wanted to keep.

The school system tied teachers' pay to students' performance on test scores at certain schools.

And the district gave big bonuses to principals, then said, "Improve the test scores or you'll lose your job."

In 2002-03, only about 27 percent of Mobile County schools, which includes schools in the city of Mobile, met state goals on standardized tests. Last year, 85 percent did.

The school district, which has nabbed a national reputation and recognition in national publications like Parade Magazine, could become Richland 1's model for improving its own struggling schools.

A couple of bus loads of leaders from the city of Columbia, businesses and schools will visit the 65,000-student school system in January to see if some of its program can be replicated here.

In August, Richland 1 along with city and business leaders announced a partnership to improve the lives and education of its students.

Richland 1 and the Mobile school system possess many similarities, including that their lowest performing schools have student populations that are nearly 100 percent African-American. Many come from poor homes.

Now, Mobile County's school leaders say they've closed the achievement gap between black and white students at many of their schools.

The question is whether Richland 1 and Columbia will make some of the same controversial decisions as Mobile.

CHANGING LEADERSHIP

Historically, Richland 1 has charted a course for its schools with little input from the city or other entities.

But this time, a new crowd of decision-makers will be at the table, changing the nature of the discussion.

The school district has partnered with the Greater Columbia Chamber of Commerce, the city of Columbia, business leaders and others.

They're acknowledging the link between Richland 1 schools and the city's prosperity. And they are pushing school improvement to a top priority slot.

"If the city center's schools have a problem, then the whole community has a problem," said Ike McLeese, president of the Greater Columbia Chamber of Commerce. "It's time for improvement."

Five Richland 1 schools, all in the city, faced a state takeover earlier this year because of consistently low state report card ratings. Alcorn Middle, Gibbes Middle, W.A. Perry Middle and Eau Claire High schools, as well as C.A. Johnson Preparatory Academy, are considered chronically underperforming.

As in Mobile, these schools' students are nearly all African-American. Many come from poor homes.

The best approach is a school-community partnership as is being proposed, said Jo AnneAnderson, executive director of the state Education Oversight Committee.

"We all bear the brunt of historic discrimination and the poverty that so many African-Americans have had to endure," Anderson said. "It's a cumulative effect over time that has left an entire group of people disadvantaged. The best way to close that gap is through community partnerships."

HOW MOBILE DID IT

Ten years ago, Mobile County was on the verge of recession, said Leigh Perry Herndon, of the Mobile Area Chamber of Commerce.

As unemployment crept to the double-digit mark, the state of Alabama was threatening to take over the nearly bankrupt Mobile school system.

Test scores were low, and school morale was even lower.

It was in this atmosphere that Mobile's new superintendent, Harold Dodge, walked into a staff meeting with top district officials and issued a command — part charge, part threat.

"You've got 48 hours," he told the staff. "What we're doing isn't working. I want a series of recommendations on how to do it differently. Now go."

Ultimately, the group hatched a plan sure to raise blood pressure and controversy. But they correctly banked on it raising test scores, too.

First priority: keep the good teachers and staff. Throw out the bad ones.

"When you find yourself in a situation that, no matter what you do, you can't get success, you buy into failure. You lose hope," said Dodge, who recently retired.

To change the "loser" culture at those schools, district leaders fired everyone and had them reapply for their jobs. In the end, about 70 percent were rehired.

Next, they tackled the school's principals, offering $12,000 bonuses to attract the best. The catch: The new principals had to sign five-year contracts.

"The research shows that schools that fail have revolving-door leadership," Dodge said. "We wanted strong leadership. And we wanted them to stay."

WILL IT HAPPEN HERE?

Tough decisions lie ahead for the new group of school, city and business leaders.

If they attempt to replicate the Mobile model, they'll need to:

• Establish a foundation. For the past decade, The Mobile Education Foundation has tackled tasks the district had little time for, including recruiting about 1,200 businesses, nonprofits and churches to partner with individual schools to mentor and tutor students.

