On Education, Obama Blows It, Part II

OK, there were some good things in the talk to the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce. I especially liked an expansion of early childhood education having worked in the field and recently surveyed a meta-analysis of how well it works. It works, but overall it produces nowhere near the $10 return for $1 of investment. A figure given for the Perry Preschool Project from the 60's was $7 and from the Abecedarian project, $4. The difference being that when Perry was operated there was no preschool for the control group and when the Abecedarian project came along later, children who didn't get admitted had other preschool options.

But a lot of the speech contained flat out errors. He said that graduation rates had fallen from 77% to 67%. Huh? Graduates are a contentious topic, but the U. S. Department of Education says the best method for estimating it puts it at 74.5% nationally (a short treatise of the topic can be found in Paul Barton's 2009 "Chasing the High School Graduation Rate." Free copies at www.ets.org/research/pic).

He said dropout rates have tripled over the past 30 years. Come again? A 10% decline in graduation rate = a 300% increase in dropout rate? Talk about fuzzy math.

He said, "In 8th grade math we've fallen to 9th place." Actually, we've come a long way, baby. The reference here has to be to the most recent TIMSS which tested in 45 nations. But in the original TIMSS from 1995, published in 1996, U S 8th graders ranked 23rd in math among 41 nations. If that's falling, let's go down some more, fast.

"Just a third of our 13- and 14-year-olds can read as well as they should." This is outright garbage. The reference here has to be to NAEP achievement levels which, as I have shown over and over again, as have others, are outrageously unrealistically high ("A Test Everyone Will Fail" shows this in an international context, "Oh, those NAEP achievement levels" shows this in a domestic context. The first is from the Washington Post but both can be obtained simply by putting the titles into Google). Richard Rothstein and colleagues demonstrated that, were kids in other countries to sit for our NAEP exams, NO country would have a majority of students proficient in reading using NAEP achievement levels. Sweden, the top-scoring country, would be just ahead of the U. S.--with one third of its students proficient.

He raved about South Korean schools but neglected to say that thousands of South Korean families sell their children--yes, sell--to American families so their kids can a) learn English and b) avoid the horrible rigidity of Korean schools. And while the US trails Korea on average test scores, it has a higher proportion of students scoring at the highest level on the Program of International Student Achievement (PISA). Moreover, it has the highest number of high scorers (67,000) of any country. No one else even comes close. Top scoring Finland has a proportion that gives them about 2,000 warm bodies at PISA's Level 6 (Lowell & Salzman, "Making the Grade," Nature, May 1, 2009). It's the top performing students, not the average ones, who are going to lead the way in innovation.

After evaluating public schools on test scores, he then turns around and praises charters for creativity and innovation. But study after study of charters has come away saying they were surprised at how much the charter schools look like regular public schools. And charter schools don't score as well on tests as regular public schools ("NAEP gap continuing for charters," Eric Robelen, Education Week, May 21, 2008). You can't bash the public schools on test scores then praise the charters which have lower scores. That's hypocritical.

By the way, he said, "We have the best universities, the most renowned scholars." True. But if the public schools are so awful, how can that be? How can you get that silk purse college from that sow's ear high school? (And don't say it's because of foreigners in the colleges, because it wasn't and isn't).

Similar to his inaugural address he said, "Of the 30 fastest growing occupations in America, half require a bachelor's degree or more." But, as in his inaugural, he neglected to say these occupations account for few jobs. Wal-Mart, McDonald's, etc., are the great job machines in this country. Today he added, "By 2016, four out of every 10 new jobs will require at least some advanced education or training." There's that weasel phrase again, "advanced education or training." It's meaningless except as propaganda.

I voted for Obama. I canvassed for him. I registered voters for him. But on education, he has yet to hit the basket. Diane Ravitch, never once called a bleeding-hear liberal and assistant secretary of education for George H. W. Bush, recently said that, from what she's seen, Obama is a third term for George W. Bush and Arne Duncan is Margaret Spellings in drag. She was not doling out compliments to either man. (http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/Bridging-Differences/2009/02/is_arne_duncan_really_margaret.html.

Comments

[chemtchr]

CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT CAN SAVE THE TITLE I STIMULUS
I teach chemistry in a Title I school, and this naked power grab is a bitter blow to me. I have dedicated my life to educational justice, each day and each hour and each minute at a time. This vicious old rich man now claims to own the president we had put so much hope into. Over the weekend, I couldn't even sign the stimulus support petitions, let alone distribute them. I choked every time I tried to say, "Yes, we can."

But, wait. In this unlikely story that is America, there can never be anything false about hope. There is another branch of government, with checks and balances to control a greedy little despot who seizes control of an executive department. We won the legislature, also. Congress has the obligation to ensure transparency and oversight in the awarding of the stimulus fund money.

Brothers and sisters, save the Education stimulus from Eli Broad. Contact your congressman today, and ask that transparency legislation be passed that will require review by a congressional oversight committee before any "non-profit" foundation can pass Eucation Stimulus money through to any private for-profit vendor. Get it legislated. We don't have to split the movement to fight this - we can SUPPORT the stimulus by paying attention to the details. We do have the power to save our executive branch from betrayal, corruption and self-dealing. This is what democracy is for. Yes, we can.

