You may wish to start at about 16 min. in.
Showing posts with label facts. Show all posts
Showing posts with label facts. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 24, 2016
President Obama Delivers the Rutgers University Commencement Address
You may wish to start at about 16 min. in.
Friday, January 27, 2012
U.S. Schools Not Failing - data
Richard Rothstein,
Education “reformers” have a common playbook. First, assert without evidence that regular public schools are “failing” and that large numbers of regular (unionized) public school teachers are incompetent. Provide no documentation for this claim other than that the test score gap between minority and white children remains large. Then propose so-called reforms to address the unproven problem – charter schools to escape teacher unionization and the mechanistic use of student scores on low-quality and corrupted tests to identify teachers who should be fired.
The mantra has been endlessly repeated by Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, and by “reform” leaders like former Washington and New York schools chancellors Michelle Rhee and Joel Klein. Bill Gates’ foundation gives generous grants to school systems and private education advocates who adopt the analysis. In Chicago, Mayor Rahm Emmanuel makes the argument, and in New York, Mayor Michael Bloomberg has frequently sung the same tune.
And now, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo has joined in. On Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s birthday last week, the governor cast attacks on unionized teachers as a defense of minority students against the adult bureaucracy. “It’s about the children,” Mr. Cuomo said. Because of failing public schools, “the great equalizer that was supposed to be the public education system can now be the great discriminator.”
But this applause line about school failure is an “urban myth.” The governor, mayor and other policymakers have neglected to check facts they assume to be true. As a result, they may be obsessed with the wrong challenges, while exacerbating real, but overlooked problems.
Friday, December 31, 2010
Anti Teacher Union efforts and Waiting for Superman
I have posted here several critiques of the film, “Waiting for Superman,” so I do not need to repeat these criticisms. The most fact based criticism is here What Superman got wrong. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/answer-sheet/guest-bloggers/what-superman-got-wrong-point.html
My goal in the following is to share my own reaction to the film.
First, it is an important film and I encourage people to see it. It illustrates to a rather uninformed public several of the important issues including the budget crisis in schools and the importance of having quality teachers.
In October the film, “Waiting for Superman” dominated the television talk shows, forums, and press with a message that public schools are failing, the teachers’ unions are to blame, and that charter schools are the answer to the problems of public schools. Superman is not only a film about schools, it is also a part of a wider sophisticated assault on unions and particularly public sector unions. In the Fall 2010 election in California Meg Whitman extended the criticism of the teachers union and made it a major issue in her $160 million dollar self financed campaign for Governor. The film and the Whitman campaign illustrate how corporate funding produces a political narrative. The corporations and the foundations involved are distinct, but the process of corporate or oligarchy funding to shape the political and economic dialogue are similar.
The film Waiting for Superman is a part of the effective strategy of corporate take over of education policy and corporate victories in framing the issues of education reform . Historian Diane Ravitch describes this corporate take over in her well written book, The Death and Life of the Great American School System; How Testing and Choice are Undermining Education. (2010). There are several specific criticisms of the facts and the framing in the film including Ira Shor of the City University of New York saying “Overall it benefits the hedge fund billionaires now bankrolling charter schools and conservative politicians,” on the site http://www.notwaitingforsuperman.org/
Prominent education historian Diane Ravitch, formerly an Under Secretary for Research in the Department of Education during the Reagan Administration, criticizes the film as propaganda citing substantial evidence that charter schools do not have a record of producing better achievement than public schools . ( NYReview of Books). ). [ full disclosure. This writer has long criticized Ravitch for her positions on multicultural education and particularly for her role in writing the California History/Social Science Framework, the document that shapes whose history is taught in California school textbooks.] Ravitch argues that Superman is a propaganda master piece blaming unions for the many problems of public schools including the budget crises and alleged problems recruiting and keeping quality teachers.
Wednesday, February 07, 2007
More need for fact checkers; The California State of Education
The State of Education in California, and the real state of education in California.
President Bush is famous for being in denial about the state of the war in Iraq. It seems our Superintendent is learning from him.
California Superintendent O’Connell gave a Sate of the Education Address on Jan 7, 2007.
