Myth: We need Innovation for schools to improve

December 31, 2003

Many people think that for our schools to improve, we need more Innovation.

Some folks believe that to improve schools, we need to Integrate Technology, Write across the Curriculum, Be more aware of the seven Multiple Intelligences, teach Self Esteem, do more in Cooperative Learning groups, teach in a more Constructivist manner, and subert the dominant Factory School paradigm.

Unfortunately these folks don't realize that education reform is not a contest to see who can come up with the most innovative program. Thomas Sowell calls innovation "a magic word in the wonderland of educational Newspeak." It may produce a lot of foamy lather, but doesn't usually translate into better results.

For example, at one inner-city middle school, they chose a commercial reform model to help children improve in Math, Science and Reading. One of the innovative aspects of the reform package was a routine similar to the cooperative-learning technique known as TAPS: Think And Pair Share. The experts said this should take the entire class period, preferably once a week.

This is really great. What you do is you pair up the students and they talk to each other! Brilliant! This way, when they get to college, they'll have the skills neccessary to participate in all-night BS sessions.

Now I don't know about you but we don't think that students need more expertise in the area of socialization with their friends.

We could make similarly sardonic jabs at innovative English programs that abandon spelling and grammar, or innovative Math programs that take amazing flights of fancy with calculators, wresting children from the evil grasp of paper-and-pencil arithmetic.

Innovation is only required when you're trying to do something that has never been done before!

Innovation was needed to land a man on the moon and return him safely to Earth. With the rocket technology of the day it would have been a fairly straightforward matter to design a vehicle which could escape Earth's gravity and fly to and land a man on the moon.

However once on the moon's surface the rocket would not have been able to lift off carrying all the fuel needed for the return trip back to Earth.

The innovation was to divide the lunar module into two parts: the Command Module and the Lunar Excursion Module (LEM). Giving the Command Module the return-trip fuel made the LEM a much lighter craft that could land on the moon. The LEM itself could split in two to save even more weight, rejoining the Command Module in lunar orbit for the trip back to Earth.

Innovation was also needed in the design of the Space Shuttle—the design criteria was basically, "Take off like a rocket, land like a plane, and be reusable."

School success, and urban school success, and especially poor, urban school success was a reality yesterday and is a reality today!

All we need to do is learn from and model what successful schools have done and success will be within our grasp as well.

These poor, urban schools who've had great success show us that achievement is hard work, but it certainly does not need to be rocket science.

(For more on school success see No Excuses: 21 High-Performing, High Poverty Schools by Samuel Casey Carter. This is an excellent resource for those folks, like us, who believe that success comes from hard work, not gravy.)

NCTM and "Problem Solving"

December 30, 2003

A teacher shared some notes taken during one of the first faculty meetings of the school year at a city public school:

The speaker, an administrator, said, "We used to teach isolated facts. We would drill on multiplication tables but would never use them in problem solving. The NCTM recommends that we now focus on problem solving."

In the margin, I wrote, "100% bull."

One thing the NCTM (National Council of Teachers of Mathematics) is good for is revisionist history. The idea that we used to teach students the multiplication table, and then never used that information in solving math problems is preposterous. One of the worst things to happen to math education in this country is the NCTM, with their zeal for so-called problem solving. In the real world, if you teach basic skills (facility with number facts, fractions, decimals, percents, algebra, etc.) and have students use these facts to solve problems (without using calculators) then what you end up with is really good problem solvers!

But in the NCTM universe, if you depend on a calculator for your number facts, you can just jump in with your "problem solving." Sounds reasonable enough, but what you end up with is a student who sees "A man has 5 trucks, and each truck holds 10 cases"--immediately adding 5+10 (on the calculator, natch) for the answer of 15 cases. Students who don't know beans about number facts won't be able to solve problems, no matter how much you focus on problem solving!

This isn't a case of putting the cart before the horse, this is a case of removing the horse entirely!

Isn't "Constructivism" wonderful?

December 29, 2003

Here's the party line: Constructivism is based on the idea that knowledge is constructed in our minds when we learn new things. If we teach children to construct the knowledge in their own minds, we will improve learning. More importantly, if we don't teach children to construct the knowledge, they won't learn as well. It is very important that teachers "teach with constructivism in mind."

Sorry to burst your bubble, but all knowledge is constructed! Every time you learn something, anything, you tag those ideas onto things you already know. This is called building on prior knowledge, and teachers for the past 4000 years have been doing this. This benign form of constructivism is putting a new name on what is common sense to just about anyone who's tried to teach.

This is a bit like telling someone that the key to baking a cake is something special called flourpower. Well, duh, everyone bakes with flour, calling it something new doesn't make it a new concept.

The malignant form of constructivism, however, encourages teachers not to teach, since the child needs to construct his own knowledge from scratch.

The illegitimate child of constructivism and Mathematics is the NCTM's New New Math. Gone are mathematical knowledge and skills which have evolved over the centuries, and gone are the tedious paper-and-pencil calculations. It's much better to have students discover their own math and construct their own algorithms, isn't it?

Well, no.

A more pernicious form of constructivism arises in certain literature and history classes, whereby not only is the knowledge constructed in the student's mind, but each student is encouraged to construct his or her own meaning.

In other words, there is no right or wrong, just interpretation. There's no accepted meaning for anything, since everyone's different. (In higher education this philosophy is called deconstructionism, and its adherents typically don't do much but rail against the evil establishment, gleefully pointing out supposed instances of hypocrisy.)

But just as any legitimate university literature program rejects deconstrutionism, schools need to reject constructivism. There's no there, there.

Humor: Responsibilities of Teachers

December 28, 2003

Making the rounds on the 'net, this message found its way to us by our friend Gil H.

Dedicated to all teachers (author unknown)

After being interviewed by the school administration, the eager teaching prospect said: "Let me see if I've got this right. You want me to go into that room with all those kids, and fill their every waking moment with a love for learning.

"And I'm supposed to instill a sense of pride in their ethnicity, modify their disruptive behavior, observe them for signs of abuse and even censor their t-shirt messages and dress habits. You want me to wage a war on drugs and sexually transmitted diseases, check their backpacks for weapons of mass destruction, and raise their self esteem.