To date, partners, including DuPont, have invested more than $10 million in resources and volunteer time in the schools, said Carolyn Akers, director of the foundation.

It's also held hundreds of community meetings, gathering input on what the community thinks of the schools, then working with the superintendent to implement those changes.

"What we did wasn't rocket science," Akers said. "It can be replicated."

• Decide which of Mobile's programs are worth replicating.

Some in Mobile warn against approaches like basing teachers' pay on student performance. "The idea that you would dangle money in front of (teachers) to make them work harder is an insult," said Jim Wrye of the Alabama Education Association.

Long term, Wrye said that and other approaches used by the Mobile school system have hurt schools and created a shortage of 100 teachers. "There have been successes, but there have been failures, too," Wrye said.

• Agree on a strategy, which will be the biggest challenge. Opinions are splitting already.

"When you fire staff, institutional wisdom walks out the door," said Vince Ford, Richland 1 board member. "Understanding of a community walks out the door. I'd rather evaluate each teacher's performance."

But board chairwoman Wendy Brawley, who heard about Mobile's impressive gains in closing the gap between black and white students, said she's not counting anything out.

"I'm not opposed to doing something that appears a little radical as long as we do it in a way that's sensitive to our communities," Brawley said. "We'll take a look at it in January."

Reach Smith at (803) 771-8462.

CHANGING SCHOOLS | How Richland 1 and Mobile County, Ala., schools compare

Related Content

-- STUDENT POPULATION

Mobile County: More than 65,000

Richland 1: Nearly 24,000

-- DEMOGRAPHICS

Mobile County: 59 percent white; 38 percent black; 5 percent American Indian; 5 percent Asian; and 2 percent Hispanic

Richland 1: 78 percent black; 18 percent white; and 4 percent other

-- FREE/REDUCED LUNCH

(an indicator of poverty)

Mobile County: about 67 percent

Richland 1: nearly 65 percent

-- MOBILE SUCCESSES

• Eight-five schools in 2006-07 met 100 percent of Annual Yearly Progress academic goals, up from 27 schools in 2002-03.

• The district says it is closing the achievement gap between poverty and non-poverty students and between black and white students. On a state reading and math standardized test, Mobile students scored at or above the state average at the Proficient Level in 46 of 48 categories.

• Between 2003-04 and 2006-07, five transformed schools moved from not meeting AYP goals to three meeting 100 percent of goals, two meeting 94 percent.

SOURCE: Richland 1 and Mobile County school systems

Richland 2 | Magnet programs on horizon

Posted on Wed, Oct. 24, 2007
District plans six more offerings for next year
By JOY L. WOODSON
jwoodson@thestate.com
Richland 2 students and parents could see six new magnet and school-choice
programs introduced at the beginning of the next school year.

A model for public-education choice across the state, the district already
has 14 schools or facilities with such programs. The new offerings, unveiled
during Tuesday's school board meeting, will span elementary, middle and high
schools at a first-year cost of $248,357.

Five new teachers would be hired for the programs, which Richland 2 has been
developing for more than a year. They include an array of options such as
civic leadership, economics, health, sports medicine, accelerated learning
and Montessori school components.

"People look to District 2 to lead the way in offering the best for
students," said Charlene Herring, Richland 2's chief academic officer, as
she introduced the new offerings. Funds would come from the existing budget
and other grants, she added.

The board, which applauded the new efforts, could vote on the programs as
early as Nov. 13. If approved, parents can begin looking at the options in
December, when all other magnet programs are advertised.

"This is wonderful," board member Regina Corley said. "I'm happy and excited
about it."

As Richland 2 continues to grow rapidly - the district serves about 23,000
students and likely will be the largest school system in the Midlands next
year - officials are looking to keep pace with growth and demand for the
programs.

Richland 2 superintendent Steve Hefner hopes to expand such programs
throughout the district.

"We just want our parents to have some choice," school board member William
Flemming said. "We're trying to not only give our parents choice but (to)
meet the need of the community."

