School Reforms Pay Off

[fintstone]

Looks like good news in education!

Dubya's school reforms pay off
Debra Saunders

July 27, 2005

For years, nothing helped. America's children weren't reading as well as they should. An achievement gap showed black and Latino students trailing behind their white counterparts in reading and math. Educators and politicians agreed Something Must Be Done, but they made halting progress. Until now.

This month, the National Assessment of Educational Progress -- also known as the national report card -- released good news on long-term educational trends in America. Reading competency for 9-year-olds has reached its highest level since NAEP began measuring progress in 1971.

What is more, the achievement gap is narrowing. The gap between black and white 9-year-olds tested for reading was 44 points in 1971 to 26 points in 2004, while the gap between white and Latino students narrowed from 34 points in 1975 to 21 points in 2004. Half the gap-narrowing has occurred since 1999.

Of course, educrats are scrambling to make sure that no credit goes to President Bush or his No Child Left Behind program. The American Federation of Teachers issued a statement through an official, who noted that efforts that led to the higher scores predate the Bush presidency.

The AFT is right. The reforms that boosted scores predate the Bush presidency.

That said, when he was governor of Texas, Bush had the good sense to jump on the right horse. He believed in pushing basic literacy, even if he wasn't as strong on phonics as I would have liked. He urged better testing to hold failing schools accountable. The approach paid off. When Bush was governor, black eighth-graders in Texas led the country in math and reading.

While Bush was on the right horse, some teacher groups and top educrats were leading a stampede of bad horses, carrying American children headlong toward ignorance. They eschewed phonics, dispensed with multiplication tables, denounced testing -- unless it gave credit for wrong math answers with clever essays -- and preferred failed bilingual education programs to English immersion programs for children learning English.

Look at any reform that has boosted student performance -- phonics, direct instruction, English immersion -- and the chances are, the educrats were against it.

When parents revolted against whole language -- which teaches children to read language as a whole, without teaching them to decode words -- the educrats argued against a return to phonics, which they dismissed as "drill and kill."

When reformers pushed for tests that could show which curricula worked best, educrats denounced testing. If children steeped in phonics scored well on reading tests, they were not impressed -- it was because the children were brainwashed, not literate. And if whole-language learners scored poorly, well, it was because they were so creative.

When Bush and company demanded accountability, they complained that standards would hurt poor children -- as if under-educating poor and minority students didn't hurt poor and minority kids.

The educrat lobby in California opposed the switch from bilingual education to English immersion. Fortunately, California voters, not educrats, had an opportunity to switch to English immersion programs, and now more immigrant children have mastered English.

Over time, classroom teachers have seen their students make progress. Many have come to see the wisdom in emphasizing phonics -- it may be boring for teachers, but it helps kids learn to read better.

Bush packaged his approach under his promise to fight "the soft bigotry of low expectations." For years, educators blamed parents, demographics, money -- you name it -- for poor student performance.

Bush didn't want to hear the excuses -- and his Texas swagger paid off. As Hoover Institution fellow and sometime Bush adviser Bill Evers noted, "There's no doubt that high expectations and trying to hold the system accountable from top to the bottom is having an overall positive effect."

And so the educrats are left with weak criticisms. They complain that No Child Left Behind is underfunded -- even as Bush budgets money for the Department of Education. They argue that students have no motivation to apply themselves when they take tests -- and still the NAEP numbers are up. They note that NAEP high-school scores are flat without acknowledging that they opposed reforms that are helping more of today's 9-year-olds read.

[gaijindabe]

Bump!

[stevepaa]

The AFT is right. The reforms that boosted scores predate the Bush presidency.

thank you Fint

But seriously. This is just another devisive piece of propaganda. Look we even have a new label to identify the villians-educrats.
What's next? Little school emblems that all educrats must wear so we know who the evil people are.

[tswaney]

Here's the link to the NAEP report, if anyone is interested in seeing all of the data. I think it is important to look at all 19 pages (graphs) of the trends, and examine both the positive and negative before reaching an overall conclusion.