"You want me to teach them patriotism, good citizenship, sportsmanship, fair play, how to register to vote, how to balance a checkbook, and how to apply for a job. I am to check their heads for lice, maintain a safe environment, recognize signs of anti-social behavior, offer advice, write letters of recommendation for student employment and scholarships, encourage respect for the cultural diversity of others, and oh, make sure that I give the girls in my class fifty percent of my attention.

"My contract requires me to work on my own time after school, evenings and weekends grading papers. Also, I must spend my summer vacation at my own expense working toward advance certification and a Masters degree. And on my own time you want me to attend committee and faculty meetings, PTA meetings, and participate in staff development training. I am to be a paragon of virtue, larger than life, such that my very presence will awe my students into being obedient and respectful of authority.

"You want me to incorporate technology into the learning experience, monitor web sites, and relate personally with each student. That includes deciding who might be potentially dangerous and/or liable to commit a crime in school. I am to make sure all students pass the mandatory state exams, even those who don't come to school regularly or complete any of their assignments.

"Plus, I am to make sure that all of the students with handicaps get an equal education regardless of the extent of their mental or physical handicap. And I am to communicate regularly with the parents by letter, telephone, newsletter and report card. All of this I am to do with just a piece of chalk, a computer, a few books, a bulletin board, a big smile AND on a starting salary that qualifies my family for food stamps!

"You want me to do all of this and yet you expect me not to pray?"

What's wrong with "wonderful"

December 28, 2003

Even if we could make all the idiotic ideas and practices of our public schools magically disappear overnight, it would not do the slightest good, as long as the same shallow people were there the next day to find new idiocies to substitute for the hard work of teaching academic skills. - Thomas Sowell

What's wrong with wonderful? Well, a great deal if that's the best adjective that can be used to describe a program or idea.

For example, we know of an inner-city elementary school that adopted (at great expense) the entire MathLand program. It was full of wonderful activities, and the kids loved it, the teachers loved it, and the parents loved it.

It was so wonderful that the kids didn't learn a darn thing! (Actually, that's not quite true. They did learn something, they learned that "math is fun" despite the fact that they didn't actually learn much mathematics.)

If someone says to you, "I know of a wonderful program..." Stop!!! Stop 'em right there! Ask, "Is it proven to be effective in raising achievement in real classrooms?" You will soon find out how wonderful said program is.

But beware, don't make the mistake of just asking "Is it effective?" because that's not the same thing. See, they might have unhelpfully redefined the word "effective," as we discussed yesterday.

Redefining the word "effective"

December 27, 2003

Not too long ago, the Urban Systemic Initiative folks announced that they were going to evaluate a number of mathematics programs, in terms of how effective the programs were. They were then going to require all Philadelphia public schools to select one of their anointed "effective" programs.

This all sounded well and good, but we were troubled that the "effective" programs on the list all seemed to be "fuzzy math" programs, infamous elsewhere in the country for mediocre (or in some cases plummeting mathematics scores. (We're speaking of MathScape, IMP, Everyday Math, Math In Context, Connected Mathematics and MathLand.) We also were troubled that Saxon Math—one math program we knew firsthand to be truly effective in raising math achievement—was missing.

After doing a little digging, we discovered the source of the problem.

In their infinite wisdom they had redefined the word effective.

Their definition of an effective math program was one that:

1. Embraced varied learning styles
2. Integrated technology
3. Had alternative, open-ended assessments
4. Raised children's self esteem
5. Encouraged children to think positively about mathematics

Let's discuss each of these in turn.

1. When an educator speaks of learning styles that is supposed to mean that the teacher will do what is needed to reach every student. In practice that usually means playing to a student's strengths (while the weaknesses stay just that).

2. Integrating Technology in math class means calculators, the use of which is encouraged as early as Kindergarten.

3. Alternative assessments is another way of playing to a child's strengths, the end result is that there are inconsistent standards for the students in the same class. Open-ended assessments is another way of saying that there is no one right answer. (Remember, we're talking about math class!)

4. One should be highly skeptical when educators speak of raising children's self esteem. The fantasy is that self esteem can be taught, or manually raised. In reality the best thing to raise a child's self esteem is to be successful at work that is challenging! Which means hard work pays off. There's no getting around it. (Effusive praise or eliminating bad grades are transparent to even the youngest children.)

5. This was the only point to mention math, but it's in the affective domain: they wanted students to develop "math appreciation" (even if they didn't develop "math skills").

Not one of their attributes of an effective math program said anything about actually teaching or learning math.

Let's say we were to tell you that an "effective" pencil sharpener was one that was "hand-crafted by Maori tribespeople, using only natural materials harvested from sustainable forests, and decorated with culturally significant symbols using non-toxic paint."

You'd say, "That's nice, but how well does it sharpen pencils?"

People aren't interested in political correctness when their sharpener reduces their pencil to useless splinters and sawdust.

It shouldn't need to be said, but we're going to say it anyway, an effective mathematics teaching program is one that is effective in increasing student's mathematical skills and knowledge.

In a similar vein the Progressive educators who invented Whole Language and Balanced Literacy removed phonics, grammar, and spelling from the equation with their re-definition of "effective" literacy programs.

If you don't like where you're hitting, it is far easier to move your target.

Suffer the little children.

Myth: Education Research can be trusted

December 26, 2003

Many people think all Education Research is valid.

You could commission any study to say almost whatever you wanted. For example, in the 1940s and '50s cigarette advertising used to quote doctors and medical research up and down showing how beneficial smoking was for you.

Were they lying?

No, because they simply focused on the calming effect of nicotine in the bloodstream. They studied people who were nervous, jumpy, and irritable and found that they were soothed when they lit up. Smoking had "taken the edge off."

Of course we all now know that smoking has some not-so-wonderful effects on a person's lungs and circulatory system. And while we are still aware that smoking relaxes people (health benefit) we know the corrosive effects on one's heart and lungs (health risk) are vastly more devastating.

The same goes for educational research.

Some is good, some is bad. It all depends on what research question you ask.

You could ask all sorts of "wonderful" questions about "wonderful" educational programs and find research that will confirm your diagnosis of "wonderful."

Confirming questions of this sort tend to be affective in nature. "How did the student feel?" "Does the student like it?" And our favorite, "Does it improve self-esteem?" (We certainly are obsessed with self-esteem!)

But we challenge you to instead give more weight to research that is effective in nature, especially with regards to academic achievement that can be measured on standardized tests. Yes, we know, standardized tests are said to be evil. But they often give a disinterested, objective view—the computer scoring the test does not care a whit what program the kids are on—which can be very helpful in determining a program's success.