It is here:
http://www.cde.ca.gov/eo/in/se/yr07stateofed.asp
Lets begin to look at this presentation. We know that the superintendent is a declared candidate for Governor, so we should consider the speech in that light.
There must be a retreat house or training program somewhere where politicians ( like O’Connell), speech writers, and press advisors learn the skills of presenting these reports without being restricted by reality or the data. Unfortunately too many media sources report these assertions as facts.
Page 1:
"We’re asking no less than proficiency in all subjects when measured by the toughest standards in the nation – for all students, right now, regardless of whether they come to school speaking another language, whether they’re poor and hungry, confused, scared, psychologically damaged or mentally challenged."
Commentary:
Yes, California has among the toughest standards in the nation. There is no measured evidence that California has significantly improved reading scores over the last decade. See the NAEP scores for California. So, we have tough standards written by committees, but we have not done the things needed by teaches to improve student learning environments.
Page 2.
"Now, that may seem counterintuitive – we know the exit exam is the minimum our students need to know in order to graduate. But in fact, by holding students accountable for reaching even that standard, we’ve seen that not only have our students reached that bar, they’ve gone higher than they ever thought they could. As a result of the exit exam, students are working harder, learning more and persevering in school."
This statement could be proven or dismissed based upon data. Where is the data? And, in considering the data be certain to investigate the real drop out rate. One way to increase a CaHEE score is to “encourage” low scoring students to leave or to transfer to another school, or just be absent for a week.
Page 2.
"It’s been a long time coming, but today we all know, appreciate and embrace the fact that data matters. We know – because research tells us – that successful schools adhere to our rigorous standards, and build a culture around data-driven decision making."
Well, he has it half right. Data matters. And an honest sharing of the data matters. We look forward to a day when data is presented without the slight of hand used so often by politicians and the media writers for the Calif. Dept. of Education.
The second sentence: Research tells us- that successful schools adhere to our rigorous standards, and build a culture around data-driven decision making.
O.K. What research are you referring to? Most of this is assertions, not research. Research by Dan Laitsch, (2006), and Richard Rothstein (2004), and Gerald Bracey (2003) do not support your assertions. It looks as if your press writer is simply making assertions. What research?
"I want to make certain that the data we collect meets the highest standards, and I want every school and district to make data a top priority. So I thank those school districts who have worked overtime to provide the quality data we need to better serve students and schools."
Good goal. I certainly hope that you achieve it. Note, what the CDE does is collect data. It does not improve teaching nor teaching conditions. It collects data. At least we could expect quality shared data.
"My friends, this is our struggle. Real, measurable progress has been made since the institution of standards-based education. Thousands of young adults are entering the world better prepared for success. "
Data please.
"Today we are holding ourselves accountable for the results of all children. And when we see significant groups of students falling far short of the goal of proficiency that we hold for all students — we must act. Today, equipped with specific knowledge of those gaps, we must focus as never before on solutions."
Good goal. I look forward to the cde holding itself accountable. And, the State Board of Education. Thus far you have held yourself only accountable for writing standards. Please hold yourself accountable for student reading, math, and civics achievement.
"We need to honestly use the data we now have, and also have an honest conversation – a courageous conversation some would say — about our individual subgroups, and their individual struggles within our standards-based context. I know every child in this state can learn and has great potential. I refuse to believe or accept anything less."
Good goal. You had an opportunity to do both of these in this report of the State of Education in California. You haven’t done it today. I look forward to more improvement in this area. Many of us share your goal.
"It’s time to examine our beliefs, to examine the data, to examine strategies and to hold ourselves accountable for getting better results. This year I will be doing all of those things."
Amen. Well, you could have started today with this speech.
"I’m proud of the career technical education standards and frameworks my department has developed – they’re a model not only for our schools but for other states and even other nations."
Amen. Proud standards. California’s performance in career technical education is far behind many other states.
More to follow.
Duane Campbell
We welcome comments on the state of education in California.
President Bush is famous for being in denial about the state of the war in Iraq. It seems our Superintendent is learning from him.
California Superintendent O’Connell gave a Sate of the Education Address on Jan 7, 2007.
It is here:
http://www.cde.ca.gov/eo/in/se/yr07stateofed.asp
Lets begin to look at this presentation. We know that the superintendent is a declared candidate for Governor, so we should consider the speech in that light.
