Previously published in the Terre Haute Tribune Star, 2/6/11
Amy Chua’s “Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother,” has caused a “cat fight” among American mothers. I’ve not read the book, but given how anxious American mothers are about parenting styles and choices, I’m sure the publishers knew they had a gold mine, especially one that so harshly critiques American middle class working moms.
I’m not going to comment on Professor Chua’s parenting decisions. I think that evaluation is best left for her daughters. Nor will I enter the fray as to whether “Chinese” parenting is better, worse, or the same, as “Western” parenting because it is ridiculous. It wasn’t that long ago that our hyperventilating talk show hosts and the Internet echo chambers were eviscerating an Asian parenting style in the wake of the Virginia Tech shooter, Cho, Seung-Hui.
More thoughtful observers have opined that the passionate discussions following the publication of “Tiger Mother” is just a reflection of Americans’ growing anxiety about the rising Chinese economic tiger, its role in financing our government, and its recent military flexing. Leave it to jingoism to obscure the more obvious underlying tensions of social class, ethnicity, and gender.
Professor Chua’s parenting decisions reflect an upper middle class background and aspiration for her children. The examples of what her children were permitted to do and not do draw pretty distinct class boundaries every bit as effective as private schools and gated communities.
One reason for American parents’ anxiety is the many cultures found in the United States. Few societies are as diverse as ours. Some cultures’ parenting is very strict and demanding, like the Chinese, especially for their girls. Others are looser, like the straw dog that Professor Chua compares her style to. When parents agree on how to parent and then engage in similar practices, a sense that “everyone does it this way,” produces confidence in those practices. But America is culturally diverse and given our culture of individualism, we think we make up parenting all on our own ignoring the cultural foundations of our individual choices.
Are there any Tiger Dads? Apparently so, but they sound distant and judgmental in Professor Chua’s description. Do Tiger Dads change diapers? Do they read to their kids? Or is there a distinct gendered separation in raising the kids? In the U.S. we see that style of parenting, but we also see dads involved in the daily care of their children. Are dads as anxious about what Professor Chua suggests? They seem to get a pass.
Why do different styles arise? Parents raise their kids to be “successful” in their society, as they define it. They pass on “survival skills.” In a caste-like society, where rulers hold entire families responsible for the acts of sons and daughters, parents raise their kids to conform to authority, especially to parental authority, lest a free-spirited offspring leads to a pogrom of the village. In societies with relatively little social mobility, parents are going to raise their kids to be successful at their station in life. In a society where a mixed-race boy of a single parent can grow up to be president, kids are going to be encouraged to be whatever they want, to “dream,” thus parents encourage a vast array of activities, with a goal of a well-rounded, popular, well-adjusted child. America emphasizes “me” over “we”; authentic self-expression over the party line.
Parenting styles also emerge from emulating high status groups. China is an ancient society. Despite its communist revolution in the 1940s, the basic social structure and culture of the society has not significantly changed. “Scholar-officials” have ruled China for millennia, not entrepreneurs, hucksters, or talented people. The academic emphasis in Chinese parenting is not an accident, it is the primary (perhaps only) means to advance in society. Academic achievement is important in the U.S., too. But there are too many examples of people who are rich, successful, and respected, who dropped out of the most prestigious educational institutions. Such an outcome would shame Professor Chua’s family but not the William Henry Gates Jr. family.
School is not the only place to learn self-discipline, which is the core of the Tiger Mom style. In the U.S., there are many avenues to learning self-discipline: academics, the arts, religious devotion, sports, household chores, and combinations of them. Kids need structure and stability, which is a parent’s responsibility. Not all parents discharge that responsibility, but there are many paths to achieving structure and stability for kids, not just by grabbing the Tiger’s tale.
Sunday, February 6, 2011
Monday, January 17, 2011
The pitfalls of playing games with sociology
)Previously published in the Terre Haute Tribune Star, 1/16/2011
Seems everyone wants to play the sociologist following the attempted murder of Congresswoman Gabby Giffords. Even before the most basic facts were known, is she alive or dead, journalists, pundits, ministers, and the internet echo chamber began to weigh in on why this happened and what it means.