Another thing to consider when looking at so-called educational research is to consider whether it was a pilot study (in an experimental setting) or a longitudinal study based on real classrooms. For example, the Hawthorne Effect is a well known phenomena, showing that any changes to a system (plus increased scrutiny) can lead to an increase in the variable you're studying.

One classic study examined workplace productivity. When they painted the walls a different color (let's say orange), there was a surge in productivity. But when the walls were painted again, restoring the original color, productivity surged again. It is interesting to note that if they stopped the study after the first repainting, they would have drawn an entirely false conclusion about orange paint.

Oftentimes trial-period educational studies involve a similar surge in productivity simply due to the newness of the program under scrutiny. Plus, people tend to be "on point" with researchers crawling all over one's classroom.

Rather than risk the Hawthorne effect in a pilot study, it is better to perform longitudinal research, measuring progress year after year.

Many research projects look at a variable, for example two varieties of Math textbook, and measure pre- and posttest scores for one class with Book A and another class with Book B. If the achievement in Class A with Book A were higher, it is easy to say that Book A caused the increase in achievement.

Hopefully you're sharp enough to realize that any differences in Class A and Class B could well be due to the teacher rather than the math book! As the story goes, a master teacher can teach out of a phone book.

This brings us to another point. Correlation does not prove causation. This trips a lot of people, including researchers who should know better. Correlation doesn't prove anything, for there could be another variable (like the teacher in this example) that is really causing the change.

To take an example from real life, let's say for every day in July you counted the number of kids in a swimming pool and the amount of ice cream sales at the corner mom-and-pop. You'd notice that as there were more kids swimming, there were also more ice cream sales. When one goes down, so does the other.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that eating ice cream doesn't cause kids to go swimming, or vice versa! Both are affected by the heat on a summer's day.

Let's discuss a few other factors which can hurt the rigor of a study. One is the use of different pre- and posttests. It should go without saying that the pre- and post-test should be the same, but you'd be surprised how often researchers like to mix-and-match to "prove" the desired outcome.

One example is to use an effective pretest (such as a standardized test score) and an affective posttest (such as a measure of self esteem).

We confidently bet you a nickel that the "wonderful" program will come out ahead in that horse race!

One final note. Did the researchers reveal where the study took place? If the location is "undisclosed" then you can't be sure the researchers didn't pull the data out of their, um, Erlenmeyer flasks.

Dueling Brochures: Everyday Math vs. Saxon Math

December 24, 2003

We had an interesting experience when researching math programs for a proposed charter school. We did not want the educational program to be based on popularity or "wonderfulness," rather we wanted the program to have been proven in real classrooms.

We'd heard good things about both "Chicago Math" (aka Everyday Math and UCSMP) and "Saxon Math" so we wrote to both, asking for more information.

Now of course both would put their best marketing face on, and we knew to take their findings with a grain of salt.

Everyday Math

The Everyday Math materials arrived first. We were very impressed by all the research that they said went into the design of the program. They illustrated their results using four double-line graphs—one line in the graph represented Everyday Math and the other was a control group—each graph showing pre- and posttest results.

But in three of the four graphs the pretest was different from the posttest. This means that before the study, they tested the students using one form of assessment, then after the study they picked a different test entirely! These were the only graphs that appeared that the Everyday Math group did better than the control group, but once you factor in the switcheroo mid-experiment the data becomes meaningless.

In the fourth graph, we were pleased to note that both the pre- and post-test used were identical. However in this graph, the two lines were parallel, meaning the Everyday Math group posted an identical gain to the control group!

In none of the four graphs was the identity of the school given.

We were disillusioned, to say the least. Either the entire group of University of Chicago experts from the Everyday Math program had forgotten how to conduct proper research, or... (at that moment the doorbell rang.)

Saxon Math

It was the postman with the package from Saxon.

We looked at the Saxon materials with low expectations. Their research booklet was terse, just a simple seventy-eight pages of bar graphs, called ?The Saxon Report Card.?

Many of the bar graphs were longitudinal, illustrating a before-Saxon base line and a yearly progression afterwards. Some of the results were fair, some good, and others stellar. All of the results were positive.

They also compared apples-to-apples, in each case showing before and after results using the same assessment, such as the SAT-9.

But what really got our attention was the following: Not only were all seventy schools or districts identified by name and town (from twenty-one states plus the District of Columbia), each included the principal's name!

The results spoke for themselves, but we wanted to double-check for ourselves. Using a separate list of Saxon-using schools, we called two Philadelphia principals. Both were very pleased with the program, and both pointed out that their PSSA and SAT-9 scores had gone up every year since they adopted the Saxon Math program.

We weren't quite sure what to make of all this. Either this was an elaborate hoax—including the tapping of our phones—engineered by the Saxon folks, or... (at that moment, the kitchen timer rang.)

Dinner was ready.

---

An amazingly similar incident to our Chicago Math experience is recounted in Elaine McEwan's Angry Parents, Failing Schools, in which a pair of former college professors examined the research presented in an Everyday Mathematics (Chicago Math) brochure and concluded "the research was seriously flawed. The snazzy packet was 'smoke and mirrors' and unfortunately a lot of parents and educators were fooled."

Education Reform Sampler

December 23, 2003

Before enlightenment, chopping wood, carrying water.
After enlightenment, chopping wood, carrying water.

-Zen Proverb

No matter the shining promises or "Enlightenment" proffered by Progressive educators, at the end of the day there is still the hard work of teaching children academic knowledge and skills.

It's been said that our math curriculum is a mile wide and an inch deep. The same can be said for Progressive efforts at education reform. Can we instead focus on what works? Thanks.

Major Themes of Education Reform
A quick-and-dirty overview of the themes we've seen emerge in the past few years of researching the problem of Education Reform.

Opening doors
Why do children attend school? Is it for merely utilitarian purposes?

10 Traits of Highly Successful Schools
Elaine McEwan's blueprint for improving any school.

Comparison of Traditional and Progressive
A simple point-by-point (or blow-by-blow) overview.

Tale of two extremes
What would you get if you took Traditional and Progressive approaches to their logical endpoints?

Changing what we can Change
Too many educators blame our educational problems on things they can't change.

Reform and Rocket Science
Do we at ReformK12.com have a grudge against rocket scientists?

