Search This Blog

Friday, April 4, 2008

free learning tool for every learning problem

http://zaidlearn.blogspot.com/2008/04/free-learning-tool-for-every-learning.html

Let's explore the idea that there is at least one excellent free learning tool for every learning problem (or issue)!

I want a FREE:

    1. Easy-to-use and secure Internet browser? Firefox
    2. e-Mail system? Gmail
    3. Social bookmarking tool? del.icio.us
    4. Online RSS reader? Google Reader
    5. Online Calendar? Google Calendar
    6. Learning Management System (LMS)? Easy, Moodle
    7. Hosted LMS? Here are SEVEN!
    8. Learning Activity Management System? LAMS
    9. Collaboration tool? Connect with Ning
    10. Social Networking tool? Tricky one! Facebook
    11. Content authoring tool? How about two? eXe & CourseLab
    12. Screencasting (recording) tool? Wink
    13. Hosted screencasting tool? Jing
    14. Audio recording tool? Audacity
    15. Tool to host my audio recordings? Odeo
    16. Virtual Classroom? DimDim
    17. Hosted Virtual Classroom? WiZiQ
    18. Videoconferencing chat service? Vawkr
    19. 3D online virtual world where I can socialize, connect and learn? Second Life
    20. Tool to make calls from my computer? Skype
    21. Online Quiz tool? ClassMarker
    22. Online polling tool with a bit of fizzle? Polldaddy
    23. Online survey tool? Click here to choose!
    24. Tool to broadcast myself to the world? USTREAM
    25. Online suite of office tools? Google Docs
    26. Wiki tool? PBwiki
    27. Blogging tool? WordPress! Why aren't you using WordPress? Good Question!
    28. Microblogging tool? Twitter
    29. Tool to share my slides? Too easy man! SlideShare
    30. Tool to share my videos? Come on! YouTube
    31. Tool to download videos from any video sharing site (YouTube, Metacafe, etc.)? ClipNabber
    32. Tool to share my pictures? Are you joking! Flickr
    33. Tool to create flowcharts, diagrams, technical drawings? Gliffy
    34. Tool to create cool personalized images? Custom Sign Generator Widgets
    35. Tool to create comics and cartoons? ToonDoo
    36. Image Resizer? Dosize
    37. Metasearch engine with visual display interfaces? What! Here is KartOO!
    38. Watermarking tool? uMark
    39. Screen Color Picker? ColorSchemer
    40. Tool to make screenshots from different browsers with one click? Browsershots
    41. File hosting solution that allows me to share files up to 250MB each? FileCrunch
    42. Online visual dictionary and thesaurus? Visuwords
    43. Mindmapping tool? FreeMind
    44. Interactive 3D business simulator? INNOV8
    45. Tool to create Flash games (templates)? ClassTools.net
    46. Self-publishing tool (books, papers, articles, etc)? Scribd
    47. Tool to improve my typing skills? Peter's Online Typing Course
    48. Gaming tool to help me learn ICT? ReviseICT.co.uk
    49. Tool to highlight text in a webpage? The Awesome Highlighter
    50. Tool to aggregate all my resources, mail, RSS feeds, etc, in one place? iGoogle
    51. Site to make you shut up? About time! Here we go:

25 (must-have free) Tools: Professional Development Programme (Jane Knight)

Education Policy Blog

http://educationpolicyblog.blogspot.com/
Today, April 04, 2008, 1 hour ago
I hope to generate some conversation about teacher education and development this month. So I'll post a "provocation" once a week and welcome comments from member bloggers and guests about this issue of particular interest to me. Right now, I imagine asking the following questions:

1) Can we teach someone to teach?
2) What must teachers know and be able to do?
3) Are the people currently responsible for teacher education doing the job well?
4) In what kinds of schools can talented, well-educated teachers be most successful?

So here goes: Can we teach someone to teach?

I've spent three decades trying to do it, so I guess my answer is yes. But I don't ever want to stop asking the question.

A decade ago at the May commencement in the normal school turned state university at which I educate future teachers and instructional leaders, commentator Andy Rooney was the featured speaker. Partway through a typical Rooney speech, he noted that some 40% of the graduates were receiving education degrees and wondered aloud whether it was possible to teach somebody to teach. He allowed that teaching was both difficult and important. He suggested that "really knowing the subject matter" was the key, but that teaching well was something one came to on one's own with the help of a solid disciplinary education.

