The Educational Path of Our Nation

Education plays a fundamental role in American society. Here we take a look at school enrollment, costs and educational outcomes. How does school enrollment today compare with 1970, when the baby boom generation was in its prime years of school attendance (age 6 to 24) and made up 90 pecent of all student enrolled in schools? The American Community and other Census Bureau survey provide us with information to answer these other valuable questions. Education statistics are vital to communities in determining funding allocations and guiding program planning.

[Source: U.S. Census Bureau]

Ohio E-Schools are catastrophically failing

The Quick & the Ed, in a follow up article show that Ohio's E-Schools are in serious academic trouble.

Ohio performance indicators for 2010-11 should cause some heartburn for E-school operators. Based on these indicators, the vast majority of Ohio’s e-schools are mediocre or poor academic performers. Only two of the 20 rated e-schools were considered “effective” in 2010-11, while 11 resided in the bottom two categories.

This situation has been highlighted before, by others. About six months ago, Innovation Ohio produced a report and stated

"Ohio's e-schools are an outrageous taxpayer rip-off, a cruel hoax for many students and parents, and a textbook example of the 'pay to play' culture that too often permeates state government," Butland said.

"At a time when Ohio's traditional schools are seeing unprecedented state cuts, most Ohioans have no idea how shockingly bad Ohio's e-schools are and how much state money is being funneled to the for-profit operators who run them."

Around the same time, the Governor's educztion Czar was asked “What is your vision of the future?”. His answer

• Technology will be integrated in such a way to personalize education via “mass customization.”
• Whole group classroom instruction — a teacher addressing an entire class — will be rare if nonexistent.
• Adult success will be judged in terms of student success.
• The use of technology and improved management will make education much more cost effective.

He should probably take a look at the failing E-Schools if he thinks simply adding more technology and removing teachers from classrooms is some panacea to quality education. It clearly isn't.

Teacher Town Hall Recap

Here's the video for the MSNBC Teacher Town Hall that occured over this weekend, in case you missed it

Part one:

Part two:

Here's a good recap of the event from the perspective of the pernicious effect billionaires like the Gates are having on public education discussions.

Mrs. Gates begins by acknowledging that good teaching cannot be reduced to a test score - or at least that this is often said. She then asserts that the half billion dollars they have spent on research in this area have uncovered a number of things that can be measured that allow us to predict which teachers will have the highest test scores. A great teacher is defined over and over again as one who made sure students "learned the material at the end of the year."

If you look closely at how she describes peer observations, the method at work is even clearer. Teachers tend to support peer observation, because it can be a valuable basis for collaboration, which yields many benefits to us beyond possible test score gains. But what does Melinda Gates say about it? It can be worthwhile, BUT: only the models of peer observation that have been proven to raise test scores should be used. And presumably we can count on the Gates Foundation to provide us with that information.

In spite of all the billions they have spent, it appears that the Gates Foundation is laboring under the same logical fallacy that doomed No Child Left Behind. In a way which employs circular reasoning, they have defined great teaching as that which results in the most gains on end of year tests, and then spent millions of dollars identifying indicators of teaching that will yield the best scores.

The most deceptive strategy is how they then try to pretend that these indicators are "multiple measures" of good teaching. In fact, these are simply indicators of teaching practices associated with higher test scores. In spite of Mrs. Gates' feint at the opening of her response, everything she describes, all these things that supposedly go beyond test scores - peer observations, student perceptions - are only deemed valid insofar as they are correlated with higher test scores.

Melinda Gates begins with the question "How do we know a teacher's making a difference in a student's life?" That is an excellent and complex question. However, when we look at her answer, we find she commits the logical fallacy known as "begging the question." One begs the question when one assumes something is true, when that is actually a part of what must be proven.

The question she begs is "what defines great teaching?" This is not answered by finding teaching methods associated with higher test scores. This question remains hanging over the entire school reform enterprise. Until we answer that question, we are devising complex mechanisms to elevate test scores assuming this will improve students' lives, when this is manifestly unproven. In fact, I would argue that many of the strategies used to boost scores are actually harmful to our students.

This episode should remind us of the crucial need to teach critical thinking in our schools - and apply such thinking to the dilemmas we face.

For more on the Gates Foundation you can read our 3 part series, "THE GATES FOUNDATION EXPOSED" Part I, Part II, and Part III.

A charter teacher answers our honest question

A short while ago we asked pro SB5 supporters a simple question.

Given that Ohio charter schools already have SB5 like "tools", why is their performance so bad when compared to traditional public schools?

We waited for an answer. And we waited, and waited. Not a single pro SB5 supporter could or would answer the question. Over at the Join the Future Facebook page however we did get an answer, a great one, from a charter school teacher.

I work at an excellent-rated charter school.

Why? Because my co-workers and I are good, dedicated teachers who for the most part cannot find sought-after union/public school jobs.. and despite the inability to collectively bargain, despite the longer hours, despite the fact that we find out typically last day of school if we are coming back the next year, we still do our best to educate our students.