Major Themes in Education Reform

December 21, 2003

There are some major themes to education reform:

1. What we need desperately is a return to a curriculum based upon academic knowledge and skills...

...however, problem solving and critical thinking are mistakenly seen as more important.

2. Progressive pedagogy is a big part of the problem...

...however, most teachers today are trained to use Progressive methods.

3. Innovation is too often held as the solution...

...however, education is not rocket science.

4. What are most often blamed for our educational problems are aspects like inadequate funding, large class sizes, and lack of teacher certification...

...however it turns out that these items are just gravy.

---

We at ReformK12.com will focus our efforts on what happens inside the classroom, and will address the first three items above. The reason for our focus is we want to help real flesh-and-blood teachers, administrators, and parents improve schools today (hence our name).

Item number four involves greater issues in American Education, and while it is helpful to constructively criticize them, they will not change any time soon. In the interest of studying the bigger picture of education reform we will address some of these issues, but we will not dwell on them for they are not practical for the parent, teacher and administrator to change today.

1. Academic Curriculum

Don't misunderstand, we believe that children should be taught problem solving and critical thinking skills, but not at the expense of academic content! We'd shout it from the rooftops if we could: critical thinking cannot be taught if one has nothing about which to think critically!

2. Progressive School

The phrase "child-centered education" sums up the Progressive philosophy of education quite nicely. (This is opposed to "content-centered education" i.e., the reason why parents send their children to school in the first place.)

Progressive methods of teaching predominate in virtually all of the Colleges of Education in universities across the United States. In fact, this school of thought is so widespread that there isn't even any debate on the subject—the "progressive way" is essentially regarded as the way.

From the archives of do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do, an annecdote about the venerable Father of Progressive Education, John Dewey. In the early part of the twentieth century, he taught many thousands of future teachers using a very effective, time-honored method: he lectured.

3. Innovation?

There's no shortage of Educational Experts (and Progressive Educators, see above) to keep us tickled with a fresh supply of theories—and innovative programs based upon these theories—any of which could be the solution to all our problems.

We don't buy it.

4. Common Scapegoats

Yes, we know, all we need to solve the education crisis are: More Money, Smaller Classes, and More Certified Teachers. These oft-repeated phrases are the rallying cries of an alarming number of folks, including our teachers union, which of course has completely pure motives.

Don't believe everything you see on TV.

Education Reform and Rocket Science

December 20, 2003

What do we have against Rocket Scientists?

In actuality, we're big fans of rocket scientists. One of the reasons we push for effective education is to give our students the math and science (and english and history and geography as well) they need to become the next generation of rocket scientists.

We highly recommend you see (or read) October Sky, the true story of how a coal miner's son became a rocket scientist.

See, when the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics successfully launched Sputnik on October 4, 1957, it was a wake-up call here in the United States. We'd knew we had to get on the ball with regard to our educational system, which meant our schools needed to stop messing around and return to real teaching.

Progressive experts can spout wonderful theories and all sorts of child-centered pablum, but if we really want our students to learn math and science and Engish, we teach math and science and English.

With no apologies, by the way.

It is unfortunate that today there is no similar, singular mobilizing event such as Sputnik to help us get our act together.

But it is mildly ironic that the best way to ensure the development of future rocket scientists?or any other profession?is to stop making Education into rocket science.

People who pride themselves on their "complexity" and deride others for being "simplistic" should realize that the truth is often not very complicated. What gets complex is evading the truth.
-Thomas Sowell

(For more information on the event that started the Space Race, see NASA's Sputnik page.)

Guiding Principles for Reform in Philly, Part 2

December 19, 2003

Remember, the four guiding principles for reform in Philadelphia are:

Educate Children First
Treat Teachers as Educators
Engage Families as Parents
Great Education Emerges from Sound Financial Practices

What is missing? Well for starters, notice that there are only four principles, and not seventeen. While there might be seventeen "wonderful" things on which to focus in turning around Philadelphia Schools, your chances of success are dramatically higher if you focus on the four most important ones.

What else is missing? Did you notice that the catch phrases Constructivism, Technology Integration, Cooperative Learning, Holistic Teaching, Discovery Method, the Child-Centered Classroom and Self-Esteem Building do not appear once in the principles?

This tells us that the SRC doesn't plan to use the meaningless terms of edubabble to describe their plan. To do so would make their plan at one with the mind-numbing ranks of progressive idealistic thinkers, not practical, hardworking teachers.

Rather, it seems to us that the four guiding principles are grounded in reality?the here and now.

We would be bullish on their prospects for success, if they could focus on this plan and resist the efforts of progressive reformers. (Phrases like direct instruction drive them nuts!)

Guiding Principles for Reform in Philly

December 19, 2003

18 months ago the School District of Philadelphia went through a change of leadership. The School Reform Commission (SRC), with members selected by the Governor and the Mayor, replaced the former School Board.

James Nevels, the chairman of the SRC, set forth some principles to guide reform of the Philadelphia School District, which we're reprinting here.

EDUCATE CHILDREN FIRST
A quality education gives all children the opportunity to do great things. So when it comes to education, we must put our children first. We must begin by providing a better and safer environment for children to learn and felonious violence must stop. Children need direct instruction, new books and better curriculum. The goal has to be an improved education system, measured by attendance and improved test scores.

TREAT TEACHERS AS EDUCATORS
Teachers must be involved in any effort to reform our schools. We must begin by attracting and retaining education professionals. We must work with educators collaboratively to improve curriculum. And we must provide them with the necessary training and resources to do their job well. Accountability will be critical if we are to succeed in improving education for all Philadelphia school children. The children's futures are at stake.

ENGAGE FAMILIES AS PARENTS
Learning doesn't stop at the end of the school day. We need to better involve and engage parents, aunts, uncles, brothers, sisters, grandparents, neighbors and friends -- the entire extended and non-traditional family network -- in our effort to educate kids. Their support will be critical to our long-term success the success of our children.

GREAT EDUCATION EMERGES FROM SOUND FINANCIAL PRACTICES
In order to employ sound financial procedures, we must take steps to review and reform the finances of the School District.

Changing what we can change

December 18, 2003

In conversations with many, many city teachers regarding why our schools aren't better, invariably the talk swings around to two things: the parents and the neighborhood.

Talk about setting yourself up for failure!