Rooney's question is, it seems to me, an important question to answer if the enterprise of teacher education is to flourish
– and I'm delighted that Rooney raised it in so blunt and public a way. At the same time, I am well aware that lots of folks aren't too sure that the answer is "yes." Most people would agree with Rooney, I suspect. As long as a teacher "knows his/her stuff" and has the right personality, that teacher will be fine – or so the taken-for-granted wisdom goes. Educating a teacher is a matter of insuring extensive study in an academic discipline and then throwing the candidates into a classroom (we call that student teaching) to see if they can "handle the kids." The NCLB requirements for "highly qualified teachers" seem to want to tilt in this direction.

Teacher educators tend to swing the pendulum in the other direction. They specify a long list of courses (courses that justify their own existence, of course) that a teacher must have taken in order to be a good teacher. That list of courses translates into the "requirements for teacher certification," and includes things like reading in the content area, multicultural education, and methods of teaching some subject matter. When the teacher educators let go, the state regulators step in. In Pennsylvania (my base of operations), we are implementing regulations for 12 new credit hours of study in special education and ESL. With undergraduate prospects for liberal arts education already being squeezed out by professional mandates, prospects for developing teachers who are broadly educated may be diminishing. I'll talk more about what kind of education might push in the direction of teaching that is both effective and inspiring in my next post.

For now, let me say this. I can teach someone to become an excellent teacher if "teaching" implies inspiring, provoking, prompting and coaching. I can shape environments (within college classrooms
– liberal arts and professional education, and by placing students in novel school and community setting) so that candidates will inevitably learn to navigate the compelling (and sometimes competing) calls of official curriculum, disciplinary inquiry, time-tested habits of mind, prior knowledge and experience of specific students, the specific data of students' learning, developmental crises and possibilities, cultural and institutional contexts of schools, pedagogical strategies and tactics – all the while making use of what John Dewey refers to as "the method of intelligence." What I can't do is tell them what to do. So if teaching is telling, then the answer is no. We can't tell someone how to teach. But we can give them opportunities to teach, invite them to reflect on what they intended to do and what they did do and what actually happened in the light of accepted theory, time-honored practice, and richly conceptualized research, and we can coach them through this process. In this way, they can be led (in another Dewey locution) "in the direction of what the expert already knows."

Please note that there is nothing in this view that suggests that "anything goes" or that "everyone has their own teaching style" or that the quality of my teaching is independent of what my students learn. Implicit in the process I recommend above, there is a faith that this kind of thoroughgoing inquiry will result in teachers who reconstruct the knowledge of those who have gone before. They reconstruct both in the sense that they come to know
– and in the sense that they bring new value, new understanding to what has passed for pedagogical wisdom previously.

Note too that there is no "allergy to prescription," as Michigan Dean Deborah Ball would characterize it, in my formulation of how future teachers learn their craft. There are what Lee Shulman might call "signature pedagogies" for various fields of study. There are "best practices." There are specific pedagogical interventions that have a proven track record. These must be taken seriously, taken on and tested anew in instructional practice. But I can't just tell students to do this or that and expect their actions to translate into rich growth on the part of their students.

Finally, note that our present system of educating teachers
– lots of undergraduate teacher education courses sprinkled with early field experiences and capped off with student teaching – doesn't obviously fit the demands of the answer I articulate here. But that will be the topic for another post.

One other provocation for now: Recent studies show that Finland (always at the head of list of countries where schools succeed) recruit only highly talented persons into the teaching profession and then compensate them well. The Woodrow Wilson Foundation seems to be taking that seriously. They recently announced the lucrative Leonore Annenberg Teaching Fellowship Program for "the best and the brightest" who choose to pursue teaching credentials in math and science at the graduate level at four "leading teacher education programs" (Stanford, University of Pennsylvania, University of Virginia, and University of Washington). They also announced a similar program involving four institutions in the state of Indiana. The recipients of the tuition plus $30,000 stipends for the one year certification programs must commit to teaching in disadvantaged high schools for three years. The Foundation has lofty goals:
1) Transform teacher education
—not just for Fellows but for the universities that prepare them, other teacher candidates in the same programs, and the high-need schools where they are placed as teachers;

2) Get strong teachers into high-need schools. Indiana has chosen to focus on attracting math and science teachers, though other states may choose different subject areas;


3) Attract the very best candidates to teaching through a fellowship with a well-known name and high visibility, similar to a National Merit Scholarship; and


4) Cut teacher attrition and retain top teachers through intensive clinical preparation and ongoing in-school mentoring, provided by veteran teachers and supported by able principals.



