The Question of Homework: To Assign or Not to Assign

Everything seems to be coming up snake eyes for the veterans of education these days. Inexperienced and emotional parents seem to believe that they have the answers to quality school reform, the Obama administration continues to push Race to the Top and its test-based evaluation system which do not appear to be the answer1 and new attacks continue against the assignment and/or grading of homework. This post will briefly address the third issue by addressing the nature of homework.

Note that for this blog post the term ‘homework’ will reference well designed material which when genuinely attempted by students increases the probability that those students better understand the overall lesson associated with the homework. The reason for this characterization is that clearly no rational person would argue that poorly designed homework is useful in the education process. Also some would argue that homework is only relevant to college-bound students. Such a contention is erroneous as the chief role of schools is to produce individuals that have the ability to solve new and original problems, effectively communicate their opinions and make positive contributions to a society. Therefore, developing tools and strategies to understand new information, which well designed homework can help accomplish, is important to all individuals not just those bound for higher levels of academia.

Differentiation between quality homework vs. non-quality homework largely involves how much additional thought is required to solve the problem/question and how realistic is the problem structure. Rarely will reality simply give a person a single equation or thought process that will solve the problem. A basic example of quality homework vs. non-quality homework is shown below:

Non-Quality Homework Question –

21 / 4 = ???

Quality Homework Question –

John and Suzie want to bake some apple pies for their school’s bake sale. John has collected 10 apples from the trees around his house and Suzie has collected 11 apples from the trees around her house. If it takes 4 apples to bake 1 pie how many pies can John and Suzie bake and how many apples will they have left over after all the baking is done?


Those who are generally opposed to homework can be divided into two camps: those who believe homework is not a useful means to increase academic achievement and/or raw knowledge and those who believe that homework can be useful, but schools assign too much of it especially when students have to deal with 5-7 different subjects. Those in the first camp like to cite various studies which attempt to demonstrate that homework does not have any meaningful or significant academic benefit2-4. In some context these individuals view homework as pointless busy work that does little to prepare students for what they need to know. However, these individuals and the authors of these studies at times dismiss the very structural design nature of homework.

The nature of homework is to act as a mechanism to practice different problem solving techniques as well as the ability to clearly explain or disseminate acquired knowledge to another party. A near-ubiquitous amount of testing with lab animals has demonstrated enhanced cognition through simple rote repetition and at times advancing to pattern recognition in addition to enhanced creativity. Basic biochemistry and psychology also dictates that the brain, like any muscle, will strengthen over time when utilized properly and repeatedly (reinforcing neuronal connections). Therefore, any studies that claim homework does not provide a meaningful academic benefit are in contradiction to these basic long-established and logical tenets.

Three explanations jump to mind to address this contradiction. First, the studies that provide these contradictory results do not differentiate between information difficulties. For example if a student can clearly understand a given topic from a simple lecture then doing homework which is designed to reinforce the topic concepts will have little benefit. In such a scenario the black mark should not be made against homework, but instead against the core subject matter and its perceived lack of depth.

Over the time frame of multiple varying topics over numerous years (emulating a student moving from lower grades to higher grades) if homework were proven unnecessary because of ‘lecture only’ achieved understanding then it would be wise to question the difficulty of these lessons… unless of course the students in these studies were all a bunch of geniuses. Of course with the general poor average performance of American middle and high school students on international standardized tests, using a bunch of geniuses as the sample size for the purpose of creating accurate studies on the usefulness of homework in an academic environment is not appropriate to developing accurate conclusions.

Second, the design of the homework used in these studies was sub-optimal. The assigned homework did not effectively address the important material which was required to understand the given topic. Attempting and completing the homework did not provide a meaningful base of understanding. As discussed above clearly homework as well as almost anything in existence is not useful if it is poorly designed.

Third, the students did not apply an honest effort to doing the homework. If the purpose of homework is to act as a method of practice, any benefit from that practice requires the participant to focus on the practice and proper execution of what is being practiced. There is a common saying that ‘Practice makes perfect’, but that saying is not accurate because perfection is an impossible achievement and any level of practice, regardless of quality, is not guaranteed to produce any beneficial improvement. The saying should be ‘Quality practice makes better’. Therefore, if students were simply ‘going through the motions’ and not genuinely testing their knowledge and the ability to communicate that knowledge (television and computer off, quiet room, focus on the homework, etc.) then to deem the homework ineffective is inappropriate.

Overall based on these elements and how they may explain the contradictions between these ‘homework is not an effective academic enhancement tool’ studies and the inherent practice identity of homework, it does not appear to be rational to come to the unequivocal conclusion that homework is an ineffective means to increase academic or overall cognitive ability. Therefore, the first camp of individuals who oppose homework do not appear to have a strong arguing position.

The conflict between pro-homework and anti-homework individuals from the second camp seems to boil down to the principle issue of time management. In the mind of those anti-homework individuals homework could be important on an absolute level, but on a relative level its importance is marginalized by other responsibilities and/or activities. For example a popular refrain from teachers and those that oppose using standardized testing as a means of evaluation (both for teachers and schools) is that students are unique individuals who run the gamut in both personal and psychological characteristics as well as living/working environment. These differences make it difficult to judge teacher performance based on a ‘one-size fits all’ standardized test with only a short fixed period of time available to instruct on both what is on the test and what is not.

Anti-homework individuals can use this argument against homework. While the end result of learning is what is important and at times may not be properly represented through grades, the current structure of academia uses grades to determine how well an individual acquires and communicates knowledge. Anti-homework individuals question how is it fair that homework be a significant portion of the grading criteria when certain students may be in a situation where their time is focused elsewhere. For example some students may not have a sufficient amount of time to do homework because of an imperfect family life where brothers/sisters have to take care of younger siblings or go to night work to earn extra money to help support the family vs. other students that have wealthy parents who could even have the intellect and the time to assist with the homework.

Also it has been argued that too much homework robs children of their childhood by forcing them to reject various opportunities to engage in extracurricular activities from organized sports or hobby activities to simple outside play with friends. Instead of expanding their minds through a vast array of experiences, these students are trapped doing monotonous homework assignments. Finally when homework accounts for a large percentage of the grade some argue that such an elevated evaluation metric provides an unnecessary level of stress in the student’s life which is further compounded by the lack of extracurricular activities, which could be used as a means to reduce stress.

Homework proponents argue back that even if the total amount of homework for a given course is worth a high percentage of the final grade, there is typically enough homework spread out over the entire course that the value of a single assignment is mitigated to the point where there should be little stress associated with each assignment. In fact one characteristic of homework is that it is an important element to learning because it creates a lower pressure lower consequence environment where students can enhance their understanding a particular topic through repetition and where mistakes are more manageable.

An advantageous attribute to a high evaluation metric for homework is that it provides another avenue for students who struggle with communicating acquired knowledge in a testing environment. It cannot be argued that a test in a classroom environment inherently provides more pressure than homework assignments in an environment of the student’s choosing. Some students do not have the ability to effectively manage this increased pressure, thus their ability to demonstrate their knowledge suffers accordingly. The principle characteristic of the grade for a course is to conveniently measure how well a student acquired knowledge in a course, not how well a student can manage a high-pressure situation. Therefore, a high evaluation metric allows the grades for a student that ‘does not test well’ to more accurately reflect the knowledge acquired within the course.

Some opponents argue that while addressing students that ‘do not test well’ is a positive element for a high evaluation metric, it is more probable that highly evaluated homework conceals poor performance. Students can use homework to bolster overall grades that are detrimentally marred by poor examination results, poor results not due to mishandling stress, but simply due to lack of knowledge. Thus, this evaluation structure misrepresents a student’s knowledge in a particular topic portraying that student as more competent than they otherwise are, a disservice to colleges, future employers and the students themselves. However, this analysis only seems valid if the assigned homework is of substandard quality and/or design. If the homework does force the students to work hard at earning high homework grades then using homework grades as a counter measure to examination grades is reasonable.

It must be remembered that the bounds of time do not only impact students. Teachers, especially those with more dynamic topics like history, find themselves having to impart more and more information over the same fixed time period. Unfortunately the total amount of information that needs to be discussed limits the available amount of instruction time for each specific topic. Therefore, without the ability to rigorously cover a particular topic to the point where students have been exposed enough to reasonably understand the topic the probability that the students understand the topic decreases. Homework substitutes for this lack of class time to increase learning and retention probabilities.

Due to time conflicts with other activities and with homework typically characterized, similar to school, in the ‘not fun’ zone teachers believe that there needs to be sufficient motivation to encourage students to do it. Homework is supposed to be viewed as having long-term benefit both in the form of general knowledge for life as well as knowledge for other evaluation methods (quizzes and tests). Unfortunately to anticipate most children and adolescents foregoing short-term small benefits (doing something else instead of homework) for the potential of long-term benefits is improbable. However, providing some additional benefit to doing the homework (extra credit, etc.) is also inappropriate because the homework is for practice and the ‘reward’ for practicing is getting better at what is being practiced, not getting better and receiving a cookie (i.e. a monetary award).