As long as we, in our hearts, honestly believe that the reason why our schools aren't better is because of parents and the neighborhood, then schools will probably never get much better. Oh, we can show some incremental improvement here and there, but as long as we've set up a logical structure where the prerequisites for success are completely out of our control, we don't have to really get upset at ourselves when we fail, because, it's completely out of our control.

We've looked at this quite a while, and our conclusion is this is the only reason why basically good, decent teachers and principals can come to work every day without drowning in despair. It is also why our schools are only getting incrementally better, 1% here and there.

What we need to do is change what we can change.

This sounds so simple as to be unrealistic, but it is the truth. Fortunately our path is lit by the many high-performing, yet high-poverty schools that have come before us. Not a single urban school has ever significantly improved focusing on things like parents and neighborhoods.

They focused on rigorous academics and a school climate of high expectations first, and made no apologies of the fact, and tolerated no excuses.

We are not saying that they ignored parents and neighborhoods. On the contrary, many high-performing schools have had significant outreach efforts to welcome parents into the school, and to help make the school a living, breathing member of the community. But they did all of this without losing sight of their primary mission: the hard work of teaching children academic knowledge and skills.

A few of these schools have been documented in the book No Excuses: 21 High Performing, High Poverty Schools by Samuel Casey Carter.

A tale of two extremes

December 17, 2003

As discussed yesterday, the traditionalists and the progressives don't exactly see eye to eye. So who's right?

One way to compare traditional education with progressive is to examine each taken to its extreme.

The philosophy of Traditional education, taken to the extreme, ends up looking a lot like one of our Military Academies such as West Point, Annapolis, or even the Valley Forge Military Academy. These schools turn out students with a classical education in addition to military bearing and discipline.

Yes, the discipline and regimentation can seem excessive to some, but when one considers only the academic side to the education one receives at an academy, it is quite an accomplishment. Not all graduates of the service academies end up serving a career in the military, many become captains of business and industry, and leaders of the community.

Now contrast that with the ideals of Progressive education. Taken to its logical end, you end up with a school like Summerhill. Children are free to come and go, to express themselves, and to discover things for themselves. O Captain, rig thy sails a course for Bohemia!

This is the true heart of a Holistic approach to education. But only those with a passion for literature will be well read and only those with a drive for numbers will learn how to compute.

The rest of the student body is likely to exit as ne'er-do-wells: happy and enthusiastic dullards.

Comparison of Traditional and Progressive approaches

December 16, 2003 The main battleground of Education Reform has been between two warring factions: The Progressive Reformers versus the old-fashioned Traditionalists.

Here's a brief overview of each approach to education.

Traditional

The traditional approach, (which has long fallen out of favor in most school districts, and has all but vanished in our inner cities, save for private schools) is focussed on the following:

1. Emphasis on Reading, Writing, and Arithmetic.
2. "Explicit Phonics" is taught in the early grades, Grammar in the middle grades, and Classic Literature in the later ones.
3. Students learn how to compute and do arithmetic on paper and without calculators. In later grades, a special effort is made to encourage abstract thinking in mathematical concepts.
4. History and Geography are the actual study of past events, and the knowledge of the countries and continents of the world.
5. Desks are in rows.
6. Teacher is the "Sage on the Stage."
7. Corrections to papers are made in red. Students are expected to learn from their mistakes.
8. Rules are strictly enforced (disruptive students are suspended or expelled).
9. Students are promoted to the next grade based on whether they master the knowledge and skills in the the previous one.
10. Students are taught a body of knowledge.
11. An overarching theme is getting students to think.

Progressive

The progressive approach, inspired by the Romantic notions of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, is the point-for-point antithesis of the above traditional list.

1. Emphasis is on "teaching the whole child."
2. Whole Language or Balanced Literacy provide a framework by which the child can discover how to read and write on his own. Invented spelling is acceptable, grammar is frowned upon (too many rigid rules may harm the child).
3. Math is done on a calculator. In later grades, a special effort is made to teach only "relevent" math (ie Consumer Math), because most folks never need Trigonometry or Calculus.
4. Social Studies (the study of cultures) displaces History. "The 5 Themes of Geography" displaces any actual knowledge of world geography.
5. Students work in groups and teach each other.
6. Teacher is the "Guide on the Side."
7. Corrections (and especially the color red) are unwelcome, for fear that students' fragile esteem could be harmed.
8. Rules are merely suggestions.
9. Students are promoted with their peers. (If an older student is failing all his courses, Administration will change all the grades to "D" and promote the kid up.)
10. Students are taught they "can always look it up."
11. An overarching theme is getting students to know and love themselves.

Opening Doors (or, "Why We Teach")

December 15, 2003

It seems that Public Education is constantly fighting a losing battle with Progressive reformers seeking to dumb down our schools for a host of "wonderful" reasons. This is well documented in Left Back: A Century of Battles Over School Reform by Diane Ravitch.

One especially galling example is the head-long assault on the "academic curriculum" (reading, writing, arithmetic, science, history, and geography) by reformers insisting upon usefulness. John Franklin Bobbitt was one such reformer who wrote the influential book The Curriculum, which became a standard text in Schools of Education nationwide in the 1920s. Professor Ravitch writes, "Bobbit saw no justification for teaching science or any other subject unless it had some functional value in real life." This sounds reasonable, but Ravitch continues, "Studies such as history and literature were merely leisure activities, he held, and not more than one in a thousand students had any real need to learn a foreign language."

Of course there are grains of truth in all this. The vast majority of students will not get a job requiring knowledge of either history or literature. Most will never journey overseas, and those that do travel will probably use English. The same goes for science, and even mathematics.

How many people are employed in fields where knowledge of algebra is important? Or the scientific method? When you stop to consider it, there really is little justification in studying all these classic subjects, and that we should "accept usefulness as our aim rather than comprehensive knowledge" as W. W. Charters opined in 1923.

But take a moment to futher consider how ridiculous this proposition is, which we call the "James Bond Gadget Curriculum." In every James Bond movie he's given some highly specialized gadgets which later in the movie he needs to use, to escape some fix he's in. In the movie where he has a laser-beam wristwatch, he uses it to escape from handcuffs. The movie that had him driving a submersible car also just happened to require 007 to go underwater. It's part of the fun of the James Bond movies to not only see what gadgets he'll be given, but how he'll use them.

