It's not enough that school districts across the country are laying off teachers right and left and increasing class size to intolerable levels. It seems that the D.C. think tanks are absolutely dedicated towards further encouraging this trend and destroying any efforts to retain equitable class sizes in our public schools.
Last week in the Daily News, Chester Finn of the conservative Fordham Institute attacked the whole notion of class size reduction, proposing that putting kids on computers instead would be more cost-effective and get better results:
Technology holds huge potential to magnify the effectiveness of great teachers and customize the educational experience of more students. New York City is experimenting with this potential, and "hybrid" schools around the country are blending face-to-face instruction with high-quality online instruction. No, technology is no panacea, and it does carry some near-term costs. In the long run, though, it will save money for districts and states while also delivering their young people a better -- and more modern, and very likely more motivating -- education.
What Finn failed to mention in his Op/Ed is that he is on the board of K12, the nation's largest for-profit chain of online charter schools.
Two weeks ago, the Center for American Progress put out a Gates-funded report attacking class size, and without any evidence of results, also proposed that online instruction would be more cost-effective. Here is my critique of this flimsy report authored by Matthew Chingos. Last week, Brookings Institute put out another report, co-authored by Chingos and Russ Whitehurst, attacking class size reduction yet again.
This is especially ironic, given that Whitehurst was formerly the head of the Institute of Education Sciences, the research arm of the U.S. DOE, which has identified class size reduction as one of only four education reforms that have been proven to improve student achievement through rigorous evidence. Online learning was not on that list, of course.
Neither were any of those speculative proposals that Whitehurst suggested in his Brookings report as preferable, since none of them have the solid research backing of class size reduction: "choosing more effective curriculum; reconstituting the teacher workforce (for example by substituting Teach for America teachers for new teachers from traditional training routes); and enrolling students in popular charter schools in urban areas."
Despite all the spin, there is little or no evidence of positive results for online learning, as a New York Times article pointed out a few weeks ago. And there are lots of counter-examples that should make us worry:
A recent report from Center for Reinventing Public Education analyzed New York City's plan to rapidly expand online learning testing to 400 schools over the next few years. The authors explained the motivation behind this rapid push:
New York City is fast-tracking the iZone in part to meet goals set by Mayor Bloomberg's administration, which will end in three years, and in part to meet recent Race to the Top goals. As Arthur VanderVeen, NYCDOE Chief of Research and Development, says, "We have three years and we need to achieve dramatic, large-scale change. ...The iZone was born out of frustration among NYC Department of Education (DOE) reformers who, after eight years of reforms known as "Children First," were only able to accomplish what they view as significant but incremental improvement. ..."
So I guess the reforms they've been trying up to now haven't yet worked so well, huh? The authors of the report warn that this new expansion is very speculative, in terms of its experimental and unproven nature:
NYC school district leaders are taking risks with the iZone, implementing new models, committing deeply to a defined set of principles that challenge core assumptions about what a school should look like, and moving to scale very quickly. How and when they will know if they got the big bet right is a question district leaders will have to ask so that students are not subjected for too long to programs and schools that don't work. ...At some point, the district may get pushback from parents about the idea of having their children participate in unproven programs and may need to consider catch-up academic plans if certain programs are not effective.
But top DOE officials, including NYC's Deputy Chancellor Shael Suransky are apparently willing to "fix" the data to ensure that these schools do not register as failing, no matter what the actual results:
Officials anticipate the accountability model may need to be adjusted to measure the outcomes of iZone schools so that the schools are given some latitude to take reasonable risks without fear of landing on the district's school intervention list. To that end, NYCDOE's accountability office is starting a planning process to come up with some variations in the accountability system for iZone schools. Shael Suransky, former Chief Accountability Officer and now Chief Academic Officer, is considering using averaged performance results over multiple years instead of annual test score data and will likely use additional data (not just test scores) to inform accountability decisions.