But it sucks to not have the protections that SB5 wants to do away with.

In other words, it's those working conditions that are created by SB5 like "tools" that drive dedicated professional away. Those "tools" are causing them to seek an environment of teamwork, security and stability where they can concentrate their skills on developing student achievement instead of wondering if they will have a job.

Another smart observation followed, that explains why charter schools see such high staff turnover

Had I not been fortunate enough to find a part time position at an excellent-rated public school when I had to relocate from one Ohio city to another, I probably would have tried for a charter school.

But why would anyone (no matter how dedicated to the profession) choose a charter, even one rated excellent, over a public school, with the working conditions Ms. Grabski describes?

No one takes out college loans and works toward a master's degree hoping for that kind of a professional life. I imagine Ms. Grabski and her skilled, dedicated co-workers would all jump at the chance to move to a public school.

That leaves lots of new, inexperienced, and possibly less skilled teachers--without working conditions that could improve instruction--remaining at charters over the long term. If SB5 remains, why would anyone enter the profession at all?

SB5 like "tools" only drive dedicated people away, it does not attract the highly skilled, highly trained experience professionals needed to deliver a quality education. This goes a long way to explaining why charters fail to outperform traditional public schools, and why SB5 is bad for public education.

We vehemently oppose SB5 at Join the Future because we believe, and all evidence indicates, it is harmful to the teaching profession and consequently students. Public education should be about a race to the top, SB5 is a rapid decent to the bottom, and if you con't believe that, take another look at charter school performance in Ohio.

You should also "Like" us on Facebook and join in the conversation.

For further reading about teacher turnover, this is highly recommended - Teacher turnover in charter, traditional public schools.

A Honest question, answered

A short while ago we asked pro SB5 supporters a simple question.

Given that Ohio charter schools already have SB5 like "tools", why is their performance so bad when compared to traditional public schools?

We waited for an answer. And we waited, and waited. Not a single pro SB5 supporter could or would answer the question.

Over at the Join the Future Facebook page however we did get an answer, a great one, from a charter school teacher.

I work at an excellent-rated charter school.

Why? Because my co-workers and I are good, dedicated teachers who for the most part cannot find sought-after union/public school jobs.. and despite the inability to collectively bargain, despite the longer hours, despite the fact that we find out typically last day of school if we are coming back the next year, we still do our best to educate our students.

But it sucks to not have the protections that SB5 wants to do away with.

In other words, it's those working conditions that are created by SB5 like tools that drive dedicated professional away. Those "tools" are causing them to seek an environment of teamwork, security and stability where they can concentrate their skills on developing student achievement instead of wondering if they will have a job.

Another smart observation followed that explains why charter schools see such high staff turnover

Had I not been fortunate enough to find a part time position at an excellent-rated public school when I had to relocate from one Ohio city to another, I probably would have tried for a charter school.

But why would anyone (no matter how dedicated to the profession) choose a charter, even one rated excellent, over a public school, with the working conditions Ms. Grabski describes?

No one takes out college loans and works toward a master's degree hoping for that kind of a professional life. I imagine Ms. Grabski and her skilled, dedicated co-workers would all jump at the chance to move to a public school.

That leaves lots of new, inexperienced, and possibly less skilled teachers--without working conditions that could improve instruction--remaining at charters over the long term. If SB5 remains, why would anyone enter the profession at all?

SB5 like "tools" only drive dedicated people away, it does not attract the highly skilled, highly trained experience professionals needed to deliver a quality education. This goes a long way to explaining why charters fail to outperform traditional public schools, and why SB5 is bad for public education.

We vehemently oppose SB5 at Join the Future because we believe, and all evidence indicates, it is harmful to the teacher profession and consequently students. Public education should be about a race to the top, SB5 is a rapid decent to the bottom, and if you con't believe that, take another look at charter school performance in Ohio.

You should also "Like" us on Facebook and join in the conversation.

Why won’t Ms. Rhee talk to USA Today?

Michele Rhee has suddenly gone tight lipped

It’s hard to find a media outlet, big or small, that she hasn’t talked to. She’s been interviewed by Katie Couric, Tom Brokaw and Oprah Winfrey. She’s been featured on a Time magazine cover holding a broom (to sweep away bad teachers). She was one of the stars of the documentary “Waiting for Superman.” ... And yet, as voracious as she is for the media spotlight, Ms. Rhee will not talk to USA Today.
[...]
On May 2, another Rhee spokeswoman e-mailed to say the reporters were too interested in cheating and not enough in StudentsFirst. She said they could submit a list of questions.

There were 21 questions; Ms. Rhee did not answer 10 of the 11 about cheating.

Mr. Gillum, who recently took a job at The Associated Press, said he was surprised by how unresponsive Ms. Rhee has been. “She talks about how important data is, and our story is data driven,” he said.

The whole article sheds an enormous amount of light on the shady way Michele Rhee and her "StudentsFirst" organization operates.