But the reason why we bring this up is he's given the very specific gadgets he'll need later specifically because the filmmakers know what's coming later! Progressive reformers talk a good game when they say we need to stop teaching "dry, boring facts" such as History, because they're reasonably confident that any given student will not become a historian. But the end result is that with the dumbed-down "utilitarian" curriculum, doors become closed in our children's futures.

When they say that only 5% of students will actually use algebra in the real world, they make a good argument to only teach it to 5% of students. And if they can't identify which 5% of students will need algebra, this same argument can be used for the elimination of algebra altogether.

But this means that no one learns algebra! This doesn't bother the reformers in the least, since they don't need algebra, having already completed school with no desire to learn anything more. (It is no small coincidence that you won't find any Progressive Education reformers who are also scientists or engineers!)

If their attitude seems drastic, think about the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) standards and the philosophy of the large number of math programs developed from those standards. A major premise behind these NCTM-based programs, the argument goes, is that the classic sequence of Algebra, Geometry, Trigonometry, Calculus is flawed because not all students will take Calculus!

They then argue that their "wonderful" alternative?such as MathLand, MathScape, or Everyday Math?should be used. The end result is that all students are unprepared for calculus, or any other higher math courses!

But if only 5% of students will need algebra, what percent of students will need American History? Probably less than 1%. And if one stops to think about what percentage of students will, in the real world, need to know both American History and algebra the calculation becomes so infinitesimal as to become farcical. So much for the "utilitarian" school of curriculum.

What we propose is this. Teach the academic subjects of Reading, Writing, Mathematics, Science, History and Geography to all students regardless of any demographic details, and you will open doors in their futures. Of course everyone won't need algebra, or the scientific method, or even proper grammar! But if you teach them to all students you not only enrich their minds, you increase the potentialities in these children's lives.

Fail to teach them, and you can almost hear the doors slamming.

Ten Traits of Highly Effective Schools

December 14, 2003

Adapted from Elaine McEwan's excellent book, here's a brief overview of the ten traits. Laboring separately, Parents, Teachers and Administrators cannot change every one of them, but together we can use this blueprint to improve any school.

The People The right kind of people breathe life into the bricks and books. The principal, teachers, students, and parents interact with each other to create the synergy that is a successful school.

1. The principal is a strong instructional leader. She sets the school agenda, communicates the mission of the school, determines what gets measured and noticed, and distributes the resources.

2. The teachers are well-trained, motivated and know their subject matter. They respect their students and have high expectations for their achievement, and teach using methods that produce results.

3. The students are motivated, disciplined, eager to learn, self-directed, and respectful of their peers, their teachers, and their parents.

4. The parents are involved in the life of the school in real and important ways.

The Learning What should be taught? (standards) What materials and methods will be used to teach the content? (curriculum) How will the learning be measured? (achievement)

5. The school's standards are academically focused, rigorous, comprehensive, clear, and measurable. They call for students to learn material and demonstrate skills that grow increasingly more difficult as they progress through school.

6. The school has a solid academic curriculum (the teaching materials and methods that are used in the classroom) that is focused on student learning.

7. Academic achievement and educational excellence are top priorities. The successful school pushes students to achieve, accepts no excuses, and has requirements and expectations for all students.

The Climate and Culture The culture is the way that things are done in the school, and the climate is the way people feel about the culture. These include the feelings, beliefs, and values of the school.

8. The school's mission is academically focused.

9. A network of communication channels keeps information flowing back and forth between and among principal, teachers, students, and parents.

10. There is agreement about what constitutes acceptable behavior by staff, students, and parents.

Adapted from Ten Traits of Highly Successful Schools, by Elaine K. McEwan, ©1999

Books you need to read

December 13, 2003

There are many, many books on the shelf of Education Reform. Here are a few of our favorites.

The Academic Achievement Challenge: What Really Works in the Classroom by Jeanne S. Chall, © 2000, Guilford Press

The Educated Child: A Parent's Guide from Preschool through Eighth Grade by William J. Bennett, Chester E. Finn, Jr., and John T. E. Cribb, Jr., © 1999, Touchstone/Simon & Schuster

The Learning Gap: Why Our Schools Are Failing and What We Can Learn from Japanese and Chinese Education by Harold W Stevenson and James W. Stigler, © 1992, Touchstone/Simon & Schuster

Left Back: A Century of Failed School Reforms by Diane Ravitch, © 2000, Simon & Schuster

Marva Collins' Way: Returning to Excellence in Education by Marva Collins and Civia Tamarkin, © 1990, Tarcher/Putnam

No Excuses: Lessons from 21 High-Performing, High-Poverty Schools by Samuel Casey Carter, © 2000, The Heritage Foundation

Nothing's Impossible: Leadership Lessons from Inside and Outside the Classroom by Lorraine Monroe, © 1999, Public Affairs

The Schools We Need, and Why We Don't Have Them by E. D. Hirsch, Jr., © 1999, Anchor Books/Doubleday

Ten Traits of Highly Successful Schools by Elaine K. McEwan, © 1999, Harold Shaw Publishers

Why Johnny Can't Read, And What You Can Do About It by Rudolf Flesch, Reissued, © 1986, HarperCollins

Ten Great Things About America

December 12, 2003

10 Great Things About America
by Dinesh D'Souza, July 4, 2002

In the aftermath of last September's terrorist attack, we've heard a great deal about "why they hate us" and about why America is so bad. We've endured lengthy lectures about America's history of slavery, about the defects of American foreign policy, about the materialism of American life, and about the excesses of American culture. In the view of many critics at home and abroad, America can do no right. This indictment, which undermines the patriotism of Americans, is based on a narrow and distorted understanding of America. It exaggerates America's faults and ignores what is good and even great about America.

As an immigrant who has chosen to become a U.S. citizen, I feel especially qualified to say what is special about this country. Having grown up in a different society—in my case, Mumbai, India—I am not only able to identify aspects of America that are invisible to people who have always lived here, but also acutely conscious of the daily blessings that I enjoy in America.

Here, then, is my list of the 10 great things about America. -- Dinesh

1. America provides an amazingly good life for the ordinary guy.
2. America offers more opportunity and social mobility than any other country, including the countries of Europe.
3. Work and trade are respectable in America, which is not true elsewhere.
4. America has achieved greater social equality than any other society.
5. People live longer, fuller lives in America.
6. In America, the destiny of the young is not given to them but is created by them.
7. America has gone further than any other society in establishing equality of rights.
8. America has found a solution to the problem of religious and ethnic conflict that continues to divide and terrorize much of the world.
9. America has the kindest, gentlest foreign policy of any great power in world history.
10. America, the freest nation on earth, is also the most virtuous nation on earth.