With students more than likely not appreciating the inherent benefit and teachers unable to justify expanded benefits, the only remaining strategy teachers have available to promote motivation for most students to do homework is to tie it to grade evaluation with immediate and explicit detriment possibilities. So for teachers to maximize the probability that students learn the required material for a given topic and fulfill the goal of those students becoming good citizens, homework must be done and must have sufficient motivational potential to guarantee that it is done with meaningful effort, thus the necessity of a high evaluation metric.

The biggest problem faced by those that want a high evaluation metric for homework is that such a metric for more intelligent students challenges the ‘practice’ characteristic of homework. What happens when a student understands the necessary material simply from the lesson itself? This student should not have to spend time, no matter how little, undertaking an assignment that will not increase his/her level of understanding. However, a high evaluation metric for homework forces this student to do just that.

Now it can be argued there is a typical element of perceived knowledge vs. actual knowledge gap for most students. There are a number of instances in school and life in general where an individual may think he/she has sufficient knowledge in a given subject, but when actually tested on that topic this individual quickly realizes that he/she does not have as much knowledge as previously thought. Homework provides a means to address this perception/reality gap before it becomes exposed on a test to the academic detriment of the student. However, the above example does not always fall into this scenario. Therefore, is there a strategy that can provide a motivational aspect to do homework while not burdening those who do not need to take advantage of the practice characteristics of homework? The strategy below seems to be one way to address this issue.

• Homework is given out on a weekly basis; Every Monday an assignment is given out which will cover all of the scheduled material that will be covered in class over that same week; the assignment will be expected to be turned in at the beginning of class on the next Monday (for example homework assigned on Oct. 13 would be turned in on Oct. 20 at the beginning of class); answers for the homework would then be posted or handed-out for the last week’s homework at the end of class on Monday.
• Homework will count for 0% of the grade. The reason is that homework, as previously discussed, is designed to give the student multiple opportunities to practice learning the given material. Taking a grade from material that is supposed to be practice is not very fair. Therefore, because homework does not count for any percentage of the grade the students do not have to do it or turn it in if they do not want to.
• Grades will be determined by 4 tests; 3 section tests worth 25% of the grade and 1 cumulative final worth 25% of the grade. As a partial motivator to do homework students may retake one of the section tests if they turned in at least 75% of the assigned homework within the corresponding section and demonstrated a legitimate effort to learn from the homework.

Overall while the above suggestion is merely that, a suggestion, it appears that the above discussion has focused on two important principle issues in the ‘homework’ discussion. First, is the issue between homework motivation vs. maintaining the practice characteristic of homework designed to enhance learning. Clearly the students that come from a more stable home environment and/or have college as a longer-term goal are better able to provide their own motivation for doing homework whether or not a higher evaluation metric is applied.

Unfortunately in a number of situations these very students that have a greater ability to produce their own motivations are less likely to actually need to do homework to understand the material. Students that do not have these advantages will more than likely need to do homework to help understanding, but may not have the ability to see the self-beneficial elements to homework as a motivational tool. One solution for this issue may be for the teacher to offer options to his/her students. At the beginning of the semester (by the end of the first/second week) the students may select between 1 of 3 grading criteria where homework could count for 0% 15% or 30% of the grade and the remainder would be determined by other graded elements. One immediate concern with this method is encouraging students that need a higher evaluation metric for motivational purposes to take it. For this strategy teachers could assign two or three quizzes over the few two weeks to see where each student stands and then suggest an appropriate metric.

Some observers may argue that the above suggestion creates a mismatched evaluation environment which is inherently unfair and could cause future problems. While such an observation is understandable, the selection of the homework grade percentage criteria by the student ensures fairness. Students should not be competing against each other when earning grades because grades are about what the student knows on an absolute level not on a relative level with his/her peers (this the chief reason curve-based evaluation systems are foolish); therefore, as long as the student is fully aware of the selection and the overall evaluated material is the same for all students fairness is not a problem even if two different students have their respective grades comprised from a different percentage evaluation metric.

Second, is the issue of opportunity cost in doing homework vs. undertaking other activities. The chief element of this issue which causes problems boils down to immediacy of the opportunity cost. The time crunch created by homework, which is frequently associated with increased stress, is typically developed through two methods. First, most students, especially as they advance in grade, have to deal with multiple subjects demanding multiple solution methodologies. Second, homework frequently functions through daily turnover. While the individual assignments may not account for much having to sacrifice enough of them due to more important tasks (like the job to help feed your family) can add up quickly damaging the overall grade when using a high evaluation metric (commonly suggested for motivational purposes).

Unfortunately there does not appear to be a single magic bullet to deal with both issues, but expanding the homework turnover scope could certainly help. As suggested above assigning homework at one particular time to account for the entire week gives the students more flexibility to address the homework. If their time is demanded by a particular activity on a given night, time can be budgeted later in the week to complete homework that would have been missed due to that activity. Another potential advantage to assigning homework in a greater than day-by-day quantity is that it may be easier for students to make connections between building block concepts when doing ‘three days work’ of homework in one sitting instead of doing the work over a three day period with multiple interruptions. Such a system could also encourage more ambitious students to ‘read ahead’ in an attempt to do the homework before the class lesson address the material.

One question that comes to mind for such a system is how does it change the grading burden on teachers? Under a more expanded turnover system with a firm homework hand-in date teachers now have 7-times as much homework to grade on a short-term time frame. Grading homework is one of the most daunting and potentially frustrating tasks for a teacher, one that is commonly overlooked by most education reformers when considering teacher workload, so increasing workload in the short-term by 7-times is a significant issue.

One way for a teacher to address this change is to produce a universal answer sheet for the students posted in the class so the students have answers immediately available to them. Then the teacher can proceed to grade the assignments over the course of the week. Hopefully once such a system was established, each individual teacher would get experience with the operation of such an assignment methodology and develop his/her own personal rhythm. Unfortunately there appears to be no definitive universal method that can be applied to this situation, it would be up to the teacher do develop his/her own personal way to address any potential stress augmentation issue relative to grading higher turnover homework.

Overall the question of homework is more complicated than most individuals acknowledge. This blog post has tried to address these complexities in a logical and transparent manner. The biggest problem facing resolution of the homework question seems to be the desire for a universally applied solution. Such a solution treats students as interchangeable commodities which is extremely unrealistic. Therefore, the first major positive step would be to abandon the universal mindset. Future steps should work to address the elements discussed in this blog post to find a quality solution for specific subject matter under the purview of a particular teacher.

==
1. Bloomfield, David. “Research Calls Data-Driven Education Reforms Into Question.” Huffingtonpost.com. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-bloomfield/education-reform-standardized-testing_b_882718.html

2. Harris Cooper, The Battle Over Homework. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin, 2001, p. 16.

3. Bennett, Sara, and Kalish, Nancy. The Case Against Homework: How Homework Is Hurting Our Children and What We Can Do About It (New York: Crown, 2006).

4. Vatterott, Cathy. “There’s Something Wrong With Homework.” Principal, January-February 2003: 64.

The Class Size U-Turn

With austerity measures sweeping the nation most states have elected to cut social services including funds directed towards education. For years school reformers have championed the notion that one of the key elements to increasing student performance is to shrink class sizes. However, these near-future budget cuts will reduce the number of teachers. This reduction will increase the number of students per class in those affected environments. It seems like an important element in the school reformer plan will be placed on hold for the time being… or maybe not. Despite this pattern of singing the praises of small class sizes, like those possessed by the KIPP charter schools, school reformers, including Bill Gates, have all of a sudden changed their tune. The elimination of teachers will be a good thing because now good teachers, not bad teachers, will teach more students. Due to the fact that multiple studies have demonstrated that the quality of the instructor is one of the most important, if not the most important, element in a student’s ability to learn increasing class size is all of a sudden a great thing.

Unfortunately for school reformers that share this belief their epiphany suffers from two critical flaws. The first flaw is that instructor quality will not be taken into consideration when the vast number of teachers dismissed as a result of these cuts in social services. Currently no valid evaluation method has been established to effectively and fairly judge teaching performance; therefore, any targeted dismissal will follow standard procedures with younger teachers taking the brunt of the dismissals regardless of their overall teaching credentials and quality. With this method of ‘teacher filtration’ there is no legitimate way to judge the quality of the remaining teachers in the future environment over the quality of the teachers in the present environment. It is quite possible that the ‘higher quality’ teachers will be fired and more students will end up in front of ‘bad’ teachers.

The second flaw is that most school reformers tend not to understand what makes a quality teacher. The principle element which determines the quality of a teacher is the teaching methodology. It is irrational to believe that there is any significant difference between the way that teacher A writes a lesson on a blackboard or talks about a PowerPoint presentation over teacher B in the context of quality. Therefore, the quality characteristic for in-class performance stems largely from unique nuances in a particular teaching methodology. Most effective teaching methodologies rely on direct teacher-student interaction, especially the most effective methodology: the Socratic Method. However, with more students in a classroom the probability that any given student interacts in such a direct way with the teacher is reduced. Thus, by this probability metric it is more probable that for any methodology that utilizes teacher-student interaction the overall methodology will be less effective relative to the size of the class.