As a (real) sociologist, I thought I’d critique the (questionable) sociological analyses and debates I’ve seen in the last few days.
First, no sociologist is going to claim that the shooter was motivated by a culture of hate; at least not without a lot more evidence that he read or listened to any particular speech and it clearly motivated him. Even that would be unusual as sociologists are usually not in the business of explaining a specific individual’s behavior. For those who want to make a connection between any kind of speech and behavior, better to look at rates. Increasing rates of X (speech) should precede certain behaviors Y (murder attempts on members of congress).
Second, there is a difference between an “explanation” for something and “blaming/excusing.” Too many want to blame Sarah Palin or Rush Limbaugh or any other easy target (because they engage in the objectionable speech) for the murders and attempted murders. Overheated language works. Part of the reason for Limbaugh’s, Palin’s, and others who resort to vitriol is because it works. Our culture approves of such language. If it didn’t there would be no mass audience for it. Indeed, my own essays would be more popular, if I were to write that Rush Limbaugh should be castrated and fed his own genitalia for his role in killing Christina Green, an innocent child. I care for my credibility and integrity over whatever attention that might bring. The price is I don’t have a huge passionate following. But I digress.
Third, if “speech” has any affect on behavior, then it will have affects on “bad” behavior and “good” behavior. So, for those who would deny that the vitriolic and violent (can I just say dehumanizing?) speech doesn’t affect anyone to do anything “bad” then don’t turn around and suggest that some kinds of speech, like rote prayer and ritualistic bible reading in schools, is going to create “good” behaviors. The same goes for those who would quickly point to rifle sites on a map as contributing to political violence can’t then deny that the speeches of anti-American Islamic clerics aren’t inciting terrorists to act. (And vice versa.)
Fourth, when people like “us” do terrible things, “we” quickly distance ourselves from them. The easiest way to do that is to say they are crazy, insane, and sick. As much as people are mistaking the connection between perceived increases in dehumanizing political speech and this particular act of political violence (it may not turn out to be political violence), it is just as much a mistake to diagnose him as insane. And those who have so distanced themselves from him by calling him insane, would they as quickly accept that as a defense for his actions? Just as those who want to connect his actions to the dehumanizing speech, would they accept that as a defense for what he did? “Rush and Sarah made me do it.” (This is related to the second observation above.)
Fifth, too much of the debate goes like this: “your speech is violent and incites violence.” “Well, both sides do it.” “Show me where my side has ever put gunsights on a webpage or was filmed shooting a cap and trade bill.” “What about Obama’s ‘if you get into a knife fight, we’ll bring a gun’.”
The “both sides do it” may be accurate but it ignores asymmetries. Are Republicans and Democrats receiving the same level of threats, vandalism, and heckling? If Democrats are receiving more violent threats and acts of violence toward them, as Congresswoman Giffords experienced after her election, the asymmetry suggests one side has more followers accepting of violent solutions.
“Who” says it matters. Your “crazy uncle” who forwards vile and racist screeds about Mexicans, Obama, and Arabs is different than when someone in a position of societal authority, like a politician, religious leader, or celebrity says the same things or sanctions them. High status people legitimize the ideas and practices. Their actions and speech are more impactful than your “crazy uncle.” This is why we use celebrity endorsements of products (or political positions) to influence people’s behavior.
Don’t commit sociology without a license.
Seems everyone wants to play the sociologist following the attempted murder of Congresswoman Gabby Giffords. Even before the most basic facts were known, is she alive or dead, journalists, pundits, ministers, and the internet echo chamber began to weigh in on why this happened and what it means.
As a (real) sociologist, I thought I’d critique the (questionable) sociological analyses and debates I’ve seen in the last few days.