1. America provides an amazingly good life for the ordinary guy.

Rich people live well everywhere. But what distinguishes America is that it provides an incomparably high standard of living for the "common man." We now live in a country where construction workers regularly pay $4 for a nonfat latte, where maids drive nice cars, and where plumbers take their families on vacation to Europe.

Indeed, newcomers to the United States are struck by the amenities enjoyed by "poor" people in the United States. This fact was dramatized in the 1980s when CBS television broadcast the documentary "People Like Us," which was intended to show the miseries of the poor during an ongoing recession. The Soviet Union also broadcast the documentary, with a view to embarrassing the Reagan administration.

But by the testimony of former Soviet leaders, it had the opposite effect. Ordinary people across the Soviet Union saw that the poorest Americans have TV sets, microwave ovens and cars. They arrived at the same perception that I witnessed in an acquaintance of mine from Bombay who has been unsuccessfully trying to move to the United States.

I asked him, "Why are you so eager to come to America?" He replied, "I really want to live in a country where the poor people are fat."

2. America offers more opportunity and social mobility than any other country, including the countries of Europe.

America is the only country that has created a population of "self-made tycoons." Only in America could Pierre Omidyar, whose parents are Iranian and who grew up in Paris, have started a company like eBay. Only in America could Vinod Khosla, the son of an Indian army officer, become a leading venture capitalist, the shaper of the technology industry, and a billionaire to boot.

Admittedly, tycoons are not typical, but no country has created a better ladder than America for people to ascend from modest circumstances to success.

3. Work and trade are respectable in America, which is not true elsewhere.

Historically, most cultures have despised the merchant and the laborer, regarding the former as vile and corrupt and the latter as degraded and vulgar. Some cultures, such as that of ancient Greece and medieval Islam, even held that it is better to acquire things through plunder than through trade or contract labor.

But the American founders altered this moral hierarchy. They established a society in which the life of the businessman, and of the people who work for him, would be a noble calling. In the American view, there is nothing vile or degraded about serving your customers either as a CEO or as a waiter.

The ordinary life of production and supporting a family is more highly valued in the United States than in any other country. Indeed, America is the only country in the world where we call the waiter "sir," as if he were a knight.

4. America has achieved greater social equality than any other society.

True, there are large inequalities of income and wealth in America. In purely economic terms, Europe is more egalitarian. But Americans are socially more equal than any other people, and this is unaffected by economic disparities. Alexis De Tocqueville noticed this egalitarianism a century and a half ago, but it is if anything more prevalent today.

For all his riches, Bill Gates could not approach the typical American and say, "Here's a $100 bill. I'll give it to you if you kiss my feet." Most likely the person would tell Gates to go to hell! The American view is that the rich guy may have more money, but he isn't in any fundamental sense better than anyone else.

5. People live longer, fuller lives in America.

Although protesters rail against the American version of technological capitalism at trade meetings around the world, in reality the American system has given citizens many more years of life, and the means to live more intensely and actively.

In 1900, the life expectancy in America was around 50 years; today, it is more than 75 years. Advances in medicine and agriculture are mainly responsible for the change. This extension of the lifespan means more years to enjoy life, more free time to devote to a good cause, and more occasions to do things with the grandchildren.

In many countries, people who are old seem to have nothing to do; they just wait to die. In America, the old are incredibly vigorous, and people in their 70s pursue the pleasures of life, including remarriage and sexual gratification, with a zeal that I find unnerving.

6. In America, the destiny of the young is not given to them but is created by them.

Not long ago, I asked myself, "What would my life have been like if I had never come to the United States?"

If I had remained in India, I would probably have lived my whole life within a five-mile radius of where I was born. I would undoubtedly have married a woman of my identical religious and socioeconomic background. I would almost certainly have become a medical doctor, or an engineer, or a computer programmer. I would have socialized entirely within my ethnic community.

I would have a whole set of opinions that could be predicted in advance; indeed, they would not be very different from what my father believed, or his father before him. In sum, my destiny would, to a large degree, have been given to me.

In America, I have seen my life take a radically different course. In college I became interested in literature and politics, and I resolved to make a career as a writer. I married a woman whose ancestry is English, French, Scotch-Irish, German and American Indian.

In my 20s I found myself working as a policy analyst in the White House, even though I was not an American citizen. No other country, I am sure, would have permitted a foreigner to work in its inner citadel of government.

In most countries in the world, your fate and your identity are handed to you; in America, you determine them for yourself. America is a country where you get to write the script of your own life. Your life is like a blank sheet of paper, and you are the artist.

This notion of being the architect of your own destiny is the incredibly powerful idea that is behind the worldwide appeal of America. Young people especially find irresistible the prospect of authoring the narrative of their own lives.

7. America has gone further than any other society in establishing equality of rights.

There is nothing distinctively American about slavery or bigotry. Slavery has existed in virtually every culture, and xenophobia, prejudice and discrimination are worldwide phenomena. Western civilization is the only civilization to mount a principled campaign against slavery; no country expended more treasure and blood to get rid of slavery than the United States.

While racism remains a problem in America, this country has made strenuous efforts to eradicate discrimination, even to the extent of enacting policies that give legal preference in university admissions, jobs and government contracts to members of minority groups. Such policies remain controversial, but the point is that it is extremely unlikely that a racist society would have permitted such policies in the first place.

And surely African Americans like Jesse Jackson are vastly better off living in America than they would be if they were to live in, say, Ethiopia or Somalia.

8. America has found a solution to the problem of religious and ethnic conflict that continues to divide and terrorize much of the world.

Visitors to places like New York are amazed to see the way in which Serbs and Croatians, Sikhs and Hindus, Irish Catholics and Irish Protestants, Jews and Palestinians all seem to work and live together in harmony. How is this possible when these same groups are spearing each other and burning each other's homes in so many places in the world?

The American answer is twofold. First, separate the spheres of religion and government so that no religion is given official preference but all are free to practice their faith as they wish. Second, do not extend rights to racial or ethnic groups but only to individuals; in this way, all are equal in the eyes of the law, opportunity is open to anyone who can take advantage of it, and everybody who embraces the American way of life can "become American."