It will be interesting to see what happens with respect to the first and last of these goals. The middle two goals suggest that the best way to get good teachers is to recruit more talented candidates. But talk of "transforming teacher education" and "intensive clinical preparation" have some congruence with the answer I offered above. Of course, one-year graduate level, clinical-intensive programs are not new. I helped design and now teach in a very successful program. The difference is that our students are offered no tuition and stipends of $3000 per semester. Money does make a difference.

Thursday, April 3, 2008

Remarks by Former U.S. Secretary of Education Richard W. Riley

http://www.ed.gov/Speeches/12-1999/991217.html
Improving America's Schools Conference
Chicago, Illinois
December 17, 1999

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you, Jim Kohlmoos, for that kind introduction. And thank you for
making these "Improving America's Schools" conferences such a grand success.
Attendance has grown by leaps and bounds, and it's because you and your
staff have made these conferences so helpful to educators all across the
country. Now you are moving on to a new career, but I hope you will continue
to contribute to these conferences. You're just too valuable to lose.

Friends, I have to report a problem with the speech that I am about to
deliver. Last night, the "Y2K Bug" sneaked into my office and jumped into my
computer. As a result, my computer believed it was the year 1900. And
instead of printing out the speech I wrote, it printed out a speech that
somebody wrote almost exactly 100 years ago, describing the state of
education back then. That speech reads as follows:

"Today, in 1900, very few Americans get a good education. For example, the
high school dropout rate is about 90 percent. But we shouldn't be worried
about this because most jobs in America are semi-skilled or unskilled, and
require little education.

Also, because of the recent Supreme Court decision in Plessy v. Ferguson,
schools will continue to be segregated and black children will receive a
poor education, or no education at all."

That old speech went on to say, "Higher education here in 1900 is almost
exclusively for white males. The mission of our colleges and universities is
to train men in academics and athletics. We don't need to train women in
academics, since they can't vote in almost all states in 1900 or hold down
important jobs in our economy. And we have no need to train women in
sports-after all, American women don't have a chance of winning a World Cup
in soccer or anything like that.

"Learning opportunities for the disabled also remain extremely limited here
in 1900 because even if they could learn, they could never overcome the
physical barriers they find in the world. We should deny the disabled
educational opportunity because it would be cruel to give them false hope of
a better life."

Finally, the old speech declared, "And we actively discourage young girls
from taking math and science because as we all well know, girls aren't as
smart as boys in those subjects."

Luckily, at this point, I discovered the problem, took off my shoe, and
squashed that mean old "Bug." The computer immediately went back to our
time, and began to print out my real speech. And here's how that goes:

We've come a long way in education in this century. Today, about 89 percent
of all students get a high school diploma, and 60 percent go on to receive
at least some degree of higher education. And with all of the college tax
credits and Pell Grant increases that we've achieved in the past few years,
we're opening the door to everyone who wants to go to college or who seeks
lifelong learning.

In addition, women today earn 43 percent of all doctorates in biology, 23
percent of all doctorates in math, and 22 percent of all doctorates in the
physical sciences-and I'm sure those numbers will rise. So much for the
notion that women cannot excel in math and science! And a disabled child now
has the same right to an education as any other child.

And while many African-American children-and Latino and other minority
children-still do not get the top-notch education they deserve, we are
committed to ending the tyranny of low expectations that has held these
children back. During the civil rights struggle of the 1960s, we recognized
that equality in America depended upon legal equality. Now, in the
Information Age, we must recognize that equality depends upon educational
quality for all children. That is why it is time to declare that a quality
education for every child is the new civil right.

Every day, all of you have the responsibility to deliver that quality
education. You have the most important job in America, and often the
toughest. That's why I get a little impatient with those who are constantly
putting down our public schools.

We need partnership, not partisanship, in education. That's why I am sick
and tired of those who create wedge issues to pull us apart, like vouchers.
Voucher proponents think there's a parallel universe of schools waiting to
take in over 46 million public school children. But this parallel universe
exists only in their minds. To drain our public schools of precious
resources just when student enrollments are at an all-time high is
disastrous public policy, and I will use my voice against it so long as I
have a voice.

The editor of "The Oklahoma Observer," Frosty Troy, recently wrote an
article entitled, "Public Schools-Doing God's Work." Let me quote from that
article:

"Look who comes to public school: 6 million [children] for whom English is a
second language...6 million special ed children...more than 2 million abused
children...[and] nearly 500,000 [who have] no permanent address...