These types of programs, which the district began offering in 1991, are
designed to improve academic success, align with the changing needs of
employers and meet public expectations.

Although similar programs exist in other Midlands school systems, none is as
comprehensive as those in the suburban district. State Education
Superintendent Jim Rex has hailed Richland 2 as a success and points to it
as an example of what he would like to see replicated.

The popularity of the programs in Richland 2 has created long waiting lists
at some centers and is prompting some programs and facilities to be
expanded.

For instance, this year the Center for Knowledge, a popular magnet program
for elementary students, moved into a permanent building and doubled
enrollment.

Hefner's push to expand magnet offerings comes at a time when officials are
eyeing a likely 2008 bond referendum to cover a $556 million construction
plan.

Reach Woodson at (803) 771-8692. Staff writer Devon Copeland contributed.

PROPOSED MAGNET PROGRAMS
Richland 2 superintendent Steve Hefner has unveiled proposals for six new
magnet schools for the 2008-09 school year. In the first year, the programs
would cost $248,357, which includes money for five new lead teachers.

ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

Academy for Civic Engagement

Location: Lonnie B. Nelson

Description: Prepare first- through fifth-graders for democratic process
with local government and business partnerships. About 20 students in each
grade level.

Cost: $62,089

Montessori schools

Locations: Spears Creek Road Child Development Center, Pontiac

Description: Use individual choice of work and uninterrupted study rather
than group lessons led by an adult. Students 3-5 and 6-7 would be placed in
groups. In the first year, the program would be open to children 3-5.
Selection by lottery.

Cost: None

MIDDLE SCHOOL

Accelerated Course & Curriculum to Enhance Learning (ACCEL)

Location: Middle-school center at Richland Northeast High

Description: Two-year program for seventh-graders who are at least one grade
level behind - allowing students to enter high school on schedule for
graduation. Cost: $46,567 first year; $62,089 second year

The Academy of Exercise Physiology and Sports Medicine

Location: Summit Parkway

Description: Targeted to sixth-graders, with 40 students in the 2008-09
school year. Students remain together in science, social students and
fitness classes.

Cost: $46,567 first year; $62,089 second year

Kelly Mill INC.

Location: Kelly Mill

Description: Focus on economics, offering trips to Washington, New York and
abroad. Students must score "proficient" or "advanced" on PACT or have
equivalent scores on MAP in language arts and/or math. On a three-year
phase-in, starting with sixth grade in 2008-09; maximum 100 students per
grade level.

Cost: $46,567 first year; $62,089 second year

HIGH SCHOOL Health Sciences Magnet

Location: Ridge View

Description: Designed to attract students interested in health- and
medical-related careers. The district would work with local businesses,
doctors and dentists to provide internships.

Cost: $46,567 first year; $62,089 second year

Richland 2 succeeding as the district of choice

Posted on Fri, Oct. 26, 2007
By DEVON COPELAND
dcopeland@thestate.com
Every morning Laura and Jacob Baker drive nearly 30 minutes in stop-and-go traffic through Northeast Richland to drop off their three children at their schools.

Although they pass three schools along the way, the family chooses to send their children to schools based on programs that best fit their needs — not their home address.

“It’s tough,” Laura Baker said, “but it’s OK. I make the drive because seeing my children where I think they need to be makes it all worth it.”

For the past 16 years, Richland 2 parents have been able to choose which schools their children attend. The district opened its first magnet program in an effort to ensure their schools were diverse.

Today, it offers 15 magnet programs.
And the students are excelling.
In a state where some public schools are seen as failing, educators say Richland 2’s Choice program is an example of what works.

“It’s kind of amazing to see how far Richland 2 has come with relatively no help at all,” state Superintendent of Education Jim Rex said.

Rex pushed for statewide open enrollment in public schools during the last legislative session but was defeated.
As he prepares for this year’s session, Rex is armed with a revised open enrollment bill, a new public school choice department, and Richland 2’s example.