There must be a retreat house or training program somewhere where politicians ( like O’Connell), speech writers, and press advisors learn the skills of presenting these reports without being restricted by reality or the data. Unfortunately too many media sources report these assertions as facts.
Page 1:
"We’re asking no less than proficiency in all subjects when measured by the toughest standards in the nation – for all students, right now, regardless of whether they come to school speaking another language, whether they’re poor and hungry, confused, scared, psychologically damaged or mentally challenged."
Commentary:
Yes, California has among the toughest standards in the nation. There is no measured evidence that California has significantly improved reading scores over the last decade. See the NAEP scores for California. So, we have tough standards written by committees, but we have not done the things needed by teaches to improve student learning environments.
Page 2.
"Now, that may seem counterintuitive – we know the exit exam is the minimum our students need to know in order to graduate. But in fact, by holding students accountable for reaching even that standard, we’ve seen that not only have our students reached that bar, they’ve gone higher than they ever thought they could. As a result of the exit exam, students are working harder, learning more and persevering in school."
This statement could be proven or dismissed based upon data. Where is the data? And, in considering the data be certain to investigate the real drop out rate. One way to increase a CaHEE score is to “encourage” low scoring students to leave or to transfer to another school, or just be absent for a week.
Page 2.
"It’s been a long time coming, but today we all know, appreciate and embrace the fact that data matters. We know – because research tells us – that successful schools adhere to our rigorous standards, and build a culture around data-driven decision making."
Well, he has it half right. Data matters. And an honest sharing of the data matters. We look forward to a day when data is presented without the slight of hand used so often by politicians and the media writers for the Calif. Dept. of Education.
The second sentence: Research tells us- that successful schools adhere to our rigorous standards, and build a culture around data-driven decision making.
O.K. What research are you referring to? Most of this is assertions, not research. Research by Dan Laitsch, (2006), and Richard Rothstein (2004), and Gerald Bracey (2003) do not support your assertions. It looks as if your press writer is simply making assertions. What research?
"I want to make certain that the data we collect meets the highest standards, and I want every school and district to make data a top priority. So I thank those school districts who have worked overtime to provide the quality data we need to better serve students and schools."
Good goal. I certainly hope that you achieve it. Note, what the CDE does is collect data. It does not improve teaching nor teaching conditions. It collects data. At least we could expect quality shared data.
"My friends, this is our struggle. Real, measurable progress has been made since the institution of standards-based education. Thousands of young adults are entering the world better prepared for success. "
Data please.
"Today we are holding ourselves accountable for the results of all children. And when we see significant groups of students falling far short of the goal of proficiency that we hold for all students — we must act. Today, equipped with specific knowledge of those gaps, we must focus as never before on solutions."
Good goal. I look forward to the cde holding itself accountable. And, the State Board of Education. Thus far you have held yourself only accountable for writing standards. Please hold yourself accountable for student reading, math, and civics achievement.
"We need to honestly use the data we now have, and also have an honest conversation – a courageous conversation some would say — about our individual subgroups, and their individual struggles within our standards-based context. I know every child in this state can learn and has great potential. I refuse to believe or accept anything less."
Good goal. You had an opportunity to do both of these in this report of the State of Education in California. You haven’t done it today. I look forward to more improvement in this area. Many of us share your goal.
"It’s time to examine our beliefs, to examine the data, to examine strategies and to hold ourselves accountable for getting better results. This year I will be doing all of those things."
Amen. Well, you could have started today with this speech.
"I’m proud of the career technical education standards and frameworks my department has developed – they’re a model not only for our schools but for other states and even other nations."
Amen. Proud standards. California’s performance in career technical education is far behind many other states.
More to follow.
Duane Campbell
We welcome comments on the state of education in California.
Thursday, February 01, 2007
Who needs fact checkers ? We're writing about education
THE WHO NEEDS FACT CHECKERS ANYWAY
AWARD, II: FORTUNE MAGAZINE AND THE
NATIONAL ACADEMIES1
The cover of the July 25, 2005 issue of Fortune featured a takeoff on the old Charles
Atlas body-building ads from the comic books of my youth. On the beach, a brawny
China (in a bathing suit made from the Chinese flag) bullies a scrawny Uncle Sam. The
text on the cover asks “America: the 97-pound weakling?”