"For nearly 30 percent of public school children, [school lunches are] the
only hot meal they get... There's hardly an elementary school in a poor
neighborhood...that does not have a closet stuffed with [clothing] for
have-not children. Last year, the average teacher spent more than $400 in
personal funds for such things as workbooks and pencils for poor children. ?

"[Public schools] take millions of little ones...[and] redeem the
dispossessed and the delinquent... The teachers who minister to them are
scorned on editorial pages...but they keep on keeping on... With all its
warts, public education produces math and science brains... From astronauts
to Pulitzer Prize winners, from Nobel laureates to the clergy, they're in
the front rank." Unquote.

All this reminds me of a recent episode of the "Bill Cosby Show" on TV.
There was a fantasy sequence where teachers got paid what star athletes get
paid, and the athletes got paid what teachers are paid. Wouldn't it be grand
if teachers, principals, guidance counselors, and educators could get paid
what the Bulls here in Chicago used to pay Dennis Rodman, even for just a
couple of weeks? What a nice dream.

Abraham Lincoln once said, "He has the right to criticize who has the heart
to help." So today I say to the critics of public education: When you see
something wrong, have the heart to help. But if you don't have the heart,
please just get out the way and let the rest of us get on with the job of
improving our schools.

I think we ought to begin by making sure that principals and teachers and
students are safe. About 90 percent of our public schools have never
suffered serious violence. Let me repeat that -- about 90 percent of our
public schools have never suffered serious violence. Yet I remain deeply
troubled by some of the things that I see in our society and in our schools.

I think something must be done about violent video games. The boys who
committed the murders at Columbine High School modeled their behavior on a
video called "Doom." And recently, a former military officer appeared on TV
and described another video for children that resembled the training he once
gave Navy SEALS, who are trained to fight in the most violent circumstances.

To overcome these negative influences, I have worked to expand after-school
programs that give young people wholesome alternatives to life in the video
arcade. I have also urged parents to talk to their children and know what is
on their minds, and urged schools to connect every student to at least one
responsible teacher, guidance counselor, or friend. And I have said to our
public officials: Make gun control a top priority. Close the gun show
loopholes. Save the lives of children and teachers. And if you can't do
it-or won't-than make room for those who will.

Yet despite all of the problems that society brings to our schools' doors,
we must admit that many of our problems in education have been
self-inflicted. For example, many of our schools made a disastrous
assumption for most of this century. It was all about "one-thirds." Schools
determined that one-third of all students would be prepared for college;
one-third would be allowed to drift through school without being challenged,
and sent off to work in semi-skilled or unskilled jobs that were plentiful
then but disappearing today; and the bottom one-third would be allowed to
drop out or be "socially promoted."

Now, as we end the century, we are going in a whole new direction. Virtually
every state has developed challenging standards for all students and they
are putting them into action in their classrooms. Over the past 10 years, it
often seemed like waiting for standards was like waiting for Godot. But at
long last, standards are a fact of life, and they are working.

For example, I issued a report this morning citing nine inner-city
elementary schools that have achieved excellence, including James Ward
Elementary School here in Chicago. How did they do it? By focusing on three
strategies: Good teaching, putting children's needs first, and insisting on
challenging standards.

And this brings me to something that I want to discuss with you in a serious
way. I am disturbed by a new phenomenon called the "standards backlash."
This is happening in only a few places, but it deserves attention.

Some well-intentioned people want to water down the rigorous new standards.
They fear that too many children won't be able to measure up. And they argue
that teachers and students have not been given the preparation or tools they
need to teach or reach the new standards.

I agree that teachers and students should get the help they need. That is
why President Clinton, Vice President Gore, and I have fought tooth-and-nail
for the past seven years to provide resources to improve the skills of our
educators and give our children extra help when they need it.

We dramatically expanded after-school programs to provide extra learning
time, as I have mentioned. Children's minds don't close down at 3 p.m., and
neither should their schools. We're helping schools to hire 100,000 well
prepared teachers to reduce class size in the early grades and to make sure
that every child can read by age eight. We also fought for the E-rate, which
is helping to connect over one million classrooms to the Internet. We have
called upon all employers, all parents, all senior citizens, all civic
groups, and all citizens to support principals and teachers and children
because it's going to take everyone working together to get us where we want
to go.

I know raising standards is hard, but running away from standards is not the
solution. And going backwards is unthinkable. I refuse to return to the days
of watered-down curricula, meaningless diplomas, and tracking systems for
the poor and disadvantaged that put them on the road to nowhere. I refuse to
believe that our children aren't smart enough or our educators aren't good
enough. I refuse to send our children out into the most competitive
international economy in world history without the education they will need
to succeed for themselves and for our country. We must never go back to the
days when standards were too low, unclear, or nonexistent. Never.