A third issue that ties back to quality teaching is how a larger class size affects teachers off-hours. One of the more misrepresented elements of teaching is the total level of work a teacher performs. Some individuals draw the conclusion that teachers do not work very hard because the official school day in a vast majority of schools is only 6 to 6.5 hours long. However, these individuals do not consider the work required by teachers in preparation for the next school day nor the work required to grade homework, quizzes and tests to determine how effectively students are learning.

Not surprisingly because these individuals do not consider these aspects of teaching they do not realize that prepping for tomorrow’s lesson and grading various items is time-consuming and difficult work, especially for those that are ‘good’ teachers because of the effort applied. Increase that off-hour work load by 1.5 to 2 times and take a wild guess about how long that teacher will remain a quality teacher frayed by a work load no reasonable person should be expected to handle. In fact under such constraints as a 40-60 student classroom, which will be common under some of these teaching termination proposals, most homework, quizzes and tests will more than likely revert to multiple choice format. Unfortunately it is common knowledge that multiple choice format testing does not lend itself well to teaching and refining critical thinking skills which will be the most important skill for citizens and workers in the future.

So larger class sizes have only an even shot at best at putting more student in front of ‘good’ teachers, increase the probability that those ‘good’ teachers will be less effective and increase the probability that these student not receive the skills that are most important for the future, will those that suddenly believe larger class sizes to be advantageous please explain how this viewpoint could possibly be logical and correct?

Addressing Teacher Turnover in Education Reform

While numerous topics rage in the public forum regarding education reform, the finer details on the structure of teacher turnover are commonly pushed to the background. The only aspect of this element that acquires any significant attention are reformers pressing the point that a more effective means of firing ‘bad’ teachers needs to be developed within the scope of ending teacher tenure. Interestingly these same reformers fail to ask the question of who is going to replace all of these ‘bad’ teachers.

A simplistic idea to close the turnover loop is the belief that an increase in teacher salaries will drive a dramatic positive shift in the number of intelligent college students who select a career in teaching over something in finance or whatever else. Unfortunately individuals that tout this idea as an effective means of closing the teacher turnover loop, fire the bad ones and then use salary incentives to attract intelligent candidates, fail to acknowledge that intelligence alone does not make a high quality teacher and that salary alone does not dictate job choice. In fact the wheels may fall off this plan at the point of salary increases before even reaching the question of teacher quality.

There are two immediate problems with the notion that simply increasing salary will make teaching a more attractive option for those believed to be higher-level candidates. The first problem stems from a perceived lack of understanding of the rigors of teaching. Salary to work ratio is typically the defining factor determining whether or not an occupation can effectively recruit individuals, when specific interest in a particular profession is not a personal motivation factor. For example most medical students that have the opinion to select, due to their skill level, between a specialization or general practitioner select specializations much more often because of a higher salary and lower total work hours (basically a higher salary to work ratio).

With respect to teachers while reformers want to increase salary they also want to increase work responsibilities through various evaluation methods as well as more targeted testing, thus it is reasonable to suggest that there would be no significant change in the salary to work ratio. In fact depending on how the increase in salary is distributed (how much is added to base salary vs. how much is derived from incentives) the salary to work ratio may actually decrease making teaching a less attractive occupation for high quality college graduates. The troublesome issue is that the salary to work ratio can easily slip into a negative feedback loop where the lower it falls the less attractive teaching is to new potential candidates which mean fewer teachers replacing those that leave the profession which leads to more work for the remaining teachers dropping the real and perceived salary to work ratio even further.

The second major problem with the strategy of reformers with regards to turnover is that with 49 of 50 states currently running deficits and the public continuously wary of raising taxes to pay for civil services where is the money to raise teacher salary across the board going to come from? The procurement of funds to pay for these salary increases is another important question that most reformers fail to address. Teachers are part of the much maligned, chiefly by the Republican Party, public workforce thus it is difficult to imagine a legitimate popular outcry fueling this salary increase. Sadly one of the elements that haunt public education is the near-universal desire to pay teachers more, but the reluctance to bare the financial burden associated with that desire. Add in the problem with questions over whether government should sponsor more charter schools and/or school vouchers and the potential to raise the necessary funds to increase salary decreases further.

Why are addressing these two critical problems in the teaching turnover cycle important? Returning to the problems within the turnover issue, hiring potential is an important element because various estimates cite approximately 270,000 to 300,000 teachers leave the profession each year for some reason (retirement, quit, resign for some reason, etc.).1,2 Sadly in the next 5 to 10 years that number will increase further solely due to retirements from the slanted age demographic of the current teacher workforce. In addition to those increases suppose the zeal of firing ‘bad’ teachers sponsored by most education reformers catches on and 3% of U.S. teachers (approximately 3.5 million)3 in a given year are deemed ‘bad’ and fired over the first 5 years and then the ‘bad’ teacher ratio drops to 1%. So where are the at least 375,000-405,000 additional hires in the first 5 years going to come from with the serious potential for a decreasing salary to work ratio? What about the additional 305,000 to 335,000 for each year after this initial 5 until the demographics level off in about 15 or so years?

Unfortunately the suggestion by reformers to increase teacher salary does not even address the most popular reasons why, outside of retirement, that teachers leave their jobs. Lack of planning time (65 percent), too heavy a workload (60 percent), problematic student behavior (53 percent) and a lack of influence over school policy (52 percent) were all cited as a reason for leaving.4 Although these main surveys are from 2000-2001 based on the current environment in education it is reasonable to assume these concerns remain. Overall these responses lend more credibility to the importance of the salary-work ratio. An increase in salary may stop some teachers from leaving, but it is more rational to tackle these retention problems by addressing the issues that drive them instead of searching for indirect solutions. Until these other issues are addressed the probability of bridging the coming teacher gap will be very small.

Another element in hiring is teacher training. As is common with most proposed solutions, few specific details have been given by education reformers regarding how teacher training will change and evolve beyond simple criticisms and broad expectations. The popular idea is that teacher training needs to be more like medical residency, but few details have emerged beyond that simple comparison statement.

Clearly teacher training matters because one of the following two scenarios is accurate if there are the significant numbers of ‘bad’ teachers as reformers profess: 1. Current teacher training is adequate enough that new teachers are ‘good’ teachers when entering the classroom, but due to a lack of evaluation, general feedback and/or deteriorating teaching environment the teachers are unable to objectively determine what works and what does not work which lead to the slow corrosion of their skills changing some from good teachers to bad teachers; 2. Current teacher training is inadequate and the eventual determination of a new teacher evolving into a ‘good’ or ‘bad’ teacher falls to their natural ability and overall desire.

The first option does not appear very plausible in that while it is reasonable that some level of deterioration in skill may occur, this deterioration is more likely to be derived from overwork and stress rather than lack of evaluation; if teacher training was adequate then these new teachers would know how to recognize what works and what does not work on their own. The second option does appear to be valid in that numerous personal reports indicate that new teachers, even vaunted ‘Teach for America’ teachers, are not adequately prepared to teach upon entering a classroom for the first time after receiving their credentials.

Beyond addressing the teacher turnover issue is the fact that most school reformers do not appear to appreciate the scale issue involved in genuine and meaningful education reform. The sheer size of the public school system demands plans with stringent detail instead of the short-term applied resource specific niche systems dreamed for scale-up. If educational ‘reformers’ really want reform then it is time for them to stop looping sound bites and actually get into the specific and numerous concerns in the education arena, especially teacher turnover because if there are not enough teachers available to teach the youth of near-future all other reforms are rather meaningless.

--
1. http://completionagenda.collegeboard.org/teachers-leaving-profession

2. Solnet, Rita. “Fire our way to better education: is common sense MIA?”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rita-m-solnet/fire-our-way-to-better-ed_b_801361.html

3. Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2010-11 Edition. Bureau of Labor Statistics. United States Department of Labor. http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos318.htm

4. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Teacher Follow-up Survey (“Questionnaire for Current Teachers” and “Questionnaire for Former Teachers”), 2000–01, Table 6. Washington, DC.

Taking a Step Back in Education Reform

The education reform movement has existed for decades and yet when using the trend in national test scores for 8th and 12th graders vs. their international peers as an evaluation tool the movement has been a failure. Ignoring the irony of using these particular test scores to evaluate the education reform movement, the movement seems unaffected by this reality and continues to plow ahead blaming any ‘failure’ on bad teachers and inflexible unions that they claim are destroying any reasonable chance to educate the nation’s children. Sadly the very methodology of the education reform movement is more to blame for their failure than any teacher’s union, yet a sense of groupthink and cognitive dissidence has allowed that flawed methodology to continue unabated. So before any real widespread education reform can occur, the flaws must be removed from the rationalities used by education reformers.

The chief flaw facilitating the existence of all of the remaining flaws is that ‘problems’ in schools are typically judged on a relative level over an absolute level. What does this mean? Starting off with a question: why do most people believe the education system is broken? That belief typically springs from the simple comparison that international students perform better on a series of tests than U.S. students. If the current education system were exactly the same with the only difference being that U.S. students performed better than students from all other countries would there be any significant outcry regarding a ‘Crisis in Education’… it would be highly doubtful. Unfortunately this competitive comparison attitude also impacts the reform movement.