First, no sociologist is going to claim that the shooter was motivated by a culture of hate; at least not without a lot more evidence that he read or listened to any particular speech and it clearly motivated him. Even that would be unusual as sociologists are usually not in the business of explaining a specific individual’s behavior. For those who want to make a connection between any kind of speech and behavior, better to look at rates. Increasing rates of X (speech) should precede certain behaviors Y (murder attempts on members of congress).
Second, there is a difference between an “explanation” for something and “blaming/excusing.” Too many want to blame Sarah Palin or Rush Limbaugh or any other easy target (because they engage in the objectionable speech) for the murders and attempted murders. Overheated language works. Part of the reason for Limbaugh’s, Palin’s, and others who resort to vitriol is because it works. Our culture approves of such language. If it didn’t there would be no mass audience for it. Indeed, my own essays would be more popular, if I were to write that Rush Limbaugh should be castrated and fed his own genitalia for his role in killing Christina Green, an innocent child. I care for my credibility and integrity over whatever attention that might bring. The price is I don’t have a huge passionate following. But I digress.
Third, if “speech” has any affect on behavior, then it will have affects on “bad” behavior and “good” behavior. So, for those who would deny that the vitriolic and violent (can I just say dehumanizing?) speech doesn’t affect anyone to do anything “bad” then don’t turn around and suggest that some kinds of speech, like rote prayer and ritualistic bible reading in schools, is going to create “good” behaviors. The same goes for those who would quickly point to rifle sites on a map as contributing to political violence can’t then deny that the speeches of anti-American Islamic clerics aren’t inciting terrorists to act. (And vice versa.)
Fourth, when people like “us” do terrible things, “we” quickly distance ourselves from them. The easiest way to do that is to say they are crazy, insane, and sick. As much as people are mistaking the connection between perceived increases in dehumanizing political speech and this particular act of political violence (it may not turn out to be political violence), it is just as much a mistake to diagnose him as insane. And those who have so distanced themselves from him by calling him insane, would they as quickly accept that as a defense for his actions? Just as those who want to connect his actions to the dehumanizing speech, would they accept that as a defense for what he did? “Rush and Sarah made me do it.” (This is related to the second observation above.)
Fifth, too much of the debate goes like this: “your speech is violent and incites violence.” “Well, both sides do it.” “Show me where my side has ever put gunsights on a webpage or was filmed shooting a cap and trade bill.” “What about Obama’s ‘if you get into a knife fight, we’ll bring a gun’.”
The “both sides do it” may be accurate but it ignores asymmetries. Are Republicans and Democrats receiving the same level of threats, vandalism, and heckling? If Democrats are receiving more violent threats and acts of violence toward them, as Congresswoman Giffords experienced after her election, the asymmetry suggests one side has more followers accepting of violent solutions.
“Who” says it matters. Your “crazy uncle” who forwards vile and racist screeds about Mexicans, Obama, and Arabs is different than when someone in a position of societal authority, like a politician, religious leader, or celebrity says the same things or sanctions them. High status people legitimize the ideas and practices. Their actions and speech are more impactful than your “crazy uncle.” This is why we use celebrity endorsements of products (or political positions) to influence people’s behavior.
Don’t commit sociology without a license.
Monday, December 13, 2010
When schools are profit centers, wreckage will be the norm
(Previously published in the Terre Haute Tribune Star, 12/12/10)
A recent poll of Indiana parents revealed that 80 percent are satisfied with their local schools. To listen to Gov. Daniels or Education Sup. Bennett talk about Indiana public schools, those parents must be mistaken, duped, or school teachers. This is a problem for radical education reformers. While parents might believe there are some problems with the “education system,” the vast majority are satisfied with their local schools. Those that are not, approximate the percentage of students and families underserved by our public schools. Herein lies the need to paint Indiana schools in as bad a light as possible.
Why? An easy answer is that the “take no prisoners” approach is about Gov. Daniels’ presidential aspirations and Sup. Bennett’s gubernatorial aspirations. While I think those factor somewhat into it, I think the reasons lie more in conservative ideology.