In The Fifteenth Bracey report, I made note of the cover and one of the statements from
reporter Geoffrey Colvin: “Our primary and secondary schools are falling behind the rest
of the world’s.” About this statistic I commented, “No evidence was offered, no doubt
because none exists.” Well, that’s true, but it turned out that I had overlooked the
statement and the statistics that would cause so much mischief.
Those came in a section where Colvin wrote about the increasingly well-educated globe
saying, “In engineering, China’s graduates will number over 600,000, India’s 350,000
and America’s only about 70,000.” Colvin’s timing was impeccable—his article arrived
just as a group of fear mongers at the National Academies were putting the final touches
on Rising Above the Gathering Storm, pretty much an echo of the Colvin article that
included his figures for engineers. “The Gathering Storm” carried a particularly ominous
tone--Winston Churchill had used that phrase as the title of his book on the coming of
World War II.
Colvin’s numbers had already caused Carl Bialik’s broad eyebrows to arch. Bialik’s
Wall Street Journal column, “The Numbers Guy” tracks down various statistics,
repudiating some, elevating others. Unlike most things at the uber-capitalist WSJ,
Bialik’s worthwhile column is free, www.wsj.com/NumbersGuy.
Bialik could not locate the original source, but he did find a number of skeptics and wrote
about their doubts in an August column. Ron Hira of the Rochester Institute of
Technology pointed out that CEO’s have nothing to lose by crying wolf: “There’s only
an upside for them. It deflects attention from the fact that they’re offshoring more work.
And there’s no cost to them—the government is going to foot the bill [by subsidizing
engineering schools]. The increase in supply of engineers is going to keep wages down.”
When Rising Above the Gathering Storm appeared in early October, Bialik returned to
the stats. “Now that the National Academies has lent its imprimatur to the numbers,
they’re likely to be circulated more widely in an industry effort to boost government
investment in engineering education that might not be in the best interest of American
technical workers.” Good guess.
1
The National Academies are formed by the National Academy of Science, the National Academy of
Engineering, the Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council.
15
Richard Freeman at Harvard told Bialik that his studies showed that many of the Chinese
“engineers” would come out of two- and three-year programs and that the number of real
engineers graduating from Chinese universities would be more like 350,000.
When Bialik approached Deborah Stine, who had led the National Academies team, she
told him “we assumed Fortune did fact-checking on their numbers” (!!). She also said,
“We appreciate your bringing it up.” She pointed Bialik towards a study from the
McKinsey Global Institute which had used a figure of 550,000. As Bialik noted, though,
the McKinsey study focused on how nine out of ten Chinese “engineers” would lack the
skills to qualify for employment at a multinational corporation.
The matter appeared to have been put to rest with the publication of an in-depth study by
Gary Gereffi, Vivek Wadhwa and a team of researchers at Duke University. They
confirmed Freeman’s numbers coming up with 351,537 for China, 112,000 for India and
137,437 for the U. S. A lot of what China and India called engineers, America would call
technicians.
The matter was not put to rest. The Duke report appeared in December. Calling the
original numbers “mangoes to litchis” comparisons, Wadhwa gave his figures some
visibility in a December column in Business Week Online. In April, 2006, I dedicated
part of a Kappan Research column to debunking the original numbers and in May I
published “Heard the One About the 600,000 Chinese Engineers?” in the Sunday
Outlook section of the Washington Post.
The Washington Post piece popped up on hundreds of Web sites in North America, Asia
and Europe. Not that that did much good. The National Academies imprimatur stuck.
Not only did it stick outside of the National Academies, it stuck inside as well. Asked by
Christian Science Monitor reporter, Mark Clayton, what the new figures meant, Stine
replied “I don’t think we believe that all these new numbers change the ultimate
recommendations we have. The U. S. is well behind other countries.” Jeez, why bother
with numbers at all?
In the meantime the larger figures prevailed in speeches by Secretary of Education
Spellings, Secretary of Commerce, Carlos Gutierrez, Senator John Warner, Rochester
Institute of Technology President, Alan Simone, and, in a variation on the theme, Bill
Gates. They turned up in columns by journalists Hedrick Smith and Fareed Zakariya.