HISTORY OF CHOICE
Steve Hefner keeps a baseball cap in his office. It’s not flashy, but to the longtime Richland 2 superintendent the four words on it always illicit a fond smile — “Chief of Magnet Schools.”

He earned the title in the 1990s when, as then-assistant deputy superintendent, he proposed the district’s first magnet program.

The growing district — serving little more than 13,000 students at the time — was in the middle of a series of heated rezoning debates as board officials looked to keep the schools racially balanced.

Richland Northeast High and Dent Middle were both about 55 percent black. Spring Valley High and E.L. Wright Middle were predominantly white, with each serving a minority population of 32 and 25 percent, respectively.

Officials redrew high school attendance lines in an effort to make the schools more diverse.
Administrators also approved the opening of The Learning Collaborative at Dent Middle, the district’s first magnet program. The school accepted students from anywhere in the district.

“It was sort of in response to (people saying) ‘don’t rezone me, give me some choices,’” Hefner said.
By the next school year, officials reported black-to-white ratios at the schools closer to the district’s average of 37 percent black.

Since then, district officials slowly have expanded the programs to 15. Six new programs were proposed this week and could begin in the fall.

Parents also can choose to send their children to any of the district’s 25 schools based on capacity. Planning officials estimate that nearly 20 percent of students attend schools outside their attendance zone.

“If we had started with (15) magnet programs out (of) the gate, our community could not have handled it,” Hefner said.
“You build block by block.”
THE RESULTS
Studies show the students have excelled.
Many students have exceeded average national scores on the SAT, the college entrance exam, according to USC studies.
This year’s national average on the reading and math portion of the SAT is 1017 and the state’s average is 984.
Students in Richland 2’s high school magnet programs averaged 1146 on the college entrance exam.
Other studies show:
• Students at the Center for Inquiry and the Center for Knowledge, elementary school magnets, have scored above the national average on standardized tests.

• Students at Conder Elementary, Forest Lake Elementary and Dent Middle made gains on benchmark tests from fall 2006 to spring 2007.

• A 2006 district comparison of test scores showed boys and girls in the single-gender magnet school showed greater improvement in math and reading over the 2005-06 school year than students in traditional classes.

• A review of the Center for Achievement magnet program earlier this year showed most students improved math and reading scores on benchmark tests. The center gives individual attention to children with learning disabilities and such differences as hearing loss, speech delay and dyslexia.

WHY IT WORKS FOR THE COMMUNITY
As the district expanded its magnet programs, officials realized they could place highly desirable programs in the schools to draw students.

It placed magnet programs at four of the district’s oldest schools, all along Decker Boulevard.
In the 1970s, a demographer predicted that, within the next decade, the then Forest Lake elementary school would be closed because of the aging Decker community.

But that day never came because it’s now a technology magnet school.
“Today it’s full — not because kids live near Forest Lake,” Hefner said. “It’s because they come from all over our district.”

Each school along Decker is a powerhouse of magnet program offerings, drawing students to the southern end of the district where there’s less development.

Of the four schools along Decker:
• Conder Elementary is an integrated arts magnet school
• Forest Lake Elementary is a technology magnet school
• Dent Middle School houses three magnet programs: The Learning Collaborative; TWO, the single gender academies; and Fame, a fine arts program.

• Richland Northeast High houses four magnet programs: Horizon, an interdisciplinary program; Palmetto Center for the Arts; iLINK, a technology program; and a Cavplex: Convergence Media program.

WHY IT WORKS FOR FAMILIES
Families say the Choice program is successful largely because district officials have responded to their — and their children’s — needs.

Dent’s TWO Academies, Hefner said, are a prime example.
About five years ago, parents asked district administrators to create a single gender magnet program for middle school children.

This year, its inaugural class of students started their freshman year of high school.
The program is among Richland 2’s most popular.
Students said they like how specific — and challenging — the programs are.
Jake Baker, 14, knew he had a passion for math and science. So when he heard about the Discovery program at Spring Valley High, he decided to apply to the school.

“They have the same standards as the rest of the state, but they go beyond the standards,” he said. “The classes are more in-depth than the regular classes.”