Don’t be fooled. While Gov. Daniels hasn’t pursued a socially conservative political agenda, avoiding those hot button issues has permitted him to pursue an otherwise very conservative agenda. He has cut spending, capped property taxes, privatized great swaths of government, with both positive and negative outcomes. Keep in mind that conservative ideology is about smaller government and lower taxes. The inevitable outcome of such an approach is a reduction in “public goods.” For Gov. Daniels significantly reducing the size of government requires altering the state’s relationship to education, both K-12 and higher education. States have been getting out of the higher ed business for years. Tuition rises as state support declines. If current trends continue, public universities will probably be put up for sale or lease to education management companies (think the toll road in Northern Indiana). If conservative ideology continues to prevail, the same will be true of K-12 schools.
It’s easy to see the coordinated and persistent propaganda campaign against public education beginning with the election of Ronald Reagan and his message of government is the problem, not the solution. The aim of that campaign is to undermine public support for public education.
And conservatives are impatient. NCLB and Indiana’s PL 221, brought us more school ratings. The performance standards are ultimately unreasonable eventually leading all schools to fail and/or it will lead to “cheating” and the cheating scandals will help fuel the undermining of the public’s support for public education. Yet, despite many years of annual reporting in the papers, this effort to undermine public education has not translated to great reductions in individual’s support for their local schools and transfers “out” of failing schools have not happened the way the radical conservative reformers hoped. So, in response, Indiana will assign a single letter grade to each school.
We do not give a student one letter grade for their entire academic performance. Rather they receive a grade for each subject or skill. As has been reported in these pages, sometimes schools are struggling, “failing,” in a particular area. Why not issue a more detailed report card, actually providing better information from which parents could judge their school’s performance. “Better” information does not serve the underlying goal.
The conservative vision for public schools, if not ending them, is public finance of private schools. It will start with vouchers, and then the funding for vouchers will shrink, either absolutely or relatively, private schools will charge tuition beyond the value of the vouchers and the inevitable inequities in a private school market for education will help to ensure the reproduction of current social inequalities. This is the model for public universities and what has transpired over the last 30 years. The current public school system doesn’t eliminate social inequality, it reproduces current social inequalities, but with some notable progress that is less likely under a mostly for private school system. Social inequality relative to a public good is a moral problem, but not for a private good. By decoupling education from government, the moral imperative to address social inequalities in education, which is where so much of the problems lie, is eliminated. Conservatives don’t see social inequality as a problem, it is just the inevitable outcome of the market. In fact, it is a necessity.
When schools are profit centers, there will be mom and pop versions, franchise versions, Wal Mart versions, “exclusive country club versions,” and out of business versions. Just as we see one company buyout another one and strip it of its assets, leaving wreckage in its wake, that will be a regular occurrence in a future where education is a private, rather than, public good.
A recent poll of Indiana parents revealed that 80 percent are satisfied with their local schools. To listen to Gov. Daniels or Education Sup. Bennett talk about Indiana public schools, those parents must be mistaken, duped, or school teachers. This is a problem for radical education reformers. While parents might believe there are some problems with the “education system,” the vast majority are satisfied with their local schools. Those that are not, approximate the percentage of students and families underserved by our public schools. Herein lies the need to paint Indiana schools in as bad a light as possible.
Why? An easy answer is that the “take no prisoners” approach is about Gov. Daniels’ presidential aspirations and Sup. Bennett’s gubernatorial aspirations. While I think those factor somewhat into it, I think the reasons lie more in conservative ideology.
Don’t be fooled. While Gov. Daniels hasn’t pursued a socially conservative political agenda, avoiding those hot button issues has permitted him to pursue an otherwise very conservative agenda. He has cut spending, capped property taxes, privatized great swaths of government, with both positive and negative outcomes. Keep in mind that conservative ideology is about smaller government and lower taxes. The inevitable outcome of such an approach is a reduction in “public goods.” For Gov. Daniels significantly reducing the size of government requires altering the state’s relationship to education, both K-12 and higher education. States have been getting out of the higher ed business for years. Tuition rises as state support declines. If current trends continue, public universities will probably be put up for sale or lease to education management companies (think the toll road in Northern Indiana). If conservative ideology continues to prevail, the same will be true of K-12 schools.