Despite the risks to children and the lack of informed consent on the part of their parents, the city appears determined to recklessly expand online learning over the next few years, and to spend $540 million next year alone on hardware, software and computer wiring to do so.
This large scale experiment is backed by Bill Gates, after all, as well as Joel Klein, who runs Murdoch's online learning division, and many other computer and testing companies that are eager to make a buck off our kids.
Of course, no member of the ruling class, including the people backing this PR barrage, including Gates, Klein and Bloomberg, would enroll their own children in a school that deprived them of smaller classes, because they want to ensure that their own children have the best chance at success. Indeed, all of them sent their own children to private schools with small classes. Chester Finn enrolled his children at Sidwell Friends (where Obama's children attend) and Exeter; both schools feature small classes, with Exeter boasting of class sizes of 8-12.
Yet it seems for these same people, it is fine for them to recommend that other people's children should be relegated to classes of thirty or more, and hooked up to computers for "differentiated" instruction.
I'm not surprised at Finn, who after all has admitted that he wants to "blow up" public education. But for Brookings and CAP to attack class size reduction, one of the few reforms known to narrow the achievement gap, and to act as boosters for such speculative risky alternatives is disgraceful.
It's as unforgivable as the actions of the bogus think tanks, financed by the tobacco industry, that attacked the notion that cancer was linked to smoking; or the fake research financed by the coal industry that still denies the reality of global warming.
What this reveals instead is their complete lack of regard for social justice and equitable opportunities for children. Instead they'd rather push large-scale experiments on other people's kids, many of them disadvantaged, an experiment which would never be allowed in the field of public health but is apparently the hallmark of education "reform" in the 21st century. Small classes for the upper classes, virtual learning for everyone else.
My TV debate with Chingos on class size is here; here is a link to the radio show where I debated Raegen Miller, associate director for Education Policy at the Center for American Progress, about their dreadful report.
Follow Leonie Haimson on Twitter: www.twitter.com/leoniehaimson
• Of the schools managed by for-profit EMOs, 53% made AYP and 47% did not.
• While only 30% of the virtual schools operated by EMOs met AYP, 54.9% of the brickand-
mortar schools met AYP. District schools managed by EMOs had slightly lower
performance ratings (47.8% met AYP) relative to the charter schools operated by EMOs
(53.5% met AYP).
The author is quick to point out the perceived conflict of interest of some, like when she states, "This large scale experiment is backed by Bill Gates, after all, as well as Joel Klein, who runs Murdoch's online learning division, and many other computer and testing companies that are eager to make a buck off our kids." What she fails to mention are her own biases or her connection to teacher's unions like the National Education Association, which see online learning as a threat.
The question is if you can master the material. It is better to have a teacher, or secondarily a study group to help work out issues as you run into them. But the class is only worthwhile for the student if the distraction level is less than the effective instruction level. As the number of uninterested or hostile kids in classes increases, the effectiveness of teaching decreases. Decreasing the class size can help, but is very expensive. Hybrid approaches combining on-line and study group efforts are likely to be cost effective for many students.
1. Where is the PUBLIC avenue for voice and choice in any matter of public education, whether classroom-based or online? Why is such control and access to decision-making so totally out of our hands?
2. All those in power - especially those with the purse strings - should spend some time in a one-teacher kindergarten of inner city children filled to the state's present classroom quota - as a requirement for having control of those purse strings.
3. Mainstream media could make the definitive research on class size more visible to the public. It's not rocket science, as time and attention are the human side of education. But as J. Kozol has stated, there are the 'cheap kids' and the 'expensive kids'.