Most members of the reform movement do not look at specific education elements as problems because they are ineffective on an absolute level, but instead because they are not similar to what a foreign country may do. Basically x is a problem not because it has been determined that it detracts from the educational experience, but because country x does not do it and country x scores higher on international tests than the U.S. One may question the problem behind a strategy that involves copying elements from successful education environments to replace elements in less successful education environments. What is bad about replacing supposedly ineffective educational strategies with test supported more efficient strategies?

There are some significant concerns with this mindset. The most important element is that students are not static interchangeable parts, different methodologies work differently at educating different students. Ironically this chameleon element is frequently cited as a trait for quality teachers, yet while the teachers are supposed to be chameleons most reformers seem to believe that the education structure in which they work should be static and one-size fits all. A second problem also relates to the question of similarity. One cannot simply plug in a solution without determining how that change will affect other elements of the education environment.

Therefore, effective school reform must come from examination of whether or not an element works or even if it is necessary for a particular school. Thus, more incentive needs to be placed at the local level to identify these problems in an accurate and objective manner. Some might argue that such an ideal was embedded in ‘Race to the Top’, but the evaluation method applied to judge ‘Race to the Top’ applications seems to demonstrate that no in-depth ‘problem’-‘solution’ linkage was required. Without first having significant analysis of problems, generating effective solutions is difficult and instead one is left with generic broad solution suggestions that look great on paper, but their ability to actually solve the problem is unknown because they are not formulated to address a given problem in a specific situation. The educational reform movement is so intent on finding national solutions to the perceived education crisis that they will more than likely continue to make limited progress.

Scapegoating of teachers has eliminated the most important voice from the conversation. To assume that a vast majority of teachers are not committed or interested in ensuring a meaningful and effective education for U.S. children and teens is illogical and just plain wrong. Thus, where are mass public surveys to the nation’s teachers asking what they feel are the biggest obstacles to facilitating the instruction of a high quality education? This disconnect between those with front line experience and those that sit in the ‘general’s tent’ far behind the lines is an important reason why most of the proposed solutions are in conflict with what could actually work.

For example when asked ‘What is the one thing you could change in your school’ how many teachers would honestly answer ‘Well, our school is so hopeless we need to nuke it and start over by making it a charter school.’? It would be surprising to find any teacher who would give such an answer and yet such action is one of the primary responses of education reformers. Some critics would argue that of course teachers are not going to make such a suggestion because their number one priority is to protect their job; however, such cynicism does not make sense. Such cynicism stems from the general lack of respect individuals give the teaching profession. One wonders how teaching went from being a highly respected aspect of U.S. society to garnering almost no respect at all? Any one that believes a majority of teachers want to teach in an environment that is not striving to maximize its potential is simply a fool. Such a lack of respect and empathy for what teachers have to do is another aspect to why a number of educational reforms fail.

Overall one of the most important aspects of education reform has not been addressed, what those directly responsible for the education of U.S. children and teens, teachers and education administrators, believe to be the problems. Due to the lack of involvement of the principle actors in education in the future evolution of the education system one is not surprised by the gridlock that exists between the so-called reformers and the unions. To facilitate true education reform the next action must involve taking a step back and understanding that there is a standard deviation on those ‘mediocre’ U.S. test scores which generates an average for student performance. Not all schools perform as poorly as those scores indicate while not all schools perform as well. After this realization the path to real education reform can then begin with the following steps:

1. Each state should compose a survey for all of its teachers asking for input regarding education reforms; some sample questions should address (but not be limited to) the following issues:

- What do you believe is the best thing that your school does to support education?
- What do you believe is the biggest obstacle to improving the educational environment in your school?
- What do you believe is the most important thing that will change and/or influence the educational environment in the next 5 years?
- How is the general student attitude when it comes to learning and why does that attitude exist?

2. The federal government should require (pursuant to receiving any federal funding) each state to do a complete and objective audit of their educational budget to identify any points of overhead waste or general inefficiency in the distribution of funds. Note that this audit is not to make any judgments regarding whether program x should be viewed as wasteful or not, but instead simply account for all of the funds, track how they are distributed and determine whether or not those funds could be distributed more effectively.

3. Each school district should hold a conference to discuss the results of the surveys and develop a plan of action, including a prospective new financial budget for addressing the obstacles pointed out in the surveys; each district then bundles a monetary request to solve these obstacles into two categories: ‘need’ and ‘want’ which will be presented to the state;

While the above points cannot guarantee solutions to the problems with education there is a higher probability to develop solutions with the above method than the current strategy being executed now. Removing the ‘national’ element from the solution set should allow for greater flexibility and precision in applying solutions at the local level appropriate to the environment. Granted while the focus of solutions on a local level is important, it would be unwise to completely eliminate the federal government from the process. The development of national education standards should be the prerogative of the federal government. However, although the federal government should decide what U.S. students need to know, it should not dictate the methodology used by schools to teach that requisite knowledge.

The Extend School Year

The Extend School Year (ESY) has always had its peaks and valleys of interest. Recently it has climbed to a peak once again thought to be a meaningful aspect of school reform. This renewed interest is largely driven by the general failures of U.S. teenagers to compare effectively in academic testing vs. their peers; (teens only because recall that 4th graders actually do well against their international peers). Sadly one of the weaker arguments in favor of an ESY is the ‘copy what works’ method in that some believe that just because others are successful that success can be replicated simply by doing the same thing without considering differences in the environment. Not surprisingly this rationality is rather shortsighted and foolish. Another issue plaguing ESY is, like with most ideas in society, ESY proponents rarely delve into how to effectively apply it. For example here are five issues that must be addressed when discussing the application of an extended school year beyond just a small little niche community:

1. Clearly an educational institution will require a greater yearly budget if its time of operation is extended and current results are to at least be maintained; while this issue is actually brought up by most ESY proponents, none seem to suggest how much money will be required and where that money will come from. Also none dare mention any possibility of an increase in taxes to raise the funds, which will more than likely have to happen if one does not want to increase the federal and state deficits.

2. One issue that most individuals brush under the rug when discussing an ESY is student motivation. If students are not motivated to learn, no amount of additional time will be effective when trying to teach them. Few ESY proponents have even considered asking the question of how to address the very real potential of a decreasing motivation to learn from the student perspective when instituting an ESY, especially in teenagers who typically use the summer months to apply for internships and other short-term work.

3. Another motivational element behind the push for an ESY is the belief that students tend to forget a sufficient amount of what they learned in the last year over the course of the summer. While true, a belief that simply teaching for a longer period of time will solve this problem is naïve. The reason U.S. students are not doing well relative to their peers is not primarily derived from time issues.

Suppose for a moment that the questions on a particular international test were organized in order of appearance (basically the first questions addressed the first sub-subject that was taught in the given class, what was taught in late August/early September, and each question set proceeded in the same order with the questions ending in late June/early July). If ESY were a legitimate solution right now that could be implemented on its own, then the results of such an examination would demonstrate a general pattern of performance equality between the international students and the U.S. students up until the end of the test. At the end of the test U.S. student performances should then fall off the proverbial cliff because they did not have enough time in school to learn that portion of the material. Sadly this result would be incredibly surprising because the fact is as a whole international students are getting a higher quality education over their U.S. counterparts regardless of time in school. This element of quality vs. quantity boils down to simple rationality that applying an ESY system before addressing lesson quality is similar to putting the cart before the horse and thus a recipe for wasted time and money.

In fact do people, ESY supporters or detractors, even ask why students forget over the ‘summer doldrums’? The most popular answer is that lack of exposure to various math, science, language, history, etc. problems/questions slowly unravel memory and connections learned during the previous school year. Therefore, an ESY will lessen the dead time between these problems, thereby reducing the total time allotted for these students to forget. However, read over that last sentence and then ask the question, “Why is learning by rote deemed an acceptable response?” If these students were taught how to develop proper solution methodologies for solving problems, then the layoff time would be irrelevant because instead of relying on rote memorization to learn and solve problems, students would have a base methodology for solving problems hastening recovery time as well as lowering the time required to learn new things.

Another option is instead of extending the school year, challenge students by giving bi-weekly assignments over the summer (the assignments can be delivered via email, direct mail or posted on a community/school bulletin board). These assignments will take the place of the ‘general review’ that some teachers believe has to be conducted at the beginning of the new school year due to what is forgotten over the summer. In addition these assignments would help the students develop a ‘do-it-yourself’ independence because when entering the workforce as adults they are not going to be able to run to a teacher to help them with every little assignment. These assignments could even be used to determine part of the grade (5%-10%) to ensure students undertake them. The above solution is probably only one of a number of solutions that can be utilized before resorting to the expensive method of extending the school year for the purposes of reducing the significance of memory loss. Overall the only reason for establishing additional school time is if the instructors in the school specifically report that they don’t have enough time to cover all of the relevant subject material.

4. ESY supporters seem to completely ignore the fact that there are non-charter public schools that graduate extremely well prepared and intelligent students without having to resort to extending the school year. Maybe ESY supporters should ask how these schools accomplish such a feat instead of looking to emulate small scale niche specific charter schools that have teaching methodologies that are more difficult to scale-up than most proponents want to believe.