NAEP report

[stevepaa]

Thanks for the link.
Interesting. Seems more kids read the better they do at tests.
Also, it is apparent that kids are getting smarter and able to take higher mathematics at an ealier age.
Nothing really new about that for those who taught.

Would be interesting to find why minorities had a decline in the 90's. Does that mean some programs were cut in the 80's?
Does that mean there was a lot of new teachers hired in the 90's?

[tswaney]

Reading comprehension is the key to all of the tests (reading, math, science, SS). And content knowledge comes in close second, at least on the science tests. Math is arguably the most content based of the standardized tests, but is still primarily a reading test. When reading improves, all of the tests should improve regardless of the content being tested.

I'm not sold on NCLB being the solution to the ed. systems problems (just from the point that the data are too new and not reproducable yet.) That being said, I am not against NCLB. If it proves to work, then that is awesome!

I agree with your point on higher mathematics being taken earlier. I remember when Algebra became the norm in middle school, and now calculus and statistics as a Junior or Senior in HS. In science, there are 9th graders learning organic chemistry! When I was in HS, the first chance to take Alg. was in the 9th grade, Chemistry as a junior and physics as a senior. It's all been shifted forward a notch or two, which I believe is excellent.

[stevepaa]

I fear political solutions to learning issues.
If I was still teaching, I fear I would be pressured to teach them how to pass the tests, not how to think.
Reminds me of a PhD I worked with in the 70's. If I had a question on gas dynamics we would start at the basic fundamentals and basic derived equations and proceed from there. I do the same with my children. Even when they just want the answer, they know I will start with fundamentals.

[tswaney]

Bump.

This is too important to fade away.

[gaijindabe]

A good topic, glad its being bumped.

One thing I think we can all agree on is strong reading skills. A good foundation for the rest. And of they are not in place, too many children are lost..

Speling is not that important IMHO.

[fintstone]

Originally posted by stevepaa
The AFT is right. The reforms that boosted scores predate the Bush presidency.

thank you Fint

But seriously. This is just another devisive piece of propaganda. Look we even have a new label to identify the villians-educrats.
What's next? Little school emblems that all educrats must wear so we know who the evil people are.

You are welcome...
Face it, Presidents and Governors are not "idea guys"...what makes one great or pitiful is which ideas they latch on to. Just as the article suggests...Bush apparently leaped on this horse early and kept riding it until the current successes. The"educrats" you speak of have fought the reforms with everything the had...at the expense of an entire generation of kids.
While it is true that you cannot give the the entire credit for the improvements to conservatives...you can certainly credit democrats with fighting them tooth and nail for over a decade.

[Shaun @ Tru6]

Long ago as a business manager for a composite mfg (we made a few parts for the stealth bomber and the army) I picked up govt. cost accounting. When the company was sold to Bauer (carbon fibre hockey sticks) I went to work for a DoEd contractor that researched and created new school curricula.

Most of you know, I'm a pretty liberal guy. I firmly believe that Education is the silver bullet to many of society's ills and problems.

I can just as firmly say that, at least back in the 90s, that the DoEd is the biggest waste of money in the govt.Huge sums ($50 million in our company annually) were spent on research (good research I might add) that was shelved and never used.

What was interesting is the DoEd people could manage billing, were intelligent, etc. the DoD people were among the most stupid I've ever met in my life and screwed up nearly every monthly invoice for 2 years.

[tswaney]

Fint-
I'm the first guy to give credit where it is due, but looking at all of the scores in math and reading, only age 9 reading has gone up in the past decade. I think that I will continue to reserve judgement on the efficacy of NCLB until no child is left behind. One testing class is not enough data for me.

If NCLB proves to be a success, then as I said before, excellent.

[fintstone]

Tom
I would have to disagree. It looks to me like math scores are significantly improved also.

[tswaney]

Yup Fint,
My mistake, those are statistically significant (for both 9 and 13 y.o.).

What is the reason behind the climb in math since '78 (in your opinion)? That seems to be a trend which has been (somewhat) consistent and takes place in "the bad old" days before NCLB.