GROWING PAINS
As Richland 2 continues to grow by roughly 1,200 students a year, district administrators said it becomes increasingly challenging to make sure as many students can be accommodated.

And the Choice program has suffered some hiccups, the most recent being a failed attempt to garner interest in a single gender program for high school students.

While the interest was high among parents and students at the middle school level, they balked at separating the genders in high school.

“There is a time limit and a place for some of these programs,” said Gail Harrison, the mother of three.
ANSWER TO A PRAYER
Over the past four years Harrison, has moved her children from private schools to Richland 2.
“I have three different, unique children in three different unique programs. It was really an answer to a prayer.”
Hefner said the district continues to field requests from parents for more specialized programs. He said administrators try to create offerings that will engage students.

“We have a community that has very high expectations of us,” he said.
State superintendent Rex applauded Richland 2’s efforts and said he’s optimistic more parents across the state will soon see the same options in their districts.

“The idea that a child must attend a school simply because of the piece of real estate their home or apartments sits on, is an antiquated idea.”

Reach Copeland at (803) 771-8485.

Child-Care Labor: Deciding What to Pay Your Baby Sitter

October 25, 2007;
What to pay the occasional Saturday-night baby sitter may seem like a simple matter. But my talks with parents about the topic often end with an anxious question. One mother told me she pays her sitter "above the market," then in the next breath asked, "Is that above the market, do you think?" Other parents think they pay well but are mystified that sitters never come back.

As a pricing puzzle, paying the sitter ranks right up there with valuing mortgage-backed securities. Sitter pay ranges wildly, based on a sitter's age, credentials, experience, job duties and region. Couple that with the fact that sitter-pay rates are soaring at triple the overall inflation rate, and you've got a real pricing mess.

Average pay for a teenage baby sitter for one child has risen 39% in the past five years, says Runzheimer International, a Rochester, Wis., consulting firm that researches living costs; the consumer-price index rose 13% over the period.

L.J. Kolek, 36, Westport, Conn., who grew up thinking of baby sitting as a $3- to $4-an-hour job, sometimes finds that hard to swallow. After paying an experienced, college-age sitter $14 an hour recently for an evening when his son slept nonstop, he recalls thinking, "I can't believe I'm paying this amount for someone to just watch my television."

But he and other parents are increasingly willing to pay more for highly qualified sitters. Jessica Griffith, St. Paul, Minn., says that although she pays her sitter, a well-qualified woman in her twenties, more than six times what she once earned herself as a teenage sitter, "we'd rather go out less often and have the peace of mind."

Regional differences in pay further cloud the picture. A teenage sitter for one child can command an average of $14.84 in the New York City area, more than twice the $7.33 paid sitters in Dallas, Runzheimer says. Rates average $9 in Washington, D.C.; $8.67 in Chicago, and $8.64 in Los Angeles, based on data collected by researchers living in 350 locations.

Add more children to the mix; ask a sitter to do light housekeeping or provide her own transportation, or insist on a sitter in college or beyond, and rates rise sharply. Rates offered by parents on www.Babysitters.com, a sitter-search site where 60% or more of parents have two or more children and want a college-age or adult sitter willing to do extra tasks, reflect these premiums. Such parents are offering $16 to $18 an hour in New York; $14 to $16 in Chicago or Washington; $13 to $16 in Los Angeles and $10 to $12 in Dallas, says Michael Cravens, Babysitters.com CEO.

In a morass like this, you need a pay strategy. First, figure out the range you can afford, then set your rate at the low end, says Michael Gerard, executive director of www.SitterCafe.com, a sitter-search site. This will enable you to manage bonuses, tips and other extras. "Sitters won't remember that you paid a bit less per hour than some parents, but they'll always remember that you give them an extra $5 or $10 tip," he says.