5. Not surprisingly, because most educational reformers come off as anti-teacher frequently citing the 3-month ‘vacation’ time that teachers receive in their arguments, there is little discussion of teacher fatigue when considering an ESY option. Most of the schools that currently use an ESY are smaller charter schools that have 10-15 students per class, which applies significantly less stress on the teacher versus a class size of 25-35 students; (the difference in class size is of course another issue that most charter school proponents fail to acknowledge). Also individual teachers in the U.S. already teach an average of 1,100 hours a year versus an average of 650 hours a year for other countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). This difference in teaching time is largely carried out through the application of a teaching rotational system and group teaching, another element that school reformers want to copy, but then fail to actually think about how to effectively administer it. Without such a system in an ESY application, it is rational to conclude that teachers are expected to teach an additional 135-145 hours (12.3 – 13.2% more work).

For those that still wish to attack the total number of work hours a teacher undertakes the above number does not include the hours that go into prepping for a class, studying classroom teaching strategy, researching new teaching strategies and techniques, taking classes to update skills (something most other occupations rarely do), coaching or supervising extracurricular activities and the omnipresent grading assignments/tests. All of these activities add a considerable amount of more time to the workloads of the average teacher destroying the ‘3 months of vacation, so teachers don’t work sufficiently long’ argument.

These simple five points have demonstrated that for those individuals that want to scale-up the application of an ESY system on a national level a lot more work and thought need to go into the execution of the plan over what has currently occurred in popular circles of conversation. The simple, yet ironic, fact is that for an ESY system to be successful it will require other significant reforms to be applied as well, but overall in such a scenario an ESY will prove to be rather ineffective relative to those other reforms.

The Evolution of School Reform – Part 1: Students

One of the critical flaws in most school reform plans is the abject failure to address anything beyond the role of teachers. Teachers are an important part of the education experience and significantly influence the end educational result. However, to believe that all of the problems and solutions lie in the realm of the teacher is silly and frankly rather stupid and irresponsible. Sadly even those that should know better still place almost all of the focus on the teacher in the name of reform or improving school performance. Such emphasis can be seen in the following example, the opening paragraph of “Constructing 21st-Century Teacher Education” by Linda Darling-Hammond from Stanford University.1

“The previous articles have articulated a spectacular array of things that teachers should know and be able to do in their work. These include understanding many things about how people learn and how to teach effectively, including aspects of pedagogical content knowledge that incorporate language, culture, and community contexts for learning. Teachers also need to understand the person, the spirit, of every child and find a way to nurture that spirit. And they need the skills to construct and manage classroom activities efficiently, communicate well, use technology, and reflect on their practice to learn from and improve it continually.”

Unfortunately the above paragraph basically sums up the general view of teaching in the United States. Teachers need to know this, teachers need to know that, teachers need to respect this, teachers need to appreciate that… not once does the above paragraph or any part of the remaining article suggest that the other actors involved in the process of learning (the students, the administrators, the parents) have to compromise anything with respect to classroom performance. So the teacher has to be the hard working chameleon while everyone else should feel no responsibility to adjust or evolve his/her mindset to accommodate the teacher’s personal style. This attitude is a large reason why education in the United States has taken such a negative turn, no responsibility on the students, parents or the administration for their role in the process.

For example when an 8th grader can only read at a 4th grade level, reformers are quick to blame teachers for allowing the student to slip through the cracks. Of course such blame is easy and convenient for reformers because it does not require actually thinking about the issue. If people are willing to assign blame where is the blame for the administrators of the school who allowed that student to continue to advance in grade even when that student did not possess the adequate tools for advancement? Where is the blame for the parents of the student who elected to take so little genuine interest in their student’s education that they were unaware of his/her reading deficiencies? Most of all, where is the blame for the student? Why not chastise the student for going home and surfing the Internet or playing video games instead of cracking open a book and working on improving?

One of the continuing hot buttons of school reform is the periodic standardized test evidence that frequently demonstrates a trend of poor performance of 8th grade and 12th grade students from the United States versus those from other developed foreign countries. Although a lot has been made of the difference between foreign and domestic scores, a more pressing issue should be the change in ranking between 4th grade and these upper grade levels (8th and 12th). For instance when international comparisons are first made in 4th grade the United States is near the top in math, science and language. However, as the students age the rank of the United States wanes versus other nations, so the real question is where and why does this drop-off occur?

Clearly one cannot go running to the problems/gaps in technological integration because the standardized tests used to compile the information for these comparisons do not focus on creating a PowerPoint presentation or writing a program in C++. Thus, something must change either in the students, the instructors or both as these individuals move up the educational ladder. The important first question on this issue is: is it more a matter of the foreign students improving at a faster rate than U.S. students or do U.S. students on a relative level to their younger selves actually regress? Basically think of two cars in a race, does Car A maintain a relatively constant speed while Car B increases its speed or does Car A lose speed while Car B maintains a relatively constant speed?

The reason this question is important is if the answer is the former option school reform only requires some tweeks here and there to close this achievement gap. If the answer is the latter option, then school reform is more troublesome because clearly either the students, the teachers or both are creating an environment that is hurting student achievement relative to if that student attempted to learn alone. At this point in time there is little reason to believe that the latter option is the correct one.

Instead the former is the better bet due to the general static nature of most teaching as students progress in grade versus the dynamic nature of the students receiving that teaching. In 4th grade students have a lot less going on in their lives and the material is easier, so high-quality performance is more straightforward. In 8th and 12th grade other factors enter into the equation, most notably more difficult subject matter, increasingly complicated social interaction with peers (dating, etc.), expansion of extra-curricular activities (higher pressure sports teams, employment, etc.), which increases the difficulty of education. Thus if this reality does turn out to be the case, schools need to address the critical question of student motivation before anticipating any significant improvement in reform.

With the question of motivation in mind the simple fact is that despite the publicity and hype surrounding the role of teaching in school reform, the primary actors responsible for education are the students themselves. Contrary to popular belief, it is not the job of the instructor to motivate the student to learn. It is the job of the instructor to provide an environment where the potential to learn is enhanced, but the core motivational effort is the responsibility of the student. So why is it that teachers receive the blame for this lack of motivation and later the lack of results or learning pursuant to this lack of motivation? The most probable answer is that it is always easier for the students to blame the teacher over themselves for their educational failures and parents of course side with their children over the teacher in most to all instances. Proper placement of responsibility on this issue is a necessary step to enhancing student motivation. As long as society continues to create a scapegoat in teachers and pass the buck with regards to student motivation, the probability of properly motivating students will not significantly increase.

Another important step to closing this gap is students simply growing up. Like teachers students need to realize that education is not a passive activity, involving only simply sitting at a desk listening to the instructor lecture. Students need to actively participate in classroom discussions and activities, with the understanding that learning is not always easy and/or fun. For example when the instructor asks a question to the class every student in the room should raise a hand in anticipation of answering the question, not only one or two.

Of course the school as well as the teacher must aid the student. Returning to the statement of the 8th grader that can only read at a 4th grade level, how was this individual allowed to proceed to the 8th grade in the first place? Either the school did not realize that he/she could only read at a 4th grade level or the school did not care and merely passed the student up along the food chain hoping he/she would ‘get it’ at the next level. If the school does not have a rigorous literature program through composition or language classes then it is quite possible that an individual can move through the system with a low reading level because those skills are never thoroughly tested making them unnecessary, even in the eyes of the student. Unfortunately not knowing a problem exists is not an excuse for ignoring the problem. Therefore, schools need to institute a more rigorous assessment scale for subjects either within the curriculum or as a separate examination.

One could argue that the latter option is already covered by state standardized testing, thus including an additional school specific test could easily become a waste of time for teachers and students. Such an argument would have merit if the results of the standardized testing were handled in a more appropriate feedback manner. For example suppose student A and student B take standardized test D. Student A performs well measuring in the upper 10%, but student B performs poorly, especially in all reading comprehension and vocabulary sections. What is the general school based reaction to these results?

The reaction is the same in both instances, nothing. Schools tend not to address the results in any meaningful way. Most schools do not backtrack student B’s performance in language classes to determine whether or not he/she just had a bad test day or there is a legitimate problem. Student B’s parents typically do not ask the school to assign extra work or extra study focus so student B can work through the problem. Finally student B is rarely concerned about poor results. Such a reaction is either driven through the ‘it is just one test and I don’t need this stuff in real life’ philosophy (a philosophy that is rarely true, especially for language and communication skills) or the student does not want to admit to a problem because it could result in a lower level of self-worth and more homework in order to catch up with other students.

It is a significant problem if parents, the school and even the student realize there is a problem due to poor scores in class and/or standardized testing and nothing done about to address it. The rational behind this lack of action is a culture of equality or advancement. The stigma attached to holding a student back a grade due to poor performance is a powerful one. Such students are frequently the target of ridicule from peers and excessive worry from parents. However, the global picture is better served through the generation of a more prepared and more intelligent individual instead of one that graduates with peers of the same general age, but who still has holes in general skill sets. The issue of ‘he/she is just a late bloomer’ is rather passé and is irrelevant in a vast majority of situations where an individual would be held back a grade.