[gavinlit]

If the educational outcomes have improved then credit should go wherever it's due. I don't know much about your secondary education system so can't really comment. Long term, it's got to be a good thing for the country.

One word of caution - improved test results don't always indicate improved learning. Sometimes they just indicate that teachers and students have had more time to become accustomed to the requirements of the testing. Again I can't comment because I'm not familiar with the testing.

Schools in my state have to sit a statewide literacy and numeracy examination in yrs 7 and yrs 8 (first two years of high school). It's common practice to not prepare students at all for the yr 7 examination and then prepare like hell for the yr 8 exam. That way the school has some very favourable 'value added' statistics. Exam results should be evaluated very very carefully.

Edit - anyway, congrats to you guys if it's heading in the right direction.

[fintstone]

Originally posted by tswaney
Yup Fint,
My mistake, those are statistically significant (for both 9 and 13 y.o.).

What is the reason behind the climb in math since '78 (in your opinion)? That seems to be a trend which has been (somewhat) consistent and takes place in "the bad old" days before NCLB.

Mostly social changes. Overall, society/schools began to emphasize/teach math and science to minorities and girls...and at a younger age. Different career paths began to open up for these groups...so they began to prepare for them. Technology careers became more viable than secretary, homemaker, waitress or mother.
NCLB ensures that schools in distressed areas offer the proper curriculum/educators to match the norm. The "politically correct" view as been that problem areas/schools were underfunded (although usually funded at a much higher per student rate) or the soft bigotry/racism that assumed that poor/minority kids just could not learn at the same level as the majority.

[nostatic]

Originally posted by tswaney

I agree with your point on higher mathematics being taken earlier. I remember when Algebra became the norm in middle school, and now calculus and statistics as a Junior or Senior in HS. In science, there are 9th graders learning organic chemistry! When I was in HS, the first chance to take Alg. was in the 9th grade, Chemistry as a junior and physics as a senior. It's all been shifted forward a notch or two, which I believe is excellent.

what exactly are you calling "organic chemistry"? Do you have a link to any classes/syllabi/text books?

[fintstone]

http://www.organicworldwide.net/

From UNM catalog:

212. Integrated Organic Chemistry and Biochemistry. (4)
Survey interrelating the major principles of organic chemistry and biochemistry with special emphasis toward interests of students in the health sciences. Prerequisite: 111L or 121L. (Credit not allowed for both 212 and 301.) {Summer, Fall, Spring}
253L. Quantitative Analysis. (4)
Theory and techniques of volumetric and gravimetric analysis. Prerequisite: 122L. 2 lectures, 6 hrs. lab. (Students should make every effort to complete 253L within two semesters of completion of 122L.) {Summer, Fall, Spring}
In the courses numbered 301-308, the laboratory course must be taken concurrently with the corresponding lecture course. Students dropping the lecture prior to the eighth week of the semester must drop the corresponding lab; however, students dropping the lecture after that time may be allowed to continue the lab to completion, provided that at the time of dropping the lecture the grade in the lab course was C or better.

**301. Organic Chemistry. (3)
Chemistry of the compounds of carbon. Prerequisite: 122L or 132L. {Summer, Fall, Spring}
**302. Organic Chemistry. (3)
Continuation of 301. Prerequisite: 301. {Summer, Fall, Spring}

[Superman]

Originally posted by fintstone
you can certainly credit democrats with fighting them tooth and nail for over a decade.

This is a fascinating statement. If you said this on the bridge of the Starship Enterprise, Spock would raise one eyebrow and Sulu would chuckle.

[tswaney]

what exactly are you calling "organic chemistry"? Do you have a link to any classes/syllabi/text books?

I guess I have to come clean here...my 9/10 grade biology classes. We spend nine weeks on organics. No, its not college level, but we get into classes of compounds, molecular formulas, hydrolysis and synthesis of ethers and esters... Then into carbohydrates, fats, proteins, steroids, and DNA.
My belief is that you can't properly understand biology without understanding at least something of organics.

Sorry, no online syllabus, our text is Modern Biology by Towle, HRW publisher; its only used as a reference as most of the materials that I use, I make.