Second, be thoughtful about those extras. Genevieve Thiers, CEO of www.SitterCity.com, a sitter-search site, recommends giving a $1- to $3-an-hour raise after a year, and doubling pay on a sitter's last job before the new year. Consider adding a few dollars for commuting, especially for short jobs, she says. Jean Dolan, Newtown, Pa., pays a bonus when a sitter tidies up the house without being asked.

Finally, don't make the common mistake of assuming money is all that matters to a sitter. Several sitters I interviewed ranked pay as only the No. 3 incentive to stick with a family, behind feeling safe in the home and feeling trusted and respected by parents. Examples include sticking to agreed-upon pay rates, refraining from calling home every half-hour, and returning home when you say you will.

"What's important to me," says Torrye Hart, a 20-year-old sitter from Travelers Rest, S.C., "is the interpersonal relationships with the family."

• Email sue.shellenbarger@wsj.com.
THE GOING RATE
Getting advice on how to set sitter pay:
• Check the sitter's references for pay history
• See www.sittercity.com/rate_calculator.html
• Ask friends, neighbors and local nanny agency
How do you decide what to pay your sitter? Share your thoughts
WORK & FAMILY MAILBOX
Columnist Sue Shellenbarger answers readers' questions about the causes of helicopter parenting and financial aid.

Failing Schools Strain to Meet U.S. Standard

October 16, 2007
By DIANA JEAN SCHEMO
LOS ANGELES — As the director of high schools in the gang-infested neighborhoods of the East Side of Los Angeles, Guadalupe Paramo struggles every day with educational dysfunction.

For the past half-dozen years, not even one in five students at her district’s teeming high schools has been able to do grade-level math or English. At Abraham Lincoln High School this year, only 7 in 100 students could. At Woodrow Wilson High, only 4 in 100 could.

For chronically failing schools like these, the No Child Left Behind law, now up for renewal in Congress, prescribes drastic measures: firing teachers and principals, shutting schools and turning them over to a private firm, a charter operator or the state itself, or a major overhaul in governance.

But more than 1,000 of California’s 9,500 schools are branded chronic failures, and the numbers are growing. Barring revisions in the law, state officials predict that all 6,063 public schools serving poor students will be declared in need of restructuring by 2014, when the law requires universal proficiency in math and reading.

“What are we supposed to do?” Ms. Paramo asked. “Shut down every school?”
With the education law now in its fifth year — the one in which its more severe penalties are supposed to come into wide play — California is not the only state overwhelmed by growing numbers of schools that cannot satisfy the law’s escalating demands.

In Florida, 441 schools could be candidates for closing. In Maryland, some 49 schools in Baltimore alone have fallen short of achievement targets for five years or more. In New York State, 77 schools were candidates for restructuring as of last year.

Some districts, like those in New York City, have moved forcefully to shut large failing high schools and break them into small schools. Los Angeles, too, is trying small schools, along with other innovations, and David L. Brewer III, its schools superintendent, has just announced plans to create a “high priority district” under his direct control made up of 40 problem schools.

Yet so far, education experts say they are unaware of a single state that has taken over a failing school in response to the law. Instead, most allow school districts to seek other ways to improve.

“When you have a state like California with so many schools up for restructuring,” said Heinrich Mintrop, an education professor at the University of California, Berkeley, “that taxes the capacity of the whole school change industry.”

As a result, the law is branding numerous schools as failing, but not producing radical change — leaving angry parents demanding redress. California citizens’ groups have sued the state and federal government for failing to deliver on the law’s promises.

“They’re so busy fighting No Child Left Behind,” said Mary Johnson, president of Parent U-Turn, a civic group. “If they would use some of that energy to implement the law, we would go farther.”

Ray Simon, the deputy federal secretary of education, said states that ignored the law’s demands risked losing federal money or facing restrictions on grants. For now, Mr. Simon said, the department is more interested in helping states figure out what works than in punishment. “Even a state has to struggle if it takes over a school,” he said.

A federal survey last year showed that in 87 percent of the cases of persistently failing schools, states and school districts avoided wholesale changes in staff or leadership. That is why, Mr. Simon said, the Bush administration is proposing that Congress force more action by limiting districts’ options in responding to hard-core failure.