Therefore, both administrators and parents need to consider the fact that the advancement structure of an educational institution should be focused on making sure that the necessary skills and knowledge are imparted to the students and not be solely concerned with the emotional ramifications and stigma of being held back a year. In addition one must recall that the door swings both ways, it is also necessary to ensure those of greater intelligence are skipped ahead to an appropriate learning environment even if it is with those of greater age. There are few things more frustrating than learning in an environment that is too difficult or too easy for one’s own ability and talents.

An alternative to holding a student back a grade is the use of summer school; however, a large number of summer school programs are not nearly as rigorous as the normal school program and act more as a cover for both the parents and the school in convincing themselves that they are doing something to handle the problem. If summer school could become a viable alternative through overhaul and more specified focus of its coursework then it would provide a valuable alternative to holding a student back to ensure proper knowledge acquisition.

Returning to the point of motivation, increasing the probability of summer school or being held back a grade for inadequate performance may motivate students to work harder, but it should not be the only element to enhance motivation. A key part of motivation is the element of focus. When one is focused on a particular goal accomplishing elements essential to that goal are typically easier than accomplishing elements that are not viewed as important to that goal. Therefore, if one wishes to enhance motivation to learn, be it reading at a certain level or some other task, one possibility would be to incorporate its accomplishment into a meaningful goal structure for the student in question. At first such a statement may sound similar to some form of financial reward program for good grades. Not a chance as such programs do an incredible disservice to society by implying that if one wants to do anything one should expect to be paid to do it. These programs also instill a detrimental precedence of immediate or instant gratification typically sacrificing long-term meaningful gain for small very short-term gain.

Instead the goal motivation should be derived from career aspirations. For being such an important part of an individual’s life, schools do very little to promote career information or education. This is not to say that it is the responsibility of the school in any way, shape or form to fill this role, but it would prove advantageous to both the student and the school if these aspirations were explored in the proper capacity. The current basis for exploration of career issues within the primary education of a student largely involves the generic ‘what are your interests’ aptitude test which loosely attempts to categorize career possibilities based on these interests. There are also visits with the guidance counselor, but these trips are typically either due to poor behavior or at the behest of the student. Due to the reality that most students, especially at a young age, do not think far enough into the future to consider what they will do for a future career, these voluntary visits are unlikely.

What could schools do to improve career information availability? One of the best methods could be to take 2 hours each day for 4th or 5th graders and use that time to significantly explore career paths over the course of the school year with each discussion taking place over the course of 1-2 weeks. For example suppose the teacher wanted to discuss the legal profession, most notably a lawyer. The first day would involve a general background of the profession, what other professions it commonly interacts with, what type of skill set is required to succeed in the profession, what type of skill set generates an advantage in the profession, what type of education is required, etc. The second day and if necessary third day would involve the general terminology and analysis of examples of the profession in action. Depending on the complexity of the profession the next 1-3 days would explore the general principles of the profession using a role-playing exercise. The lawyer example could involve splitting the class into small groups of 4 students each giving them an example case and having them draft arguments to both the prosecution and defense sides of the issue later presenting them to the class in an oral presentation. A discussion regarding how other individuals felt about the arguments could occur after everyone was finished.

The idea behind these profession introductions would be to stimulate interest in a given profession(s) while also demonstrating the tools required to succeed in that profession. With the knowledge of what is required to undertake a future in a profession that they are interested in, students will hopefully be more motivated to study and work harder in class to acquire those tools. Establishing the goal system in this context creates a system that keeps the student interested without requiring additional funds from an already cash-strapped environment as well as not requiring a continually escalating reward structure due to attained tolerance levels.

For those that believe such a methodology would take too much time away from the instruction of other subjects, the incorporation of this methodology seems compatible enough with general knowledge in that any given profession requires language, communication, math, analysis and comprehension skills that would be appropriate to teach a 4th or 5th grader. Thus little time should be wasted in their adoption. It is true that incorporating such a system would be difficult in the interim largely because of lack of experience and familiarity from the teacher’s perspective, but these initial hurdles can be overcome through training programs. Overall the above suggestion is just one possibility designed to spur the motivational fire in students. However, despite the fact that school can lend a helping hand in motivation, it is important that society understand that the responsibility for educational motivation must be removed from the teachers and placed where it belongs, on the students otherwise positive large-scale school reform will be much more difficult. In the end the responsibility of whether or not a student learns something falls on the student.


================

1. Darling-Hammond, Linda. “Construction 21st Century teacher Education.” Journal of Teacher Education. DOI: 10.1177/0022487105285962

What needs to happen to improve education in the United States

This post will return to the issue of education reform, largely because there has been an abnormal increase in the number of articles written about it in mainstream news publications in the last two months. One of the saddest things that one experiences when reading these articles is that the authors seem not to genuinely care about actually reforming the education system in the United States, which make no mistake need reform, but instead they only care about their supposed method of reform. Of course such a mindset basically dooms any sense of legitimate and successful reform to failure because these individuals tend to block out the flaws in their method and demonize certain elements in the current system that do not deserve such scorn. Those who truly want to solve the problem need to systematically look at the system, identify the flaws and then act to remove those flaws instead of citing some little trendy example that seems to work, but could never be applicable as a real solution.

For example most of these new articles lament the ‘horrible’ state of education in the United States and gleefully cite charter school organizations like the Knowledge is Power Program (KIPP) or YES Prep as the model panacea. They dream that if only those horrid teacher’s unions could be abolished then everything would be perfect. Teachers would be judged on their performance using grades and standardized test scores giving ‘definitive’ proof of which teachers were competent and which should start looking for new jobs because without those pesky unions firing teachers would be as easy as adding 2 + 2. With the ability to fire teachers at the drop of a hat, teacher salaries could be increased attracting the best of the best to teach instantly improving the system and making the United States number 1 in the world again.

Alas, how unfortunate that reality must set in and awake Michelle Rhee and her allies from their perfect education world because such a dream world is far from perfect. The problem is that most reformers are so desperate for change they do not realize that the change they are seeking is in and of itself flawed. So where do the flaws lie in the ‘perfect’ dream of most reformers?

The first issue that many reformers seem to neglect is the very issue regarding the nature of teaching. Money is not the main attractor or detractor that determines whether or not an individual, who later would evolve into a good teacher, joins the profession in the first place. Most good teachers view the profession as a form of calling or an occupation of considerable importance. It is rational to believe that the substandard salaries that are given to most teachers may dissuade some from involving themselves in the profession, but to think that a dramatic increase in salary will magically flood applicant pools with individuals that are or will be effective teachers is less rational and more hopeful. The interesting issue is that an increase in salary may actually dilute the talent pool for quality teachers. A higher salary will indeed attract more applicants, but would those applicants have the appropriate drive and overall mindset to be an effective teacher?

The reason for the above concern is that the responsibility of teaching goes beyond what most people think. Frequent are the snipes about teachers only having to work 6-7 hour days and getting 3 months off in the summer; however, rarely is it mentioned that the quality teacher actually ends up working 12-14 hour days due to their involvement in running extracurricular activities for students and/or ensuring that the next day’s lesson is effective at instructing on the major points that need to be understood to master the given topic. Those 3 months off in the summer, good teachers spend them analyzing from a macro and micro perspective what went well the last year and what did not and for those things that did not go well what needs to change to foster improvement. Also if required these teachers, that reformers so highly value, attend workshops and training seminars to acquire new skills to ensure that their teaching efficiency does not decline with changing technology and changes in culture or society.

Of course those elements of teaching only involve the teacher. How does the requirement equation change if the pot is spiced up a bit by adding in the targets of the education? In most professions the working environment and clientele is rather homogenous as the given profession attracts and in some cases requires a certain personality to succeed. Thus person-to-person interaction is either very easy or very difficult, where those finding it very difficult quickly find themselves lacking a job. However, teachers have to interact with ‘clientele’ that run the gamut of personality traits including, but not limited to the eager to please ‘teacher’s pet’, the quiet and studious, the intelligent and arrogant, the apathetic and failing, the uncaring and rambunctious, etc.

Unfortunately that is not all. Teachers also have to interact with parents, which run the similar gamut of personality traits, but unfortunately do not always mesh up with the traits of their offspring. Add in other administration elements and a typical lack of funds due to local resident backlash against further increases to their property taxes and one can very easily see that good teachers require something much more than the offer of a large salary. Sadly most reformers do not seem to realize reality. They almost have the attitude that once the handshake acknowledging the acceptance of the job is complete the new teacher is magically imbued with the necessary traits to become a high quality, motivate the student no matter what, A or B grades for everyone instructor.

The focus on and adoration to quality programs like KIPP and YES Prep can probably be blamed for most of the delusions school reformers have about their solutions. The problem is that reformers look at a KIPP school and its successes, especially teaching Black and Latino students, who typically fair poorer on average in grades and standardized test scores in public schools. Then these same reformers look at what they regard as the gross failure of the public school system and come to the immediate conclusion that installing the KIPP school structure for the given public school will end the failure and facilitate success.

