Catherine Shreves wrote:
> I think there is consensus on the point that there are many things a
> school district can and should do to improve student achievement.
Then why have we disproportionately emphasized class size?
> I don't think anyone would argue that teacher quality is very important,
> and the Minneapolis Public Schools are doing a number of things to
> promote teacher improvement. As one example, I'd point out the
> Professional Practice School at Patrick Henry High School. The program
> works with new teachers--resident teachers--and gives them lots of
> support, mentoring and training throughout their first year of teaching.
> But, the program reaches beyond new teachers: teachers in the school
> work with educators at the University of Minnesota to have a year round,
> in school teacher development program available to all teachers in the
> school. The program has expanded to a number of other schools-I believe
> 10 or 12-and there is interest in expanding it even more because of its
> positive impact on teacher quality and morale.
This program sounds as though it might have positive results. I hope you are
collecting data and conducting a study to see if it does. However, I would suggest
that ongoing testing of teacher's knowledge of their subject matter might be even
more effective. Of course you might have difficulty getting this past the
teacher's union.
> Class size is very important, too. There are a number of studies on the
> importance of small class sizes on student achievement. One is the Rand
> report, which can be found at
> http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR924/
> This study found significant differences in test scores among students
> with similar family and demographic characeristics, which it traced to
> several systemic features including lower pupil-teacher ratios and
> higher public prekindergarten participation.
I think that these statements misrepresent the results of the Rand study.
The study found that smaller class sizes has a positive effect in grades
K through 3 for minority students in states with average or below
average SES and high student/teacher ratios. Since the median income
for a family of four in MN in 1998 was $67,140 and the national median
income was $56,061 and because we already have fairly low student/teacher
ratios it is not clear that even these narrow findings apply to MN
and if they do apply, this data is still not an overwhelming inducement of
smaller class sizes.
The findings do provide grounds for the question in the first post that I responded
to in which the writer was wondering why school funding is disproportionately
allocated to weaker students, given that the report states that smaller
class sizes have almost no impact on high SES students. "In our view,
additional resources have been effective for minority and disadvantaged
student, but resources directed towards more-advantaged students--
the majority of students--have had only small, if any, effects."
> I do find it interesting to read studies and analyze how other cities
> and countries educate their students; there is much to be learned. But,
> when discussing the merits of class size, I'm not sure how useful is is
> to compare us to Japan. Japan is very homogeneous and rigid socially,
> while our country is not, and this has a big impact on classroom
> instruction.
This seems to be a common objection to citing the success of
the Japanese system. To paraphrase, "Since Japan is homogeneous
and socially rigid what works for them will not work for us." I think that
it is a mistake to dismiss success without first analyzing what factors
are involved. Without being able to identify these factors you
cannot assume that their solutions will not work. As a
working hypothesis (additional research would be required) I
would like to suggest a couple of factors that might account for the success
in Japan and how these factors might be used to improve student
achievement in Minneapolis.
Factor 1. Homogeneity. It is probably true that having a common
culture makes the educational process more efficient. Can
this be done here? Yes. I believe that one reason why KIPP
works is because they require a commitment to a common
set of values and goals. Although KIPP's students are as
diverse as the normal student population they share
a homogeneous social environment. If the claim is that one
of the obstacles to educational reform is the heterogeneity of
the student population why have we institutionalized
multiculturalism? We should not be emphasizing student
differences, instead we should be emphasizing a common
culture. Anyone interested in this topic should read
E. D. Hirsch's, "Cultural Literacy."
2. An emphasis on the importance of knowledge, intelligence,
and intellectualism. Probably the most insidious obstacle
to educational reform in this country is the entrenched
anti-intellectualism in the educational system. It may seem
counterintuitive that educators would be opposed to the
pursuit of intellectual activities, but this opposition has a
long history dated back to the early 1900s. If you are
interested in understanding this issue I'd suggest reading
John Stone's article on Developmentalism available at
http://olam.ed.asu.edu/epaa/v4n8.html
or "Left Back: A Century of Failed School Reforms"
by Diane Ravitch, or "The Schools We Need and
Why We Don't Have Them" by E.D. Hirsch. How
can we solve this problem in Minneapolis? By hiring
and electing people with a different educational
philosophy.
> Our struggles seem to be about systematizing reform efforts,
What does "systematizing reform efforts" mean?
> while I
> think Japan's educational system is struggling with how to be more
> flexible. There was an interesting article in the Star Tribune last
> month on a survey issued in December by the International Association
> for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement. Japanese students ranked
> second from the bottom in the international survey for their interest in
> science and math. The article noted that "[f]un and enjoyment are not
> commonly associated with education in a nation made famous for its
> 'entrance exam hell,' rote learning and bullying." The concern in Japan
> is that its rigorous conformity and rote learning was a good thing when
> the country needed a uniform work force for factories and corporations.
> But, since globalization has placed a premium on imaginative individuals
> able to question authority and problem solve, Japan is revising its
> curriculum, due out next year, which will encourage "flexibility and
> zest for living."
I'm going to let you in on Science's dirty little secret: Real science is not
fun. Real science involves an immense amount of tedious grunt work
that can be frustrating and unrewarding for months or years before you
receive positive results. Maybe Japanese students actually do more real
science than the toy tasks many American students work on.
One way to identify a liberal educator is by their use of the word "fun."
Do you think that a Japanese student could come home with a C in
math and explain to their parents that the course just wasn't "fun." Whether
or not a course is fun is irrelevant. There is far to much "pull" in American
education and not enough "push." There are several reasons for this
lack of determination and discipline: the schools, the parents, and the
culture. Can we change this? I believe that we can, but we need to
examine some of the misguided assumptions that contemporary education
is based on.
Mike Atherton
Prospect Park
Ward 2
http://www.tc.umn.edu/~athe0007
_______________________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - Minnesota E-Democracy
Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more:
http://e-democracy.org/mpls