In California, Jack O’Connell, the state superintendent of schools, calls the law’s demands unreasonable. Under the federal law, 700 schools that California believed were getting substantially better were counted last year as failing. A state takeover of schools, Mr. O’Connell said, would be a “last option.”

“To have a successful program,” he said, “it really has to come from the community.”
Under the No Child law, a school declared low-performing for three years in a row must offer students free tutoring and the option to transfer. After five years, such schools are essentially treated as irredeemable, with the law prescribing starting over with a new structure, new leadership or new teachers. But it also gives schools the option of less sweeping changes, like reducing school size or changing who is in charge of hiring.

Those in charge of troubled schools in Los Angeles admit that the absence of serious penalties coupled with the growing number of schools branded as low-performing is breeding bitterness. But they are not sure what to do.

Carmen Schroeder, the superintendent of District 5 — and Ms. Paramo’s boss — has taken over hiring decisions and keeps a close watch on the lowest performing schools. Ms. Schroeder said she would like to go further and shut some down if there were any place to transfer the students.

That is not so easy when 59 of the 91 schools in her district, the largest of eight in this sprawling city, consistently fall short of standards.

Beyond that, the federal law does not trump contract agreements, and so teachers have generally not lost their jobs or faced transfer when schools stagnate.

In Los Angeles, as the law’s 2014 deadline draws nearer, the promised land of universal high achievement seems more distant than ever.

Schools that serve low-income students are packed, despite new construction. In poor neighborhoods, students are on staggered schedules, starting school in different months and scattering what was once summer vacation into smaller breaks.

Students lose momentum, forget lessons and come out with 17 fewer days of instruction a year. “That’s why our kids are not passing the high school exit exams,” said Ms. Johnson of Parent U-Turn.

Not all states are facing huge numbers of failing schools. Some were late establishing testing systems, and so lack results over five or more years. Others may have small poor populations, better teaching or easier exams.

But the tensions voiced here are echoed by parents elsewhere, as well as by school officials.
At Woodrow Wilson High one recent morning, teachers broke into small groups over coffee studying test scores for areas of weakness. But there were limits to what they would learn.

The teachers analyzed results for the entire school, not for their own students. Roberto Martinez, the principal, said he had not given teachers the scores of their own students because their union objects, saying the scores were being used to evaluate teachers.

“And who suffers?” asked Veronica Garcia, an English teacher at Wilson. “The kids suffer, because the teacher never gets feedback.”

A. J. Duffy, president of United Teachers of Los Angeles, said the union supported test score reviews provided they did not affect teachers’ jobs. Mr. Duffy said the federal law glossed over the travails of teaching students living in poverty. “Everyone agrees that urban education needs a shot in the arm, but it is not as bleak as the naysayers would have it,” he said.

That is not a view shared by many parents. Martha Sanchez, whose three children attend public schools here, said that as students grew older, the schools seemed to give up.

Her eldest, Gonzalo, attends eighth grade at John Adams Middle School, where only 22 percent of students passed the state exams in English and math this year. It is not hard for Ms. Sanchez to see why.

When Gonzalo struggled over equations, she said, his teacher called him slow rather than going over the material again. Ms. Sanchez said that she had complained, but that the teacher had denied the comment. It was only through the private tutoring, available under No Child Left Behind that he managed to pass seventh grade math, she said.

The principal, Joseph P. Santana, said he did not recall Ms. Sanchez’s complaining, but could not rule it out. “There are 1,600 of them,” he said, referring to the students, “and only one of me.”

Still, Ms. Sanchez is not a big fan of the law. Just weeks into the school year, she said, teachers are focusing almost solely on material likely to appear on state exams. Forget about igniting a passion in children, she said.

“Maybe the system is not designed for people like us,” she said.

Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

Stereotype Threat, NCLB, and the Half-Way Solution

From Ed Week:

Stanford University psychologist Claude M. Steele made headlines in 1995 with a study that introduced the phrase “stereotype threat” into the national lexicon. Put simply, it’s the idea that people tend to underperform when confronted with situations that might confirm negative stereotypes about their social group.