4. How can we get 'eduticians' to respect educators? How can we get them to care about all children?
5. How can we hold Albany more accountable?
There are serious issues that online learning advocates and practitioners need to address (see http://educationnext.org/lessons-for-online-learning/ and http://www.quickanded.com/2011/05/five-national-policy-implications-from-ohios-e-schools.html). And there are really promising examples of programs that are not replacing teachers with computers, but leveraging technology to improve teaching and learning and provide more individual attention/better relationships (see http://mindshift.kqed.org/2011/05/rocketships-culture-respectful-empathetic-and-college-bound/ and http://www.lurfilms.com/work.php?vid_id=74).
What we need are fewer ideologically-driven arguments and more careful explorations that help us understand the distinctions and choices between promising and damaging approaches. Let's not limit ourselves to a forced choice between teachers and technology, but strive to find the right combination of high tech and high touch teaching.
Online learning is certainly cheaper than a teacher. Of course, it won't produce that critical thinking that is being pushed, but when it's a choice between effective and cheap, cheap will win out every time. Must move more of those taxpayer education dollars into the hands of the for profit educorps.
Experienced teachers = $
Why spend money on effective educational methods when you can go cheap and funnel more of those dollars to the hands of for profit educorporations?
In the DoE report you cited, it says, "Reducing class size in grades K-3..." Is this a case of not talking the same language? It has always seemed strange to me that class sizes were small, even when it was not necessarily important. Is it really necessary for electives to have small class sizes? Should High School have small class sizes? Wouldn't it be better for class sizes to move up preparing students for what they will face in college?
So, I strongly agree with reducing class sizes early. The research does support that. But, it doesn't support it across the board. Perhaps, you are both saying the same thing without using the same language. Then again, they could simply be looking at cost savings without research backing. Your thoughts.
http://www.classsizematters.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/fact-sheet-on-upper-grades.pdf
As I stated, I agree with class size reduction. I was just faulting your reference to a DoE study, which only referenced class size for K-3 classes.
Likewise, your reference points to a DoE study that can be found here:
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2000/2000303.pdf
In that study, on page 34, class size is not the only significant factor. Even in that DoE study, they referenced the challenges of calculating class size. They even wrote, on Page 20, that, "Although none of these by itself is a highly reliable measure of a school’s class sizes ..." cautioning of the use. They concluded that 3 measures were enough to overcome the limitation.
What I am challenging you to do is to tighten your arguments. When you state in your PDF that you reference that, "the only objective factor that was found to be
correlated with higher student success was class size." This is simply not supported by the DoE report that you mention. In that report's data, on Page 34, there are factors outside of class size that have impact.
I do believe that, in general, the data supports your claims. But, you must be aware of its limits. If you over-claim, it makes it appear that you have something to hide. It also opens you up to detractors. This is too important an issue to let it slip because you claimed something not supported by the data you cite.
I hate taking online classes. I know that I learn more effectively when I am inside a classroom and can get answers from a real life human being, not one who is on the other side of a computer screen. What about those kids out there who are like me? These kids who will have no choice? Will they struggle and then give up? That is a shame. Online classes can be great, but they are not for everyone, and I think it is ridiculous that some politicians are trying to put every student into the same box.
I always give this very clear and concise example of the effects of class size in junior high and high school when the subject comes up.
1 English Teacher - 130 students - 1 writing assignment a week = 130 papers
130 papers X 10 minutes@to grade = 1,300 minutes. How many opportunities for feedback will your child's English teacher provide each week?
There are, of course, many other elements that factor into the smaller class argument, but I find this one is powerful.
Oh, so maybe it's not such a good idea...except for edu-profiteers.
My wife, who is a ESL college instructor, was very impressed by the K12 online language drills that my elementary school son did for a while - view it as a very very cheap summer camp.
For students that are serious and hard working, the online class approach allows them to move very fast - and still master the material. I checked, she did learn it.
That's not to say that there isn't a lot of educational potential in the Internet. But it's only really effective as a supplement to, not a replacement for, the teacher and the classroom experience.
Not so much for developing critical thinking skills or cooperative learning. There is no interaction with peers or stimulation of higher order thinking skills, questioning or debate.
But it's cheap.