Some few people did speak of the “engineering gap” in the same skeptical voice we now
use to refer to the earlier “missile gap,” but I imagine the vision of hordes of Chinese
engineers will live on statistically for many years. Indeed, the experience allowed me to
formulate Bracey’s Law of Statistical Longevity: Any statistic, no matter how bogus,
that appears to reflect badly on the education system and raises fears about the future is
guaranteed a long life.
Bialik, Carl. (2006, 26 August). “Outsourcing fears help inflate some numbers.”
http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB112488992778121801.html.
Bialik, Carl. (2006, 27 October). “Sounding the alarm with a fuzzy stat.”
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB113028407921479379.html.
Bracey, Gerald. (2006, 21 May). “Heard the one about the 600,000 Chinese engineers?”
Washington Post, p. C3.
Clayton, Mark. (2005, 20 December). “Does the US face an engineering gap?”
Christian Science Monitor, www.csmonitor.com/2005/1220/p01s01-ussc.htm
Colvin, Geoffrey. (2005, 25 July). “America isn’t ready: here’s what to do about it.”
Fortune, pp. 70-82.
Farrell, Diana and Andrew J. Grant. (2005). “China’s looming talent shortage.”
McKinsey Quarterly,
www.mckinseyquarterly.com/article_page.aspx?ar=1685&L2=18&L3=31.
Gereffi, Gary and Vivek Wadhwa. (2005, December). Framing the engineering
outsourcing debate: Placing the United States on a level playing field with China and
India. Durham, NC: Duke University.
Wadhwa, Vivek. (2005, 13 December). “About that engineering gap...”
www.businessweek.com/smallbiz/content/dec2005/sb20051212_623922.htm.
Read the entire Rotten Apples in Education Awards, 2006. By researcher Gerald W. Bracey. Here
http://www.america-tomorrow.com/bracey/EDDRA/rottenapples2006-final.pdf
AWARD, II: FORTUNE MAGAZINE AND THE
NATIONAL ACADEMIES1
The cover of the July 25, 2005 issue of Fortune featured a takeoff on the old Charles
Atlas body-building ads from the comic books of my youth. On the beach, a brawny
China (in a bathing suit made from the Chinese flag) bullies a scrawny Uncle Sam. The
text on the cover asks “America: the 97-pound weakling?”
In The Fifteenth Bracey report, I made note of the cover and one of the statements from
reporter Geoffrey Colvin: “Our primary and secondary schools are falling behind the rest
of the world’s.” About this statistic I commented, “No evidence was offered, no doubt
because none exists.” Well, that’s true, but it turned out that I had overlooked the
statement and the statistics that would cause so much mischief.
Those came in a section where Colvin wrote about the increasingly well-educated globe
saying, “In engineering, China’s graduates will number over 600,000, India’s 350,000
and America’s only about 70,000.” Colvin’s timing was impeccable—his article arrived
just as a group of fear mongers at the National Academies were putting the final touches
on Rising Above the Gathering Storm, pretty much an echo of the Colvin article that
included his figures for engineers. “The Gathering Storm” carried a particularly ominous
tone--Winston Churchill had used that phrase as the title of his book on the coming of
World War II.
Colvin’s numbers had already caused Carl Bialik’s broad eyebrows to arch. Bialik’s
Wall Street Journal column, “The Numbers Guy” tracks down various statistics,
repudiating some, elevating others. Unlike most things at the uber-capitalist WSJ,
Bialik’s worthwhile column is free, www.wsj.com/NumbersGuy.
Bialik could not locate the original source, but he did find a number of skeptics and wrote
about their doubts in an August column. Ron Hira of the Rochester Institute of
Technology pointed out that CEO’s have nothing to lose by crying wolf: “There’s only
an upside for them. It deflects attention from the fact that they’re offshoring more work.
And there’s no cost to them—the government is going to foot the bill [by subsidizing
engineering schools]. The increase in supply of engineers is going to keep wages down.”
When Rising Above the Gathering Storm appeared in early October, Bialik returned to
the stats. “Now that the National Academies has lent its imprimatur to the numbers,
they’re likely to be circulated more widely in an industry effort to boost government
investment in engineering education that might not be in the best interest of American
technical workers.” Good guess.