Of course there are exceptions to these core principles, even in America. Racial preferences are one such exception, which explains why they are controversial. But in general, America is the only country in the world that extends full membership to outsiders.

The typical American could come to India, live for 40 years and take Indian citizenship. But he could not "become Indian." He wouldn't see himself that way, nor would most Indians see him that way. In America, by contrast, hundreds of millions have come from far-flung shores and over time they, or at least their children, have in a profound and full sense "become American."

9. America has the kindest, gentlest foreign policy of any great power in world history.

Critics of the U.S. are likely to react to this truth with sputtering outrage. They will point to longstanding American support for a Latin or Middle Eastern despot, or the unjust internment of the Japanese during World War II, or America's reluctance to impose sanctions on South Africa's apartheid regime. However one feels about these particular cases, let us concede to the critics the point that America is not always in the right.

What the critics leave out is the other side of the ledger. Twice in the 20th century, the United States saved the world: first from the Nazi threat, then from Soviet totalitarianism. What would have been the world's fate if America had not existed? After destroying Germany and Japan in World War II, the U.S. proceeded to rebuild both countries, and today they are American allies. Now we are doing the same thing with Afghanistan.

Consider, too, how magnanimous the U.S. has been to the former Soviet Union after the U.S. victory in the Cold War. For the most part, America is an abstaining superpower: It shows no real interest in conquering and subjugating the rest of the world. (Imagine how the Soviets would have acted if they had won the Cold War.)

On occasion, America intervenes to overthrow a tyrannical regime or to halt massive human rights abuses in another country, but it never stays to rule that country. In Grenada, Haiti and Bosnia, the U.S. got in and then got out.

Moreover, when America does get into a war, it is supremely careful to avoid targeting civilians and to minimize collateral damage. Even as America bombed the Taliban infrastructure and hideouts, its planes dropped rations of food to avert hardship and starvation of Afghan civilians. What other country does these things?

10. America, the freest nation on earth, is also the most virtuous nation on earth.

This point seems counterintuitive, given the amount of conspicuous vulgarity, vice and immorality in America. Indeed, some Islamic fundamentalists argue that their regimes are morally superior to the United States because they seek to foster virtue among the citizens. Virtue, these fundamentalists argue, is a higher principle than liberty.

Indeed it is. And let us admit that in a free society, freedom will frequently be used badly. Freedom, by definition, includes the freedom to do good or evil, to act nobly or basely.

But if freedom brings out the worst in people, it also brings out the best. The millions of Americans who live decent, praiseworthy lives desire our highest admiration because they have opted for the good when the good is not the only available option. Even amidst the temptations of a rich and free society, they have remained on the straight path. Their virtue has special luster because it is freely chosen.

By contrast, the societies that many Islamic fundamentalists seek would eliminate the possibility of virtue. If the supply of virtue is insufficient in a free society like America, it is almost non-existent in an unfree society like Iran.

The reason is that coerced virtues are not virtues at all. Consider the woman who is required to wear a veil. There is no modesty in this, because she is being compelled. Compulsion cannot produce virtue, it can only produce the outward semblance of virtue.

Thus, a free society like America is not merely more prosperous, more varied, more peaceful and more tolerant—it is also morally superior to the theocratic and authoritarian regimes that America's enemies advocate.

---

"To make us love our country," Edmund Burke once said, "our country ought to be lovely." Burke's point is that we should love our country not just because it is ours, but also because it is good.

America is far from perfect, and there is lots of room for improvement. In spite of its flaws, however, the American life as it is lived today is the best life that our world has to offer. Ultimately, America is worthy of our love and sacrifice because, more than any other society, it makes possible the good life, and the life that is good.

---

Dinesh D'Souza's latest book, What's So Great About America, reached the New York Times best seller list. He is the Rishwain Fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University.

Origins

December 11, 2003

We began our quest by helping designing a school. An urban charter school, to be specific. In this effort, we did not want to put our heads together as experienced educators and come up with a pretty good plan for a pretty good school. That's been done any number of times already.

We wanted to know what really works in reality.

So we hit the books hard, and examined not programs, but successful schools, especially successful, poor, urban schools. How did they, "despite the odds," succeed at giving at-risk children an academic education to rival the affluent suburbs?

What we found agreed with our common sense: the best schools have a rigorous academic curriculum, based not around "critical thinking" or "problem solving" but around content knowledge and skills. (It turns out that children who actually know something are better problem-solvers than those who've been taught only "how to solve problems.)

Another thing these schools did is have genuinely high standards of behavior, to accompany their academic standards. They didn't care about the so-called "at-risk" label, these schools taught children like they were elite prep school students. Their philosophy is "No Excuses."

We recently opened a fortune cookie to read, "Good sense is the master of Human Life."

We have been frustrated that so many basically good folks have taken leave of their senses in embracing any number of Progressive reforms that are supposedly going to improve our schools (any day now). It seems to us that the true path is so clear, it is right in front of our faces but so many can't see it.

Sometimes, when we get down, we become convinced we have a Cassandra complex. Cursed to tell the truth, but not believed.

But we remain optimistic for success in this country, especially in our cities. Our teachers and administrators are hard-working folks, but most have been taught that "progressive" methods are the ones to use, and we can't blame them for being misled.

But please don't take our word for it. Look for yourself not at theory, but at proven, long-term, school success. Hopefully you'll see what we see.

And the children of this nation will be the better for it.

Our Mission

December 10, 2003

We are dedicated to getting people to think about the most important part of Education Reform: the Education part. Far too often the focus has been on reform, so much so that there're babies and bathwater flying everywhere. People are so eager for a solution to our educational problems that they seize upon all sorts of new programs and ideas. But we've learned that new should be approached with caution.

People can call us crusaders but they can't change the fact that we are intensely dedicated to improving education for America's children.

It doesn't matter if they're in Public, Private, Parochial, Privatized, Independent or Charter Schools, we want them to get the best academic education possible. And it is possible, since back in the day we used to be very, very good at educating children! (This includes our cities, as well.)

We often think of how a wise old friend said to us, "I received a classical education in Philadelphia public schools."

But please, people, can we toss out the drama associated with the various ideologies? Please? Let's just do what's been proven to work around the nation and across the globe. Let's teach.

Our kids will thank us when we're old and wrinkled.