It’s easy to see the coordinated and persistent propaganda campaign against public education beginning with the election of Ronald Reagan and his message of government is the problem, not the solution. The aim of that campaign is to undermine public support for public education.
And conservatives are impatient. NCLB and Indiana’s PL 221, brought us more school ratings. The performance standards are ultimately unreasonable eventually leading all schools to fail and/or it will lead to “cheating” and the cheating scandals will help fuel the undermining of the public’s support for public education. Yet, despite many years of annual reporting in the papers, this effort to undermine public education has not translated to great reductions in individual’s support for their local schools and transfers “out” of failing schools have not happened the way the radical conservative reformers hoped. So, in response, Indiana will assign a single letter grade to each school.
We do not give a student one letter grade for their entire academic performance. Rather they receive a grade for each subject or skill. As has been reported in these pages, sometimes schools are struggling, “failing,” in a particular area. Why not issue a more detailed report card, actually providing better information from which parents could judge their school’s performance. “Better” information does not serve the underlying goal.
The conservative vision for public schools, if not ending them, is public finance of private schools. It will start with vouchers, and then the funding for vouchers will shrink, either absolutely or relatively, private schools will charge tuition beyond the value of the vouchers and the inevitable inequities in a private school market for education will help to ensure the reproduction of current social inequalities. This is the model for public universities and what has transpired over the last 30 years. The current public school system doesn’t eliminate social inequality, it reproduces current social inequalities, but with some notable progress that is less likely under a mostly for private school system. Social inequality relative to a public good is a moral problem, but not for a private good. By decoupling education from government, the moral imperative to address social inequalities in education, which is where so much of the problems lie, is eliminated. Conservatives don’t see social inequality as a problem, it is just the inevitable outcome of the market. In fact, it is a necessity.
When schools are profit centers, there will be mom and pop versions, franchise versions, Wal Mart versions, “exclusive country club versions,” and out of business versions. Just as we see one company buyout another one and strip it of its assets, leaving wreckage in its wake, that will be a regular occurrence in a future where education is a private, rather than, public good.
Sunday, December 5, 2010
Are teachers not part of the learning equation?
Previously published in the Terre Haute Tribune Star, 12/5/10
TERRE HAUTE — “A teacher’s influence on student achievement scores is 20 times greater than any other variable — including class size and student poverty.”
This is a quote taken from Gov. Mitch Daniels’ “Legislative Priorities” (www.in.gov/gov/files/112310slides.pdf). It didn’t read to me as something he or even one of his staffers wrote. So, I donned my sleuthing persona, and quickly found the quote repeated in many sources, the Houston Chronicle, some foundations, eventually though I traced the quote to Kati Haycock, the director of the Education Trust, an education policy advocacy group.
The Education Trust is a fairly mainstream group. They are funded by such groups as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Pew Charitable Trust, and others. I suspect Kati Haycock would smile at some of Indiana’s proposed education reforms and frown at others.
Haycock is not a statistician. Among other things, she edits an in-house journal. She, I think, is making a rhetorical claim, based upon the research of William L. Sanders, who is a skilled statistician/econometrician from Tennessee, who created the Tennessee Valued Added Assessment System (TVAAS). This is an assessment and accountability system ushered into Tennessee under Gov. Lamar Alexander in the mid-1980s. In fact, the model underlying the assessment system is known as the “Sanders Model.”
Many of the claims being made by Gov. Daniels and Education Superintendent Bennett stem, I think, from Sanders’ claims. And he makes some pretty remarkable, albeit controversial, claims. Among them is that class size, heterogeneity of the classroom, social class and other commonly found influences in other research are not important. It is as though once students enter the classroom only the influence of the teacher matters. What I find interesting is that there is a lot of sophisticated research using data from Texas, Florida, North Carolina, Alabama and Kentucky.