My friends, five days from now the movie version of Frank McCourt's
unforgettable biography, "Angela's Ashes" will be released. I had the
pleasure of visiting Frank in Ireland one summer, and seeing him again here
in America.

I'm sure many of you have read "Angela's Ashes," a memoir of Frank's
childhood, which was filled with great poverty. But the book includes
uplifting passages about education. In one, Frank's teacher, Mr. O'Halloran,
says to his class:

"You have to study and learn so that you can make up your own mind about
history and everything else. But you can't make up an empty mind. Stock your
mind, stock your mind. It is your house of treasure, and no one in the world
can interfere with it... You might be poor, your shoes might be broken, but
your mind is a palace."

On behalf of the American people, I want to thank all of you for helping our
nation's children to fill that palace with knowledge and joy and wonder. No
one stands taller than when he or she stoops down to help a child, and that
is why you all stand very tall in my eyes today. Thank you very much.

College Within Reach, Despite Tighter Credit

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120719935883886093.html?mod=rss_Money

By JILIAN MINCER
April 3, 2008; Page B18

Don't assume you can't afford college, even private ones.
A number of the nation's top schools have changed the way they calculate financial aid, providing steep discounts to families earning as much as $180,000 to $200,000. Many offer more merit-based aid than need-based aid.

If your child isn't among a school's scholarship winners, try negotiating with the financial-aid office; many schools are willing to negotiate. And there are student loans, scholarships from other sources, and home-equity lines of credit.

The credit crisis has taken a toll on college loans. More than ever, families need to compare financial-aid packages, bargain with schools and apply for loans and scholarships early. They also may want to consider a home-equity loan, paying tuition monthly and encouraging children to get a part-time job.

"Families will be paying more for their loans, but we don't conceive of a situation where students won't find one, especially if they're working with their financial-aid office," says Kevin Bruns, executive director of America's Student Loan Providers.

Many of the nation's prestigious schools have revamped their financial-aid policies in the past year, offering more grants to students with family incomes as high as $200,000.

Donald E. Heller, director of the Center for the Study of Higher Education at Penn State, says schools, in aggregate, now provide more assistance based on merit than on need. He says most schools are using academic criteria, SAT or ACT scores to help decide who receives assistance.

Robert Shireman, executive director of Project on Student Debt, a nonprofit research and policy organization, advises that when comparing colleges, consider not only tuition but housing, books and transportation costs.

Also, don't hesitate to bargain. Ask if your first-choice school can match or beat another school's offer.
Fill out the online Fafsa, or Free Application for Federal Student Aid. Many families assume they won't be eligible for aid, and they leave potential benefits on the table. They often don't realize that filling out the Fafsa is necessary not only for federal loans but for many school, state and even some private scholarships.

Most students end up borrowing. College-debt levels have doubled in the past decade, according to the College Board. The average debt for students graduating from four-year colleges in 2006 was $20,000 to $21,000.

At some private institutions, average debt exceeds $30,000. However, some of the lowest average-debt levels are at the most-expensive schools, partly because they attract students from affluent families, but also because of the amounts of assistance they offer.

A 2007 survey by the College Savings Foundation found that 54% of parents had saved less than $5,000 for college and almost 40% expected it would take at least 10 years to pay off the debt from sending their children to college.

Unfortunately, borrowing has gotten tougher. Some lenders are no longer offering federal loans, and others are tightening credit standards, interest rates and fees. In this environment, it is important to keep "working with their financial-aid office," Mr. Bruns said.

Martha Holler, a spokeswoman for Sallie Mae, encourages families to select a loan program early "so you don't have any surprises as you move in." She says to check during the summer with the lender and financial-aid office to confirm that the money will be available.

That is also a good idea for existing students. "For upperclassmen, there will be people who are not able to use the same lender" because some have pulled out of lending programs, says Peter Warren, senior vice president of the Education Finance Council, an association of nonprofit and state-based student-loan providers.

A good place to start is the school's "preferred lender" list, but shop around. Some large lenders are offering better deals. (New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo has investigated schools that allegedly received kickbacks for steering students to expensive college lenders.)

The Project on Student Debt recommends that students consider federal loans first. The interest rates don't change over time and aren't affected by your credit score. They also have some borrower protections if you have financial problems.