However, these reformers seem to neglect the simple fact of scales. For example the entire KIPP program consists of 82 schools [16 elementary (K-4), 55 middle (5-8) and 11 high schools (9-12)] with approximately 21,000 students whereas the entire public school system consists of over 64 million students. Even the least populous state of Wyoming has 4 times as many public school students (84,920) than the entire KIPP program. It is rational that a niche, which requires specialized talent can be very successful on a small scale, but cannot exceed a certain size and still hope for the same success with the same methodology. Such a niche is the KIPP program and similar programs, they look and operate great when they only involve 0.033% of the population; however, their model runs into significant problems when theoretically scaled up to meet higher population demands because of a simple lack of resources or time to meet those demands.

The cell phone stance is a great example of this point. The KIPP program advertises that teachers are instructed to carry cell phones so students can contact them to ask for help at any point in the day. Although on its face one may praise such an idea, the efficacy of such an idea changes dramatically with class size. The general 11-15 student KIPP class size allows for this idea, the standard 25-35 student class size for the generic public school significantly handicaps it.

The entire industry of charter schools falls under this niche umbrella. Outside of the very specialized programs like KIPP and Yes Prep, which are very small and almost need to be to generate their success, larger charter school systems have demonstrate no statistically significant improvement over the education offered at public schools despite their incredible support in the popular media. That niche characteristic is also why support for voucher programs as a means of school reform is such a joke. Voucher programs are so small that they will do nothing to help the flaws with the public school system and will actually be detrimental by pulling useful resources from the system. Suggesting that a voucher program is an element of positive reform for the education system in the United States is akin to suggesting that a bullet to the brain is a positive element for someone’s health.

Part of the problem with reformers is they are looking for solutions in the wrong places. If reformers are so eager to find a cut-and-paste example for education reform they should be looking at successful public schools instead of charter schools. The focus should be contained to the same genus. For example attempting to find a solution to the problems in the public school system in charter schools provides as little help as if a biologist trying to understand a disease in wolves looked at the uninfected local pig population instead of the uninfected local dog population. Unfortunately for reformers even looking at successful public schools will only generate broad based theories and possible solutions because of the eclectic and dynamic nature of public schools in general. However, these broad based solutions offer a place to start because one of the few things that reformers have gotten right is that reform is needed.

Before throwing around possible solutions to the myriad of problems reformers see with the education system, reformers tend not to ask the key question: what is the overall goal(s) of education? Until one develops an answer to that question proposing reforms is rather meaningless because the proposed reforms will not have a clear focus regarding their intended changes. So in order to get the ball rolling: what is the overall goal(s) of education?

Based on the actions and mission statements of various public and charter schools the intent is clearly to educate students attending the particular school; however, those statements do not go far beyond the nauseatingly general, similar in way to the generic medical student response of ‘I want to help people’ when asked why he wants to be a doctor. The problem with these broad statements is what do they really mean? There is a vast difference between providing the necessary level of education to be nuclear physicist and the education to be a radio broadcaster both in type of knowledge and amount of knowledge. For example despite the differences in type of knowledge the nuclear physicist needs to be able to think about certain issues and problems in a way that will never be required of the radio broadcaster. So if the goal is a focus on ‘education’ what type of ‘education’ should it be even in the most generic sense; the one required for the nuclear physicist or the one required for the radio broadcaster?

Overall despite all of the proclamations, it appears that most schools have one of two goals when it comes to education. First, instruct the students to the bare minimum thought to be required for the next grade level almost in a fashion of just getting rid of them. Second, instruct the student to a level required for college admission regardless of what particular level of college. Unfortunately neither of these goals are well defined with specifics, which makes it easy to claim success. Overall it is not difficult to get into college if one has the funds; if the only criterion for a successful educational experience is being accepted into college then attaining such a goal is relatively easy. However, such success may be relatively pointless, for there are many people that get into college that cannot think their way out of a paper bag. If advancing to the next grade level is the goal, success is almost guaranteed because individuals regardless of their true education level are almost never held back from advancing up the education ladder.

What would happen if education goals were better defined? Clearly a goal cannot be established for each individual or unique occupation because that would be silly and unproductive, but what about more defined general goals with specifics. To do this the first thing to do is ask the question: what is the first principle point of education, why were schools established in the first place? In a democracy for a country to reach its full potential its citizens must have the ability to analyze their situation and identify practical and reasonable solutions to any problems they encounter. Also citizens must realize that they are a single part of a much larger collective, thus it is important to consider the viewpoints and beliefs of other individuals and how they relate to society in general instead of characterize everything they do not agree with as a problem in society. It is the development of these abilities, which make up the origins and still remains the bedrock of the education system, thus it makes sense that these elements drive the goals of education. So how can these basic concepts be reconciled into a goal structure?

Although not the only way, one way is as followed:

Goals of Education –

1. Produce citizens that can make rational decisions, which will allow them to make positive contributions to society;

2. Produce citizens that can effectively form solutions to both qualitative and quantitative problems;

3. Produce citizens that can use both spoken and written word to effectively communicate their ideas and feelings to other individuals as well as understand and analyze the validity of the ideas and feelings of others;

4. Produce citizens that do not tolerate individuals that attempt to manipulate or deceive society for their own ends; further more produce citizens that do not tolerate those that practice and/or preach ignorance or idiocy for the sole purpose of satisfying their own personal beliefs;

To clarify the fourth goal, it is healthy and appropriate for well-meaning and intelligent individuals to debate on topics like the death penalty or legalization of certain drugs where there is legitimate evidence to support both sides of the argument. However, it is not appropriate and significantly detrimental to allow for the continuation of a ‘debate’ on topics that lack evidence to support one side, like discussions regarding whether or not climate change is driven by human activities. Arguing that human actions are not the primary driving force in climate change, to which there is no legitimate evidence of support, is akin to arguing that 2 + 2 is 6,891,957 instead of 4. Despite this simple and definitive reality the ‘debate’ of global warming still rages on. Thus the fourth goal seeks to ensure an end to these fruitless and time-wasting ‘debates’ because there really is nothing to debate.

So if those are the major general goals of educational institutions, what are the first steps to achieving them? The first goal can be achieved by acquiring a basic understanding of government/civics, history, contemporary social issues and math as well as detailed analysis of historical and practical cause and effect models and the methodology that was utilized in their development. The second goal can be achieved by extensive problem-solving analysis and the empirical practice of the scientific method on various topics. The third goal can be achieved through high quality language and grammar courses as well as a number of debates and discussions. Finally the fourth goal can be achieved through instant correction when a student makes a facetious argument and a follow-up challenge asking the two key questions to breaking the control of incorrect beliefs: 1. why do you believe such a thing? 2. what information/evidence would you have to see to convince you that your original opinion is incorrect?

Of course establishing goals and a general construct for achieving those goals is only the first step. There are many different elements that can still be debated on the grounds of whether or not they would enhance the efficiency of attaining these goals. That will be the motivation behind the next post regarding education, a critical analysis of how those elements need to be incorporated if they are going to be helpful to achieving the aforementioned goals of education. Overall if the education system is to improve reform will be necessary; however, to simply rest the outcome of reform on the illusionary laurels of generally flawed teacher evaluation methods and higher teacher salaries is a methodology that is doomed for failure when applied to the system as a whole.

In Search of Statistical Understanding

Mark Twain once said, “…There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics.” Unfortunately most people seem to have taken that statement to heart, shunning the usefulness of statistics in risk management and decision making by either not using them or not even bothering to learn proper statistics. The dearth in use of statistical information and analysis by the general public has resulted in the common misrepresentation of various pieces of information due to a lack of sufficient reported parameters. This misrepresentation has created scenarios where inappropriate decisions were favored over more rational decisions creating instances of inefficiency in already difficult situations. These scenarios are most commonly demonstrated in, but not limited to, the multitude of opinion polls that are conducted on a daily basis which supposedly dictate public policy.

Unfortunately statistical misrepresentation also infiltrates other severe issues such as medical decision-making. These misrepresentations stem either from a lack of understanding regarding how statistical theory actually operates or a deliberate attempt to boost or lower the success rate of a particular product/treatment and are perpetrated by patient, physician and pharmaceutical company. The chief concern among the public should be that inaccurate statistical analysis of these procedures at best results in a significant waste of time and money and at worst results in the greater probability of a loss of life/lives. Such a lack of statistical application is made worse by the fact that all of the relevant information is easily available, but simply not interpreted properly. Without using an objective statistical analysis how is one able to discern the difference between one procedure/product vs. another? Testimonials are rarely an appropriate determining agent due to the real possibility for a conflict of interest. Overall it is troubling that there is such a lack of importance placed on an issue that would eliminate waste at almost no additional cost and carries a high probability of saving lives.

Cancer screening and their associated false positives are a very common example of where ‘common sense’ and genuine statistical analysis part ways when coming to a conclusion regarding the result. For example the generic example used many times to illustrate this point is: if there is only a 1% chance of a women having breast cancer and a mammogram has a 90% rate of accuracy at detecting cancer in an individual that has cancer and a 9% chance of recording a false positive (the mammogram detects cancer in an individual without cancer) there is only a 9.9% chance that a positive mammogram will actually identify an individual with cancer. Such a low result is shocking to one’s natural intuition when considering only a 9% rate of false positive vs. a 90% rate of accuracy at detecting cancer, so why is 9.9% the correct result?