Tennessee may have the best data, but I can only find research using TVAAS data by Sanders. Essentially, the creator of the system is the only one who has evaluated the system. (Perhaps the databases I use, which located Sanders’ articles, just don’t find articles published by others using TVAAS data.) Maybe Tennessee won’t grant access to any other researchers? Sanders’ claims cannot be tested by other scholars if the data is not made available.
The value-added model of assessment makes sense for students. To use the same model to assess teachers raises some questions. Any occupation can be divided into quintiles based on productivity, job satisfaction or height. No matter how well the bottom quintile (20 percent) does, they are still low-performing relative to the top. And if you eliminate the bottom quintile and redistribute, there will still be a lowest quintile.
What we need to do, if we are going to adopt value-added assessment to evaluate teachers, is to establish a minimum acceptable absolute performance, not a relative one.
There are other troubling findings in this literature. There is no observable teacher characteristic that consistently correlates with student outcomes. It doesn’t matter the quality of the school a teacher attended, it doesn’t matter how well they scored on any teacher licensure exam, their own SATs, how experienced they are, whether they have a master’s degree, nothing. The idea that good teachers are born, not made, is the inevitable conclusion.
They burn out quickly, however. Research consistently shows that except for the first 10 to 15 years, a teacher’s experience is generally negatively related to student achievement, especially in math.
Superintendent Bennett uses sports metaphors all the time. The research on teacher experience and student achievement suggests this one: Teachers are like NFL quarterbacks. They improve through the first few years, hit a plateau, and then decline. Time to draft a new one.
All of Tennessee’s students take the ACT. In 2010, not one of the areas ACT covers shows Tennessee’s students exceeding national averages in readiness for college. Fewer students in Indiana take the ACT, but Indiana’s students exceed the national averages in readiness for college in each category.
There is not a lot of research on home-schooled students. What research I found shows that home-schooled students do better on standardized achievement tests than formally schooled students. Who home schools? Married couple families with one or two children, highly educated, single-earner families in the mid-$70,000s, and either Mom or Dad stay home to exclusively teach their kids. Interestingly, those parents who happen to also be certified teachers don’t do as well as the students of non-certified teachers. So maybe teachers are not the most important factor; perhaps it is parents’ emphasis on education, small class size, and highly tailored curricula.
Note: Steiger is married to a public school teacher.
TERRE HAUTE — “A teacher’s influence on student achievement scores is 20 times greater than any other variable — including class size and student poverty.”
This is a quote taken from Gov. Mitch Daniels’ “Legislative Priorities” (www.in.gov/gov/files/112310slides.pdf). It didn’t read to me as something he or even one of his staffers wrote. So, I donned my sleuthing persona, and quickly found the quote repeated in many sources, the Houston Chronicle, some foundations, eventually though I traced the quote to Kati Haycock, the director of the Education Trust, an education policy advocacy group.
The Education Trust is a fairly mainstream group. They are funded by such groups as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Pew Charitable Trust, and others. I suspect Kati Haycock would smile at some of Indiana’s proposed education reforms and frown at others.
Haycock is not a statistician. Among other things, she edits an in-house journal. She, I think, is making a rhetorical claim, based upon the research of William L. Sanders, who is a skilled statistician/econometrician from Tennessee, who created the Tennessee Valued Added Assessment System (TVAAS). This is an assessment and accountability system ushered into Tennessee under Gov. Lamar Alexander in the mid-1980s. In fact, the model underlying the assessment system is known as the “Sanders Model.”
Many of the claims being made by Gov. Daniels and Education Superintendent Bennett stem, I think, from Sanders’ claims. And he makes some pretty remarkable, albeit controversial, claims. Among them is that class size, heterogeneity of the classroom, social class and other commonly found influences in other research are not important. It is as though once students enter the classroom only the influence of the teacher matters. What I find interesting is that there is a lot of sophisticated research using data from Texas, Florida, North Carolina, Alabama and Kentucky.