[chemtchr]

I think the reason Obama's Education speech was garbled is that it was written by Arne Duncan's staff. And Duncan's staff is handpicked by billionaire misanthropist Eli Broad:
http://gothamschools.org/2009/03/11/eli-broad-describes-close-ties-to-klein-weingarten-duncan/

Broad is building an empire of for-profit charter schools and "school improvement" consulting firms. He brags, “We don’t know anything about how to teach or reading curriculum or any of that. But what we do know about is management and governance.” So, he places his hand-picked and "trained" business CEO's into school administrations. His lackeys FORCE their public schools to PURCHASE useless and harmful instructional supervision services, standards-driven curricula, and management control. The schools are helpless because control has been seized by his henchmen, under NCLB, for failure to make AYP on their standardized tests. It is an airtight marketing strategy, which has reached a viral proliferation stage as the NCLB noose tightens on poor children everywhere in the nation.

The whole Title I education stimulus package is written to lock all the rescue funds for the poorest children in the nation under the control of Broads army of CEO superintendents, to PURCHASE services from his for-profit partners:
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2009/03/18/25improve.h28.html

The only possible flaw in this scheme is if Broad is wrong in his assessment that democracy is helpless against him, because his fake non-profit billions can buy domination.

[Skevimc]

"Moreover, it has the highest number of high scorers (67,000) of any country. No one else even comes close. Top scoring Finland has a proportion that gives them about 2,000 warm bodies at PISA's Level 6 (Lowell & Salzman, "Making the Grade," Nature, May 1, 2009). "

Yes we have a high number of students, and we should, our population is nearly 57 times that of Finland. But the graph also shows the proportion, in order to normalize, which is glossed over. Finland may only have 2000 students scoring high, but that amounts to ~4% of their students. The US was well below that. The chart in that article can be interpreted several ways.

"It's the top performing students, not the average ones, who are going to lead the way in innovation."

Maybe I am misinterpreting his point. Isn't he trying to say that "Performance" shouldn't be based only on test scores? Yet he then says that "top performing students" will lead the way. Anecdotal, I have found the "average" students (as a group) go on to be the most innovative. I made C's my whole life. I was bored and did enough just to get by. That doesn't mean I wasn't smart or innovative, it just means I wasn't inspired. Once I found my topic, I became inspired, got my PhD (A's) and now here I am at Stanford.

Again maybe I am not understanding his point on this. And I certainly agree with several other things he mentioned.

[svartano]

I'm interested in knowing where you're getting your data on charter school performance in comparison to regular public schools. Granted, a lot of schools are forced to go charter to avoid being shut down and reconstituted as a result of not meeting AYP - these schools are already failing and take on the "charter" as a name only - but many charter schools, such as KiPP or YES-Prep have results that far exceed public schools in the low-income communities they serve.

That, and charters offer so much more freedom for students to pursue creative opportunities. I happen to teach a recently-chartered school and am able to start project that I wouldn't have been able to otherwise. You can check one out at http://cmef.org/japanbound2010 . Charters allow for many things that would otherwise be impossible.

[kingsbridge77]

Obama needs to fire his fact-checker.

[Neaguy]

Another superb analysis by Bracey.

This adminstration may be one of the worst in history on education. They are so uninformed about educational research and history, it is literally scary. Their behaviorist approach to every problem is dogmatic and may squeeze the intellectual life out of the classroom.

As a proud teacher for 14 years I am insulted by the attempts the Duncan/Obama team are going to make to control what I do and will fight their efforts to dumb down my classroom by subjecting my students to even more useless standardized testing.

There are many excellent reforms out there such as performance assessment and project based learning. These are proven ideas that need the backing of any change president. Where is Obama o these cutting edge models? Clueless.

I differ with Bracey on one thing. I voted for someone who had a far better record on education---on everything actually---Ralph Nader.

[mamak]

I focused on the essence of his message. And I find that appealing and agreeable completely.

Why did I not think like you did ....and write a piece of jumbled illogical piece??...­.Statistic­s without raw data is a meaningless point to argue. I suggest you write to the White House and get clarification on how they arrived at the numbers and then write-up a critique.

Why would you want to argue about child selling in Korea to put down their educational achievement?...

"He raved about South Korean schools but neglected to say that thousands of South Korean families sell their children--yes, sell--to American families so their kids can a) learn English and b) avoid the horrible rigidity of Korean schools".

You seem so proud of the US high school educational system....are you serious...????

"I voted for Obama. I canvassed for him. I registered voters for him". Of course ...how convenient right... try to get legitimacy for being able to criticize Obama.....that's a classic manuever.

[hardindr]

mamak:

Your critique of Bracey's article makes no sense. What do you mean by "statistics without raw data" is meaningless? Statistics ARE compilations of data. Why should Bracey have to call the White House when Obama's speech and its accompanying fact-sheet are obviously wrong, i.e. Americans "falling up" to 9th place on the most recent TMSS.

In my experience, admittedly very anecdotal, the US high school system is very uneven, with some people getting excellent educations, and others getting very poor educations.