The basic explanation for the ‘shock’ comes from minimizing the importance of the original probability that a woman has cancer. The result is easy to understand when comparing the false positive probability rate to the actual occurrence rate. The false positive rate is nine times larger than the actual cancer occurrence rate, thus for a 100% accurate test with regards to detecting cancer in an individual with cancer there would be only a 10% chance that a positive test resulted in actually detecting cancer in an individual. In the above example the test accuracy was 90% thus there is only a 9.9% chance. Basically even with zero statistical understanding thinking about the issue properly leads one to conclusion that the correct answer needs to be somewhere in the neighborhood of the test accuracy being 10% due to the ratio between the false positive and the real positive. So in the end ‘common sense’ actually does coincide with statistical analysis as long as the ‘common sense’ used is legitimate. The sad thing is that even many physicians are surprised by this result despite the fact that they should be more in tune to such statistics.

So if there are many advantages to using statistics when making a decision, why do so many individuals elect not to use statistics? The most obvious answer is the inherent bias most individuals have towards mathematics and math related subject matter. Statistics inhabit the world of math and as a whole the part of the world they exist in is not the happy easy arithmetic neighborhood, but the difficult formula and theory neighborhood. Therefore, the application of statistics takes significant and real effort over simply punching a few numbers into a calculator; this required applied effort is another strike against statistics in a world where all things are desired to be fast and simple. The fact is that statistical analysis actually makes difficult decisions easier if used appropriately.

Another obstacle that may reduce the probability for the application of statistics in a decision-making process is a lack of certainty. Statistics do not generate a prediction of what will happen, but of what will most likely happen. Unfortunately this reality of statistics conflicts with the general psychological map that most people possess. Most individuals do not think in the context of an event happening 100 times and the probability associated with what happens each time over those 100 samples. Instead individuals focuses only on the single time that he/she will experience the particular event. This expectation leads to more trust in instinct (gut feeling) than statistics. This mindset is unfortunate because statistics exist due to the omnipresence of variability in existence including events beyond instinct.

A secondary aspect to this separation between statistics and certainty is a misunderstanding of statistics in general. Statistics generate a probability of occurrence for different possibilities over many different repetitions of the same general event. However, because a lot of event in general life do not have significant periods of repetition individuals tend to view the outcomes of those events as the actual probability of occurrence rather than what statistics predict. Basically the fact that a particular outcome only has a 3% probability of occurrence in a given scenario over 1000 tests will have little influence in the mindset of an individual that experiences that outcome 2 of the 3 times that scenarios has occurred in real life. Thus such an experience may lead an individual to doubt the accuracy and/or importance of statistics in other aspects of existence, thus leading to the incorrect viewpoint that statistics are a waste of time and effort.

In fact the power of the statistical method may also turnoff individuals because even when they choose to use statistics they can easily be disappointed by the overall power of the test because their intuition tells them the result should be more meaningful. For example suppose a brokerage firm wants to determine which of their 25 employees have been performing the most efficiently. An evaluation test is created that can identify the best performing employee with 97% accuracy. Based on statistical theory what is the actual probability that the best performing employee will be identified? Using Bayes’ theorem the evaluation test identifies the best performing employee 57.4% of the time. Although correct statistically, it does not sit well if the typical person that a test that is initially believed to have an accuracy rate of 97% in actuality only has an accuracy rate of 57.4%.

A third concern relates back to the aforementioned problem regarding available information and raises its own chicken vs. egg question. Certainly not all relevant information is going to be available to a decision-maker at the time of the decision. However, it does behoove an individual to have as much relevant information as possible regarding the issue. Unfortunately this belief does not appear to be the attitude of major polling groups and the news media as they present extremely simplified questions without any expansive circumstances. This behavior raises the question of do these polling groups behave like this because they believe that the public want simplicity and would not use additional information or do they behave like this because they are lazy and/or incompetent and cannot ask important qualifiers to their questions? This question is important because if the public learns to value statistics in decision-making then one can better assess the probability that polling groups will change their behavior when collecting and presenting information to include more details.

The reason supplemental information and qualifiers are important is because issues are rarely as simple as polling questions suggest they are. For example the most common poll question in the recent healthcare debate was ‘do you support a public option?’ Wow, what an amazingly simple question overlaying a complex issue. The first error in the question is that of the ignorant respondent. The pollster assumes that each individual answering the question has relatively the same definition for what entails a ‘public option’, which is highly unlikely. In similar fashion the pollster assumes that each individual is aware of the definition for the term being used by those in Congress. Also the pollster does not inquire to the details surrounding the success or failure of such an issue. Basically what the respondent would gain or loss if a public option existed or did not exist. None of the elements that go into creating a public option and how they would influence the answer of the respondent are discussed which defeats the point of even asking the question.

The importance of these qualifiers can be seen in the following example. Suppose you ask the following question to 1000 people: ‘Would you like 10 dollars?’ It would be very surprising if any one of the respondents answered in the negative. However, what if an important piece of information, which was excluded from the first go around, was added and another 1000 people were asked this question: ‘Would you like 10 dollars which I just stole from that 5-year old girl over there who is still being a baby and crying about it?’ Adding the information regarding the origin of the 10 dollars, another layer of complexity to the question, has changed the question dynamic completely. Now it would not be surprising if the level of response flipped to an overwhelming ‘no’. What if instead of a 5-year old girl the money was stolen from a billionaire, how would that shape the response curve?

Another problem with the media outlets and the way they diminish the importance of statistics is inappropriate presentation of growth or decline percentages. Typically this information is presented as relative changes without illustrating the absolute numbers that represent those changes (absolute changes). Not looking at the absolute changes can lead an individual to radically erroneous conclusions. For example suppose from year x to year y it is reported that the GDP in a given country increases by 25% under President A whereas 5 years ago the GDP increased by only 5% under President B. Clearly President A must be doing a better job working with Congress to manage the economy right? Not necessarily as the GDP 5 years ago could have been 3 trillion whereas in year x the GDP was 400 billion. When looking at the absolute numbers the increase in GDP 5 years ago was 150 billion whereas the increase in GDP from year x to year y is only 100 billion. So despite a 5x increase in percentage between the two equal distant time periods, the actual increase 5 years ago was 1.5x larger than the increase from year x to year y.

Reporting the absolute change is always better than the relative change because as described above, one can calculate the relative change from the absolute change, but cannot calculate the absolute change from the relative change. Unfortunately despite the above example relative changes are almost always going to be a larger number vs. absolute changes and the media in its ever expanding effort to attract more public attention over actually informing the public grab the relative change number to make the headline more important than it might actually be.

Clearly there are obstacles that need to be overcome before statistics can be implemented on a large scale. Fortunately most of these obstacles revolve around misinformation rather then difficulty of understanding. This characteristic is favorable because misinformation does not tie to intelligence, but communication and familiarity. Basically one does not need an advanced level of intelligence to understand and apply statistics.

At its heart statistics focuses on a search and discovery of patterns with later a deduction of any significant meaning to those patterns and how they may impact future events. The problem is that it tends to be difficult to perform such an exploration and analysis methodology without a proper level of experience. This lack of experience is telling in that most people are exposed to their first significant statistics course, if they are ever exposed to one in the first place, in college. It is true that the concept of probability is frequently introduced earlier than college, but in most instances such introduction does not discuss statistics and its importance in sufficient detail. College exposure is typically far too late if a goal is to develop an appreciation and understanding of statistics and what role it plays in real life. Heck, most college individuals that take statistic course lament the fact that they have to take it for their given major.

One reason for why exposure to statistics occurs at such an advanced age is that most believe that a strong core of mathematics is required before beginning study in statistics otherwise the effort applied to learn statistics will be wasted due to a lack of understanding in general mathematical theory. Unfortunately this thought process is not entirely accurate because although the study of statistics does involve advanced concepts in mathematics, there are other critical aspects to understanding the nature behind the results produced by statistical formulas.

For example one forgotten aspect of statistics is exploratory data analysis (EDA), which seeks to identify what the data is saying, not necessarily how it was calculated. EDA is an important aspect of understanding statistics because one needs to understand the context of the numbers that enter into and are spit out by statistical formulas. Also EDA focuses on using graphical information instead formula and theory which make it easier to younger students to both enjoy and understand. The application of EDA allows statistical analysts to understand why certain data should not be considered relevant for a particular statistical analysis for the inclusion of outliers or irrelevant/inappropriate data generates errors in the end result. EDA leads to the understanding of why a question like ‘what are the flaws in the methodology used for data collection’ is important to ask and how to properly answer it.

Such early analysis experience can be taught at an early level by giving students a list of data sets and details on how that data was generated and asking which sets are accurate, which sets are trash and which sets are usable as long as certain steps are taken to ensure accuracy. Also students can be asked to comment on the relevance of the outcome for certain statistical tests on given sets of data without having to do the tests themselves. Thus as a first step in renewing statistical thought in society, it would go a long way to improving the attitude individuals have towards statistics if statistical reasoning were taught before statistical theory and formulas, the mindset of statistics before the math. The issue of teaching statistics is especially pertinent to education reform. If the point of education is to ensure a populous that has the ability to reason and communicate effectively to each other in society then teaching and applying statistical reasoning is essential to achieving this goal.