Perkins and Stafford loans are the most affordable. There are income limits, but the government pays the interest while you are in school. Unsubsidized Stafford loans are available to all students. Interest accrues while a student is in school, but there are more repayment options than with most private loans.

PLUS loans, or Parent Loans for Undergraduate students, are available if parents are willing to help. Families can borrow as much as the cost of attendance minus other aid, but the loans require a credit check.

Write to Jilian Mincer at jilian.mincer@dowjones.com1

Wednesday, April 2, 2008

Fixing Education Policy


http://www.coreknowledge.org/blog/2008/04/01/fixing-education-policy/

Published by Robert Pondiscio on April 1, 2008 in Educational Policy and Testing. Tags: national standards, NCLB.
I only know two things about UVA law school professor Jim Ryan. He’s a neighbor of Alice Wiggins, Core Knowledge’s Early Childhood Program Director, and he’s got a pretty solid prescription for what ails public education.

http://www.coreknowledge.org/blog/2008/04/01/fixing-education-policy/slate/Slate is promising a 10-part series of posts from experts “offering detailed policy prescriptions for the next president, whomever that may be.” Ryan’s answers for education include national testing (”No one argues that it would be better to have 50 different AP tests in American history instead of one”) and fewer of them, “perhaps in only fourth, eighth, and 11th grades.” Agreed, and while we’re at it, let’s take up E.D. Hirsch’s idea to correlate reading tests to the content standards in other subjects. Teachers will teach to the test. Make that a productive use of classroom time as Hirsch’s idea suggests. This would also fit neatly with Ryan’s prescription: “Don’t stop all testing, stop stupid testing.”

Ryan also adds his voice to the growing chorus in favor of national standards . “It’s time to create national standards and tests in at least reading, math, science, and social studies/history,” he writes. “National tests in the past have been nonstarters politically, but they have always polled well, and some politicians are starting to come around. The reality is that the current federal-state compromise isn’t working and doesn’t make sense in a shrinking and flattening world. Why should we expect less of a student in Mississippi than in Massachusetts? Do fractions and algebra matter in North Carolina but not North Dakota?”

Ryan has lots more to say on value-added, preschool and teacher pay. Worth reading.
http://www.slate.com/id/2187680
fixing it: Repairing some of the worst Bush administration screw-ups.
EducationFixing education policy.
By Jim Ryan
Posted Tuesday, April 1, 2008, at 8:10 AM ET

With President Bush's approval rating hovering in the 30s, just about everyone has an opinion on what George W. has done wrong in the last seven years. But not everyone can explain what the next president must do to fix it. So we've called in some experts to tell us. Fixing It is a 10-part series to be published over the course of this week with contributions from some of our favorite writers, offering detailed policy prescriptions for the next president, whomever that may be, on how to quickly undo some of the damage. One of our contributors wryly describes the series as "News You Can Use. If You Happen To Be President." Read the other entries here.

Identifying what needs to be fixed in the field of education is easy: the No Child Left Behind Act, currently up for reauthorization but stalled in Congress pending the next election. The elaborate law requires schools to test the bejeezus out of elementary- and middle-school students in reading and math, to test them again in high school, and to sprinkle in a few science tests along the way. Schools posting consistently poor test scores are supposed to be punished so that they'll clean up their acts and allow NCLB's ultimate goal to be achieved in 2014. The act imagines that essentially all students across the country will be "proficient" in that year, meaning that they'll all pass the battery of standardized tests required by the NCLB. Hence the act's catchy title.

NCLB was enacted in 2001 with huge bipartisan support, though many Democrats in Congress have since disclaimed if not denounced it, presumably having had some time to read it. The act is at once the Bush administration's signature piece of education legislation, its most significant domestic policy initiative, and the most intrusive federal education law in our nation's history. The federal government provides less than 10 percent of all education funding, yet NCLB drives education policy in every school district in the country. In short, it's a big deal. It's also in need of repair. No one—conservative or liberal, Democrat or Republican—doubts that.

That's the easy part. The hard part is how to fix it. Let's start with what not to do.
• Don't scrap it. Some reformers advocate scrapping the whole thing and starting anew. Well-known education author/activist Jonathan Kozol recently went so far as to stage what he termed a "partial" hunger strike (others mercilessly called it a "diet") to protest the act. Efforts like Kozol's, designed to torpedo the act, are rash. NCLB has big problems, but its core ideas—creating high goals for all schools, ensuring accountability for meeting them, and focusing attention on disadvantaged and minority students who are too often ignored—are worth retaining. That's why both the New York Times and writers for the National Review have praised the basic idea of NCLB.

