Reform, Deform, Conform.

The other day, it was announced that Vermont had the highest scores in the nation for FRL kids. And was graded "D" by the same organization for not reforming itself enough. Joanne Jacobs: Vermont. Good results, weak reforms

In ALEC’s Report Card on American Education, Vermont is ranked first in the nation for educating low-income children, but gets a D on its reform policies. Well, maybe Vermont doesn’t need to reform. Massachusetts, second in performance, gets a C; Florida, ranked third, gets ALEC’s highest reform grade, a B+.

What I've seen and heard most, in the math network meetings and the professional development et cetera ad infinitum, is that the powers that be don't have much in the way of vision. We keep getting told "Reform" but no one ever specifies "To What?" or "In what way?"

That's right. The goal is the change itself. We are never given any other goal. I have been told point-blank that the State will never recommend any program or project or method of teaching, but they want us to change nonetheless. When we finish the change, we are supposed to change again. That's why so many of us resist and it seems to have paid off, at least for some of our kids.

New Ideas in Education - Empty Promises in Reality

Here's how education works. Find a Great Idea that will solve all your problems. Don't bother to check if it actually works or not, just make sure it sounds good. Don't listen to or read anything that might be negative. Trust anecdotal evidence and ignore real evidence.

Spend lots of money to implement the plan. If things are perfect at first, squash the naysayer with "You need to be a team player" and "Everything takes time to work" and "Teachers don't understand how education works" and "We need to be professionals." It'll take some time to burn, but by then administration will change, the bureaucratic types will profess horror that it failed. You now have a new Great Leader who can go find a Great Idea to solve your problem ...

Here's how ...

In 2006, the Department of Education completely reorganized the budgetary process for New York City public schools. The new “Fair Student Funding [FSF]” budget process was based on the idea generally known in the educational world as “Weighted Student Funding [WSF].”

We'll cut some detail, but notice the cool acronyms. That's always a sign of a Great Idea. Make sure that you run any studies on the Great Idea yet because that would spoil the fun. Now, the veneer starts to peel off the Great Idea ...

Shortly after the DoE began FSF, the Seattle Public Schools, which had provided the original model for WSF, ended its experiment with the system. WSF was too complex and cumbersome a system for school level personnel to administer and it was not delivering the intended effects, the district concluded [pdf].

After this first sign of impending doom for the Great Idea, it's time for the research. Not the anecdotal crap you relied on at implementation ...

Now, an important study [pdf] just published by the Education Policy Analysis Archives does one of the first broad-based analysis of the actual effects of weighted student funding, comparing Ohio and Texas school districts which have adopted it with other school districts which still use more traditional methods of funding.
The findings? That despite widely publicized claims of success, the districts employing WSF provided “no more predictable funding with respect to student needs than other large urban districts in the same state” which did not use it. Further, “resource levels in urban core elementary schools [using WSF] are relatively insufficient for competing with schools in neighboring districts to achieve comparable outcomes.”

I forgot a key point in the beginning: don't forget that you need "widely publicized claims of success" for it to be a Great Idea. So we're almost there. We've reached the Obvious Question Stage in the lifespan of all Great Ideas.

So if the promise of WSF/FSF to direct funds to the schools serving students with the greatest needs is proving empty, exactly why should a school system keep it?

Because that is The Way of The Educrat.

Here endeth the lesson.

Creationism and Evolution

Perhaps it's my need to question. Perhaps it's that I also teach physics and I feel for those science teachers who are caught in this debate.

I have one simple, straightforward question for all of those parents and religious types who are pushing for science teachers to teach creationism in their classrooms.

Why?

Why would you want me saying anything about your beliefs? I am a fairly non-religious but non-atheist curmudgeon who isn't of your brand of religion. I don't know what you think, I don't know what you believe, I don't have any sense of whether you feel the Earth is flat or is resting on a giant turtle, was created in 7 days or 7 ages. Do you really want me to teach your kid what I know nothing about?

"almost nine out of 10 believed they should be allowed to discuss creationism if pupils bring it up."

What if MY religious beliefs are that Thetans (8foot tall humanoids) created the Earth and populated it, not some Almighty Power? Would you like me to preach that "truth" in class on an equal footing with "God created the Earth in 7 days about 10,000 years ago" and that of the Flying Spaghetti Monster ("Touched by his Noodly Appendage")? Didn't think so.

Don't pretend to yourself that I could fake it well enough to satisfy all of my students and their families. My mentioning anything about another religion would be coming from an outsider, with an outsider's lack of true understanding. Wouldn't your Sunday School teacher be far better at explaining your beliefs than I?