1
The National Academies are formed by the National Academy of Science, the National Academy of
Engineering, the Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council.
15
Richard Freeman at Harvard told Bialik that his studies showed that many of the Chinese
“engineers” would come out of two- and three-year programs and that the number of real
engineers graduating from Chinese universities would be more like 350,000.
When Bialik approached Deborah Stine, who had led the National Academies team, she
told him “we assumed Fortune did fact-checking on their numbers” (!!). She also said,
“We appreciate your bringing it up.” She pointed Bialik towards a study from the
McKinsey Global Institute which had used a figure of 550,000. As Bialik noted, though,
the McKinsey study focused on how nine out of ten Chinese “engineers” would lack the
skills to qualify for employment at a multinational corporation.
The matter appeared to have been put to rest with the publication of an in-depth study by
Gary Gereffi, Vivek Wadhwa and a team of researchers at Duke University. They
confirmed Freeman’s numbers coming up with 351,537 for China, 112,000 for India and
137,437 for the U. S. A lot of what China and India called engineers, America would call
technicians.
The matter was not put to rest. The Duke report appeared in December. Calling the
original numbers “mangoes to litchis” comparisons, Wadhwa gave his figures some
visibility in a December column in Business Week Online. In April, 2006, I dedicated
part of a Kappan Research column to debunking the original numbers and in May I
published “Heard the One About the 600,000 Chinese Engineers?” in the Sunday
Outlook section of the Washington Post.
The Washington Post piece popped up on hundreds of Web sites in North America, Asia
and Europe. Not that that did much good. The National Academies imprimatur stuck.
Not only did it stick outside of the National Academies, it stuck inside as well. Asked by
Christian Science Monitor reporter, Mark Clayton, what the new figures meant, Stine
replied “I don’t think we believe that all these new numbers change the ultimate
recommendations we have. The U. S. is well behind other countries.” Jeez, why bother
with numbers at all?
In the meantime the larger figures prevailed in speeches by Secretary of Education
Spellings, Secretary of Commerce, Carlos Gutierrez, Senator John Warner, Rochester
Institute of Technology President, Alan Simone, and, in a variation on the theme, Bill
Gates. They turned up in columns by journalists Hedrick Smith and Fareed Zakariya.
Some few people did speak of the “engineering gap” in the same skeptical voice we now
use to refer to the earlier “missile gap,” but I imagine the vision of hordes of Chinese
engineers will live on statistically for many years. Indeed, the experience allowed me to
formulate Bracey’s Law of Statistical Longevity: Any statistic, no matter how bogus,
that appears to reflect badly on the education system and raises fears about the future is
guaranteed a long life.
Bialik, Carl. (2006, 26 August). “Outsourcing fears help inflate some numbers.”
http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB112488992778121801.html.
Bialik, Carl. (2006, 27 October). “Sounding the alarm with a fuzzy stat.”
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB113028407921479379.html.
Bracey, Gerald. (2006, 21 May). “Heard the one about the 600,000 Chinese engineers?”
Washington Post, p. C3.
Clayton, Mark. (2005, 20 December). “Does the US face an engineering gap?”
Christian Science Monitor, www.csmonitor.com/2005/1220/p01s01-ussc.htm
Colvin, Geoffrey. (2005, 25 July). “America isn’t ready: here’s what to do about it.”
Fortune, pp. 70-82.
Farrell, Diana and Andrew J. Grant. (2005). “China’s looming talent shortage.”
McKinsey Quarterly,
www.mckinseyquarterly.com/article_page.aspx?ar=1685&L2=18&L3=31.
Gereffi, Gary and Vivek Wadhwa. (2005, December). Framing the engineering
outsourcing debate: Placing the United States on a level playing field with China and
India. Durham, NC: Duke University.
Wadhwa, Vivek. (2005, 13 December). “About that engineering gap...”
www.businessweek.com/smallbiz/content/dec2005/sb20051212_623922.htm.
Read the entire Rotten Apples in Education Awards, 2006. By researcher Gerald W. Bracey. Here
http://www.america-tomorrow.com/bracey/EDDRA/rottenapples2006-final.pdf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