• Don't stop all testing; stop stupid testing. Most of the problems caused by the act stem from its ridiculous test-and-punish regime. Specifically, the act promotes the heavy use and misuse not just of tests, but of stupid tests. This isn't a reason to abandon all testing; it is a reason, however, to come up with better tests and better ways to use those tests to judge schools.

There are three problems, in particular, that need addressing.
• We don't know enough about school quality. Current test results don't tell us all we need to know about schools. Far from it. Students are tested in reading and math and a little in science. Reading, math, and science are important, but so are social studies, history, literature, geography, art, and music. Instead of telling us how schools are doing in these other subjects, NCLB is turning them into endangered species by pushing schools—especially those that are struggling—to downplay if not ignore subjects not tested. Many tests that are given further narrow the focus of education by relying on multiple-choice questions that reward memorization and regurgitation rather than analytical and creative thinking.

• What we think we know may be wrong. The second problem is that looking at just a sheet of test scores is a lousy way to judge school quality. Standardized test results tend to track socioeconomic status. As a teacher once remarked, the most accurate prediction you can make based on a student's test score is her parents' income. Teachers and schools with middle-class kids will invariably look better than those with poor kids if the only measure is how many students in a particular year pass a test. What we can't tell from scores alone, because they don't tell us where students started or how much they progressed over the year, is the value that a particular teacher or school has added to a student's education. Basing teacher and school evaluations on a snapshot of a year's test scores makes about as much sense as judging investment advisers based on how much money they are managing instead of the gains they earn for their clients.

• NCLB creates perverse incentives. The third and most fundamental problem has to do with perverse incentives. Schools must show annual improvements on test scores or face increasingly severe sanctions and the stigma of being labeled as failing. NCLB couples this punitive scheme with utter laxity regarding the standards and tests themselves. States get to develop their own standards, create their own tests, and set their own passing rates. Imagine if the EPA told the auto industry it would be fined heavily for polluting too much but let automakers decide for themselves what counts as "too much" pollution. That's basically how NCLB works.

It didn't take states very long to figure out how to play this weird little game: Avoid failure by lowering the bar! And that's exactly what some did, either by making the tests easier or simply lowering the score needed to be considered "proficient." As a result of shenanigans like these, most state tests are not very hard to pass. That many schools still post poor scores is a sign of how far we still need to travel, but it's important to recognize that, at a very basic level, this whole thing is a sham. NCLB, despite lofty rhetoric to the contrary, is not about equalizing opportunities in poor and rich, city and suburban schools; it's about making sure kids can learn some of the basics. No less, for sure, but also no more.

So what can the next president do to fix this mess? Propose an amended NCLB for reauthorization and make sure the new version contains at least three key changes:

• Standardize the standards. It's time to create national standards and tests in at least reading, math, science, and social studies/history. National tests in the past have been nonstarters politically, but they have always polled well, and some politicians are starting to come around. The reality is that the current federal-state compromise isn't working and doesn't make sense in a shrinking and flattening world. Why should we expect less of a student in Mississippi than in Massachusetts? Do fractions and algebra matter in North Carolina but not North Dakota?

It's worth noting here that the best high-school students already take national tests, though we don't call them that. We call them Advanced Placement tests. No one argues that it would be better to have 50 different AP tests in American history instead of one. Why should only our best students have the advantage of a high-quality, national testing system?

• Administer fewer tests. National tests should be given less often, perhaps in only fourth, eighth, and 11th grades. This would provide relief from the relentless test march that characterizes elementary- and middle-school years, which would give breathing room for subjects like music and art while concentrating attention on key thresholds in education. Reducing the overall amount of tests should also improve the quality of the tests themselves.

• Rank schools; don't prescribe punishments. The federal government should get out of the business of telling states how to reform and punish their schools, and we should drop 2014 as our rendezvous with perfection. It's a gimmick that has outlived its usefulness and is now causing more harm than good as states grow increasingly desperate to find ways to avoid the looming possibility that most of their schools will be labeled as failing. The federal government should instead, right now, create a system to rank every school within a state. A ranking system will provide both crucial information and create ongoing pressure for reform. It will also take away the incentive to game the testing system. Because some schools will always be ranked higher than others, there's no reason to try to make all students look as if they're from Lake Wobegon.