In the U.K., nearly a third of teachers felt that creationism should have equal status with evolution in a classroom and nearly all agreed the religious students would feel "excluded" if their views were ignored.

Well, if I'm worried about kids feeling "excluded" when their views are ignored, how about we expand the discussion a bit (partial Straw Man argument coming) and consider other views that students might hold.

If I teach a law class to seniors, should I stick to the US Constitution or should other countries' laws have equal footing? The need to stone a girl to death if she becomes unclean? A woman in the company of a man she's not related to is gangraped by seven men as punishment - should we be talking about how the girl should also get 200 lashes with a whip as a legal punishment from the courts? (For talking to someone and for daring to appeal the original sentence for being raped.) If one of my students tells his "boys" to grab a girls and rape her for insulting him, should his views gets equal standing so he doesn't fee "excluded"? It's obviously something he "feels" is right. (Like the boys who did that to a 14yo for insulting one of them). Should we include all views like that in the classroom?

Of course not. Ignore the StrawMan and keep to the specifics and the answer's still the same. Let me teach my algebra or physics or whatever. You teach the religion. It's better that way.

I brought this up because of the article reprinted below.

One in three teachers believes schoolchildren should be taught that creationism is just as valid as evolution, according to a survey.
By Martin Beckford, London (UK) Telegraph Religious Affairs Correspondent
07 Nov 2008

The poll also disclosed that pupils in almost a third of schools already learn about the controversial divine explanation of the universe, with even science teachers thinking it has a place in classrooms.

Almost all of those questioned by Teachers TV, a satellite television channel, agreed that children with strong religious beliefs would feel excluded from science lessons if their views were ignored.

The findings support the views of the Rev Professor Michael Reiss, who lost his job as director of education at the Royal Society, Britain's prestigious scientific academy, after calling for creationism to be included in school science lessons.

The ordained Church of England minister said the idea that the Earth was made by God 10,000 years ago should be discussed if pupils raise it, because "banging on" about natural selection would not lead evangelical Christians or Muslims to change their views.

But he was forced to step down after his views were denounced as "dangerous" and "outrageous" by two Nobel laureates and the Royal Society claimed he had damaged its reputation.

Commenting on the results of the survey of 1,200 viewers of Teachers TV, its chief executive, Andrew Bethell, said: "This poll data confirms that the debate on whether there is a place for the teaching of creationism in the classroom is still fierce."

The poll found that 31 per cent of teachers agree that creationism or intelligent design – the theory that the universe shows signs of having been designed rather than evolving – should be given the same status as evolution in the classroom, including 18 per cent of science teachers.

Half of those questioned agreed that excluding the alternative to evolution would alienate religious pupils, and almost nine out of 10 believed they should be allowed to discuss creationism if pupils bring it up.

Mr Bethell said: "Although over half of teachers either disagreed or strongly disagreed with the idea that creationism should be given the same status as evolution, there is a significant minority who believe that it should be given equal weight.

"Nearly half of teachers also agreed with Professor Michael Reiss' sentiment that excluding alternative explanations to evolution is counter-productive and alienates pupils from science.

"Perhaps most telling is the fact that, almost nine out of 10 teachers take the pragmatic view that they should be allowed to discuss creationism or intelligent design in science, if pupils raise the question."

The survey was conducted ahead of a programme on Teachers TV, to be broadcast at 7pm on Saturday, which asks if the teaching of evolution is under threat from increasing religious fundamentalism among pupils.

It is thought that as many as one in 10 children in British state schools now holds creationist views.

Earlier this year the prominent atheist Professor Richard Dawkins accused the Government and teachers of "bending over backwards" to respect pupils and parents who do not believe in evolution.

Terry Sanderson, president of the National Secular Society, said: "The findings in this survey are extremely alarming.

"It is time for the Government to issue instructions to schools that creationism is not to be given credence in science lessons. The place to discuss it is in religious education classes."

A MythBuster adds to the Education Myths

On the CuriousCat, MythBuster Adam Savage is quoted as having 3 Ways to Fix U.S. Science Education. While I applaud his willingness to get into the fray, I have to wonder if this isn't a prime example of how we got into this mess in the first place.

Take Adam Savage's well-meaning ideas ( I'll discuss them in a moment. ) and couple them with the head of Intel who calls for ed reform, STEM innovation. ( The headline continues: "Craig Barrett ralies (sic) educators at the 2008 Intel Developer Forum" ), blend in a healthy dose of NCLB and parents who KNOW how to teach because they homeschooled their 3rd grader, and mix in the local coroner/ policeman who thinks that forensics is cool and "why wouldn't you want to have kids investigating crimes?" What you invariably get is scientific mishmash and bad education.