Tennessee may have the best data, but I can only find research using TVAAS data by Sanders. Essentially, the creator of the system is the only one who has evaluated the system. (Perhaps the databases I use, which located Sanders’ articles, just don’t find articles published by others using TVAAS data.) Maybe Tennessee won’t grant access to any other researchers? Sanders’ claims cannot be tested by other scholars if the data is not made available.
The value-added model of assessment makes sense for students. To use the same model to assess teachers raises some questions. Any occupation can be divided into quintiles based on productivity, job satisfaction or height. No matter how well the bottom quintile (20 percent) does, they are still low-performing relative to the top. And if you eliminate the bottom quintile and redistribute, there will still be a lowest quintile.
What we need to do, if we are going to adopt value-added assessment to evaluate teachers, is to establish a minimum acceptable absolute performance, not a relative one.
There are other troubling findings in this literature. There is no observable teacher characteristic that consistently correlates with student outcomes. It doesn’t matter the quality of the school a teacher attended, it doesn’t matter how well they scored on any teacher licensure exam, their own SATs, how experienced they are, whether they have a master’s degree, nothing. The idea that good teachers are born, not made, is the inevitable conclusion.
They burn out quickly, however. Research consistently shows that except for the first 10 to 15 years, a teacher’s experience is generally negatively related to student achievement, especially in math.
Superintendent Bennett uses sports metaphors all the time. The research on teacher experience and student achievement suggests this one: Teachers are like NFL quarterbacks. They improve through the first few years, hit a plateau, and then decline. Time to draft a new one.
All of Tennessee’s students take the ACT. In 2010, not one of the areas ACT covers shows Tennessee’s students exceeding national averages in readiness for college. Fewer students in Indiana take the ACT, but Indiana’s students exceed the national averages in readiness for college in each category.
There is not a lot of research on home-schooled students. What research I found shows that home-schooled students do better on standardized achievement tests than formally schooled students. Who home schools? Married couple families with one or two children, highly educated, single-earner families in the mid-$70,000s, and either Mom or Dad stay home to exclusively teach their kids. Interestingly, those parents who happen to also be certified teachers don’t do as well as the students of non-certified teachers. So maybe teachers are not the most important factor; perhaps it is parents’ emphasis on education, small class size, and highly tailored curricula.
Note: Steiger is married to a public school teacher.
Are teachers not part of learning equation?
Previously published in the Terre Haute Tribune Star, 12/5/10
Monday, November 29, 2010
Education reforms can't ignore family influences
(Previously published in the Terre Haute Tribune Star, 11/28/2010)
The newspapers are full of coverage on education reform. In last Sunday’s New York Times, Thomas Friedman went so far as to say the Department of Education was the “epicenter of national security.” His op-ed paints a dour picture of the US education system. He endorses the Obama Administration efforts to transform the US education system thereby indirectly endorsing the current efforts in Indiana. Friedmann points favorably to the educational systems in Denmark and Finland (Finland especially has a wonderful educational system). However, pointing to such “socialistic” countries isn’t much of a selling point.
Gov. Daniels’ penned an article in the November 7th Indianapolis Star. He wrote: “If there is one fact that every expert and all the data confirm, it is that the single most important predictor of a child’s academic success is the quality of the teachers he or she encounters.”
I’ll forgive Gov. Daniels for favoring politics over the known science on academic performance. The best predictor of a child’s academic performance is their parents. It is that inconvenient fact that “No Child Left Behind” treats as an excuse instead of explanation and thus ignores parental contribution (or subtraction) to a child’s academic performance.
Research on family type (a different measure than socio-economic status) shows consistent effects on child academic performance (and not just in the US). Children from larger families tend to underperform relative to children from smaller families. Children from single headed families are the most likely to underperform and that type of family is increasing across every category of socio-economic status in the US.