Scores on national tests should be one factor in the rankings but not the only one. School quality should also be measured using value-added assessments, crediting schools that make exceptional progress with their students, regardless of where those students started. Other criteria should include graduation rates, measured fairly and uniformly; college-attendance rates; and parental satisfaction. Still other criteria, such as advancement from grade to grade, might be used for elementary and middle schools. Ranking systems aren't perfect, but using multiple criteria to rank schools should provide a much clearer and fuller picture of school quality. States can then decide on their own how they want to sanction or assist the low-performing schools.

If and when NCLB is fixed, the next president should concentrate on two key issues: teachers and preschool.
• Teachers and money. Math and science teachers are in short supply, and there aren't enough good teachers in high-poverty and high-minority schools. A partial answer to this problem has been known for a long time. It's called money. To attract more and better qualified teachers, and to attract them to particular subjects and particular schools, we need to pay them more. The federal government has money. You see where this is headed.

• Teachers and prestige. Money alone is not enough. Respect, prestige, and decent working conditions also matter. The federal government cannot monitor working conditions in tens of thousands of schools, but it can create a teaching program that restores prestige to the profession. Teach for America—which places recent college graduates for two-year stints in some of the most difficult schools in the nation—is inundated with applications. In recent years, they've had to turn down four out of every five applicants, most from very good colleges. Indeed, in one year, 10 percent of the entire senior classes at Yale and Dartmouth applied.

The federal government should create a similar program by agreeing to reimburse at least some of the college expenses of those who enter teaching. Colleges and universities should also chip in, much as law schools cover the student loans of their graduates who go into public service. The longer the service, the more loans forgiven. The federal government should use this as a model to encourage college graduates to go into teaching—and to stay there for more than two years.

• Preschool. It's clear that many children should start school before kindergarten. The benefits of high-quality preschool, especially for children from poorer families, easily outweigh the costs. States have recognized this and have pumped billions of dollars into preschool education over the last decade, but millions of children remain without access. The federal government, in conjunction with the states, should strive to provide access at least to all 4-year-olds whose families cannot afford a high-quality preschool on their own. This would be both a politically popular measure and one of the single best investments any level of government could make.

More could be done, of course, but this is plenty for starters. All of these fixes will take real leadership and real money. But they're worthwhile and certainly better investments than our current response to educational failure: building more prisons.

http://www.aft.org/pubs-reports/american_educator/issues/spring2008/hirsch.pdf



Rock Hill Schools Information for April 2, 2008

Compiled by Elaine Baker, Rock Hill Schools Office

The Herald newspaper has submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to Rock Hill Schools, the City of Rock Hill, and York County government for a list of the names of all employees who make an annual salary of $50,000 and above. The district has provided the info as required by state law. Most likely the information will be posted on The Herald's web page.  Their sister publication, The State Paper in Columbia, has published government salaries, including those at Winthrop, for several years.

<Band programs from Northwestern, Rock Hill, and South Pointe participated yesterday and are participating today (4/2) in a concert festival at South Pointe. The Rock Hill High Ninth Grade and Concert bands will perform at 4:40 p.m.; the RHH Wind Ensemble, at 4:25 p.m.; and the Northwestern Symphonic Band will perform at 5:05.

<For the fifth consecutive year, Rawlinson Road Middle is again one of the top three schools in the state for donations to the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society. Students, faculty, staff, and parents raised $10,500 which put them in second place. Congratulations to Rawlinson Road on this outstanding achievement and especially to Guidance Counselor Martha Robbins, coordinator.

<Congratulations to Rock Hill Schools' Robotics Team 804, MetalMorphosis. The team's robot, "Mothra" was a finalist in the robotics competition at Clemson University last weekend. Hats off to the 15 team members, representing all three high schools; Adviser Mack Bailey (RHH); and the teachers and mentors who worked hard to make their motto, "Turning Opportunities into Reality," come true.

<For the fourth year, Northwestern and head varsity cheerleading coach, Koren Pantsari, will offer a little girls' cheer camp this summer.

<Students at Finley Road Elementary will present its Spring Music Show at 7:00 p.m. Tuesday, April 15, in the South Pointe Auditorium. Directed by Terri Westphal, the show is titled "Music Goes with Anything." There is no admission, but donations will be accepted at the door.

<Marsha Gross, director of the Northwestern Chamber Orchestra, is proud to report that the orchestra earned a superior rating at the S.C. Orchestra Concert Festival. The group received 122 points out of a possible 125.

<The Joseph-Beth Booksellers Golden Apple/Gives Back Preview Night will be held on Thursday, April 10, in the South Park Mall, beginning at 5:00 p.m. Thousands of books, starting at $1.50, will be for sale.


Blog Archive

Edutopia

Subscribe Now: Feed Icon