None of these folks has actually looked at how kids learn material. None has had to be responsible for a kid knowing enough Biology to join the AP class the next year. None has the experience of guiding twenty-five 14-year-olds through a physical science course. From afar, education is easy. Every "new" idea hatched by these folks is "obviously workable" and a "great new idea" because these reformers are using vague memories of their own educations from 20, 30 or more years ago.

If these guys are so gung-ho on research abilities IN students, how about running some actual research ON students? Find out if "hands-on, get your hands dirty" science education is truly the best for all students, or some (and which ones), or none?

Instead of simply proclaiming an "obvious truth," Adam Savage could conduct experiments using proper methods (control groups, double blind, the works) and show THAT on MythBusters.

The head of Intel could order that all new hires be required to submit clear and accurate accounts of their educations, the teaching styles used, and grades earned, and then correlate the data with later success in the company. Of course, that sample would be extremely limited, but if the data would be interesting nonetheless.

The governors who spend less/more on education could insist their states do some actual comparisons between schools and teachers, between curriculae, between those schools who offer forensics or not, those who require 4 years of science to graduate and those who don't, those who lecture a lot and those who only do hands-on discovery, maybe even between those on a block schedule and those who aren't. Instead of bloviating about scores, how about finding out some possible reasons?

Again, Adam Savage:

1) Let students get their hands dirty.
It’s really difficult to absorb things just by being told about them—I know I don’t learn well that way. If students could get their hands dirty in science class they’d be more likely to internalize information. You can lecture about the surface tension of water, but it’s not as effective as conducting an experiment with a needle and a single beam balance. Jamie and I are in touch with a lot of teachers from industrial engineering programs, and one of them told us he thinks our show has helped shift the emphasis from the strictly theoretical to a more hands-on approach.

So Adam doesn't think he "learn(s) well that way." No offense, dude, but how do you know? Did you take the course twice and compare the results? Did you control for teacher quality and classroom setting? You think students are "more likely to internalize information" without any idea that it's true or not, or whether the information they internalize is correct. I think it's great to get in the lab. I don't think kids can discover in a couple of months what took the human race centuries to discover. They need to be taught. Sometimes hands-on isn't the best way to learn -

"students who were taught abstract math concepts fared better in experiments than those taught with real-world examples, such as story problems. Adding extraneous details makes it hard for students to extract the basic mathematical concepts and apply them to new problems. We're really making it difficult for students because we are distracting them from the underlying math," said Jennifer Kaminski, a research scientist at Ohio State University. (from reuters).

Does this apply to science, too? I think it does. The real world is messy. Students have a hard time understanding the nugget of information in the mass of data. You also get erroneous interpretations - reasonable ones are the hardest to correct later. It's not fair to expect that students can deal with all of these mistakes and internalize what we consider necessary for a good scientific education. Remember the old ideas of the flight of a cannonball, developed in the "lab" over centuries? The flight was assumed to be nearly straight, then dropping off suddenly. It wasn't until recently that it was matched to a parabolic curve.

Experiments should be used to confirm teaching, not used as a substitute for it.

2. Yes, spend more money on science.

Spend money, yes. Waste money on "show-off" technology, no. The chemistry lab needs equipment but doesn't need to replace everything to buy the latest electronic whizmo and gizmo. Get your sensors and CBL equipment, but just the ones you need for teaching the classes you have.

Get reasonable equipment. You don't need a DNA analyzer in each school. If this $25,000 piece of equipment is at all important to the teaching of AP Biology, the state should be buying it and making it available for every school within 50 miles. Scheduling as opposed to budgeting. What's the ROI on that analyzer? A small part of the school year of one course for 30 AP Biology students - most of whom passed the AP test. That piece of equipment was "bragging rights" more than educationally necessary.

3. Celebrate mistakes.
A good scientist will tell you that being wrong can be just as interesting as being right. The same holds for our show.

Sorry, Adam. These aren't good scientists or engineers. Some of them might actually want to become such, but many would rather ignore science and be a mechanic or a DJ or a snowboarder. They're kids with parental pressure, adolescent and social pressure, college and academic pressure. They're learning how to drive. They're learning what kind of a student they are and how to balance work, school, sports, dating, and all the other things that get in the way.

Why shouldn't we simply teach?