Could there ever be devised a more consistent, hammering confirmation of stereotype for minority children and parents living economically disadvantaged lives: the more you struggle, the steeper the hill gets over time, and the more likely you are to fail the high stakes tests on which NCLB is built?

It is sadly interesting to note, too, that now as we finally start talking about interventions to address stereotypes and the achievement gap, there is a focus almost entirely on psychological interventions--as if the poverty that drives the achievement gap can be fixed by tinkering inside the heads of students and teachers. While surely the psychological space is critical in terms of shaping learning and education, fixation on the psychological can lead to a debilitating blindness to the equally-strong sociological realities that shape children's lives.

All the tinkering inside the head can only go so far in getting to a full solution to the educational achievement gap, as John Dewey knew over a hundred years ago. Focusing on they psychological, alone, can bring more negative consequences, in fact:

--this educational process has two sides--one psychological and the one sociological--and that neither can be subordianted to the other , or neglected, without evil results following (My Pedagogic Creed, Article I).

Again, from Ed Week, an interesting chunk of the article:

Mr. Steele’s original research involved black college students whose test performance faltered when they were told they were taking an exam that would measure intellectual ability. But the effect has since been documented in more than 200 studies involving all sorts of situations.

Scholars have found evidence of “stereotype threat” occurring, for example, among elementary school girls taking mathematics tests, elderly people given a memory test, and white men being assessed on athletic ability. Even something as subtle as asking students to indicate their race or gender on a test form can trigger the phenomenon, some of those studies have suggested.

Now comes a new line of research aimed at figuring out what to do about the problem. Focusing mostly on middle schools, the second generation of work is starting to point to tools and techniques that show promise in countering stereotype threat in the classroom and improving the academic achievement of students who are most likely to suffer from its effects, such as African-Americans, Latinos, and girls.

The hope is that such interventions might one day narrow persistent achievement gaps between many minority students and their higher-achieving white and Asian American peers, and expand the ranks of young women who pursue high-level studies in mathematics and science.

“You can scare people so much in the lab that you can make existing gaps wider,” said Joshua Aronson, an associate professor of applied psychology at New York University, who is conducting much of that research. “But the real message of this work is that you also can make the gaps narrower.”

. . . .
Mr. Aronson was the co-author, with Mr. Steele, of the study that propelled the “stereotype threat” idea into the national achievement-gap discussion more than a decade ago.

In that experiment, the researchers divided black and white Stanford undergraduates into two groups and gave each group the same test. One group got the message that the test had IQ-like diagnostic properties; the other group was told that the test did not measure intellectual ability.

The African-Americans in the group performed dramatically better in the latter situation, while white students performed equally well under both conditions. Mr. Steele and his colleagues contend the black students tested badly in the first instance because they feared their poor performance would confirm a stereotype that blacks were intellectually inferior.

Few groups, though, seem to be immune from stereotype threat. Mr. Aronson found in a 1999 study, for instance, that he could induce the same sort of effect in white male engineering and math majors with “astronomical” SAT scores simply by telling them that scores from their laboratory tests would be used to study Asian students’ apparent superiority in mathematics.

Faced with the risk of confirming a negative stereotype about themselves, students react in different ways, according to researchers. While some underperform, others redouble their efforts.

Most worrisome, though, is the large number of students from vulnerable groups who, over time, begin to avoid situations that seem potentially threatening. In one of Mr. Aronson’s experiments with middle schoolers, for example, Latino students—but not non-Hispanic white students—chose easier problems when they understood that the test they were taking measured mathematical ability.

“I think we need to worry about how students’ vulnerability can lead to real differences in ability,” said Mr. Aronson. “As students shy away from those things that could make them smarter, it becomes sort of a negative spiral.”

“We think middle school is when problems emerge,” he added, “and when you see minority kids start to disengage and girls start to get anxious about math.” . . . .