Common Assessment is the Right Thing to Do...

Many of the things that the United States Department of Education will be throwing stimulus money at education, but one thing that Education Secretary Arne Duncan proposes is right on the mark; common assessments for student. There is no reason for 50 states to have staffs that must duplicate the work to create tests for students. Not only do the tests cost money, but they also stop states from being compared to each other.

If Duncan gets his way and a common test is actually implemented, perhaps the states can address common standards for students. To create 50 bureaucracies to punch out standards is another waste of resources. There may have been a time when there were regional differences that made certain programs (agriculture in Iowa for example) more relevant, but the need and look of schools is rather uniform. Why put the extra expense and time into re-writing curriculum across the country?

Hopefully, Arne Duncan will be able to adopt a common education standard. It is one of the things called for in "Improving the Odds: A basis for long-term change" by Rodney Larson. It calls for change in the education system that is based on continuously improving education at the classroom level.

Learning online may be better,... well, maybe.

There was a recent post here that reported that on-line students (mostly in college) had performed better than students who were taught in the traditional classroom. Before anyone gets all charged up about effectiveness of on-line programs, one should recognize that the data were collected for people who were able to finish the class.

The beauty of statistics is that they give validity to the improbable and plausibility to the impossible. While there are reasons why on-line students might do better when tested than their classroom counterparts, one must also examine the population that completes a class versus one that completes an on-line class. It may be that there is a higher attrition rate for the on-line class, or perhaps the on-line learners may have higher skills than their classroom counterparts. This is not meant to negate the study that showed on-line studies to be superior, but to show that perhaps the superiority was skewed. Better information is necessary.

Then again, the on-line option might be the best way to go. There needs to be a system to analyze what works best. We're a country that loves freedom and self-initiative, but academic freedom is a bit of a crock when it comes to a classroom setting. As Bill Gates said with reference to problems with education, "It is the system." Bill was right. Unfortunately, we don't have the best system to make sure we're using what works the best. Until we have a means to find what works best with students, we might as well have Paris Hilton as the Secretary of Education. While not a role model, at least no one will take her seriously while she sells the bag of goods being sold by Arne Duncan.

Arne Duncan: Same old promises for education

Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan recently gave the American education system a "B" grade in an article ($5 Billion bet on education). An article that quotes Duncan, "A $5 billion bet on Education," points out that the United States' students fail to graduate on-time about 25% of the time and that the country ranks 18th out of 36 industrialized countries in education. Secretary Duncan thinks that with the backing of Obama's stimulus money, he said "With unprecedented resources and unprecedented reform, I think we have a fundamental and historic breakthrough." One has to wonder what planet Mr. Duncan is on.

The "reform" that Duncan has proposed: improving teacher quality; higher standards; overhauling low-performing schools; and better tracking of student performance were all part of the Bush education plan. How is Mr. Duncan's plan supposed to evoke a historic breakthrough when there are no fundamental new ideas to base change.

There are about 2.5 million teachers in the United States and we've just completed summer break. How is the improvement of teacher quality supposed to occur? Is education supposed to improve because teachers are getting better? How? Are teachers being taught better; are they smarter? What is the change among teachers that will bring about a "breakthrough." Higher standards is a stupid idea. Let's set the standard as "Every child must learn Calculus" before graduating." Is that a high enough standard? The problem is that is that it will not happen. Setting hihger standards does not mean that change what happens in the classroom. It's good to overhaul poor schools, but what is the "newer and better" system that replaces the poor school? Finally, a tracking system is good, but unless there is a plan to keep parents and students appraised of their progress, this too can be a moot point. What Duncan needs is a coherent plan to improve the system.

Fundamental changes in the classroom will occur when the quality of instruction in the classroom occurs. At present, there is no comprehensive vehicle for improving instruction in classrooms. What we have is a new Secretary of Education promising to escape the pull of gravity without a vehicle to escape. Education will not improve using the same methods. "Improving the Odds: raising the class" describes the fundamental flaw of the education system to be the system itself. We do not have effective ways to transfer information in a classroom setting. Until we do, it will be the same promises for education.