Friedmann’s article was 12 paragraphs long. He waited until the last one to mention parents. Other than the use of proxies, such as parent’s income and education, I couldn’t find any research on the “qualities” of parents that contribute to their children’s academic success. There is research on how parent’s educational goals for their children affect their children’s educational goals. Unfortunately nothing that connects any parent quality to test scores, other than the proxies of socio-economic status and family type. Talk to teachers, however, and one gets enough anecdotal evidence to suggest the need for more systematic research on the subject.
What do you think? Who is likely to perform better on standardized tests? Children who are or not read to at home? Children whose parents monitor their children’s homework and academics or not? How about the simple act of asking kids what did they learn today and not accept “nuthin” as an answer? Kids who eat breakfast in the morning or those who could eat at school, but whose parents can’t get them to school on time? Kids of parents who meet with and work with teachers when a child is struggling or those who refuse to meet with school officials, even when school officials are willing to meet outside the normal school hours? This list could go on and on, but I think the point is made.
Our leaders’ answer to this social problem is merit pay for teachers and school choice. To date, the largest experiment with merit pay for teachers is Tennessee, the results released this year, indicate merit pay (bonuses were significant averaging $9600 to $11,300) had little to no impact on children’s academic performance and what positive effects were found, diminished over time.
Just as Americans (and American children) are getting fatter and as a result diabetes is on the rise, do we conclude then that there is a problem with US doctors?
Those who are interested should find Hanushek and Rivkin’s article in the May issue of the American Economic Review. In short, they lay out very well the problems of tying value added measures of student performance to teacher pay, and examine the relationship between teacher quality and academic outcomes. And contrary to Andrea Neal’s claim in Thursday’s newspaper, Hanushek and Rivkin examine observed differences in teacher quality (GPA, their own tests scores, etc) and find no difference on student outcomes. This is not to say there are no bad teachers. According to Hanushek and Rivkin, just replacing 6-10 percent of the worst teachers and replacing them with average ones (in terms of student outcomes), would make a significant impact on our education system.
Reformers commonly say the US has a good education system for 1950. Arguably, the US had better family situations and fewer distractions for academic performance then than we do today. The education problem can’t be solved by ignoring the contributions, good and bad, of parents and families.
Note: Steiger is married to a public school teacher.
The newspapers are full of coverage on education reform. In last Sunday’s New York Times, Thomas Friedman went so far as to say the Department of Education was the “epicenter of national security.” His op-ed paints a dour picture of the US education system. He endorses the Obama Administration efforts to transform the US education system thereby indirectly endorsing the current efforts in Indiana. Friedmann points favorably to the educational systems in Denmark and Finland (Finland especially has a wonderful educational system). However, pointing to such “socialistic” countries isn’t much of a selling point.
Gov. Daniels’ penned an article in the November 7th Indianapolis Star. He wrote: “If there is one fact that every expert and all the data confirm, it is that the single most important predictor of a child’s academic success is the quality of the teachers he or she encounters.”
I’ll forgive Gov. Daniels for favoring politics over the known science on academic performance. The best predictor of a child’s academic performance is their parents. It is that inconvenient fact that “No Child Left Behind” treats as an excuse instead of explanation and thus ignores parental contribution (or subtraction) to a child’s academic performance.
Research on family type (a different measure than socio-economic status) shows consistent effects on child academic performance (and not just in the US). Children from larger families tend to underperform relative to children from smaller families. Children from single headed families are the most likely to underperform and that type of family is increasing across every category of socio-economic status in the US.
Friedmann’s article was 12 paragraphs long. He waited until the last one to mention parents. Other than the use of proxies, such as parent’s income and education, I couldn’t find any research on the “qualities” of parents that contribute to their children’s academic success. There is research on how parent’s educational goals for their children affect their children’s educational goals. Unfortunately nothing that connects any parent quality to test scores, other than the proxies of socio-economic status and family type. Talk to teachers, however, and one gets enough anecdotal evidence to suggest the need for more systematic research on the subject.
What do you think? Who is likely to perform better on standardized tests? Children who are or not read to at home? Children whose parents monitor their children’s homework and academics or not? How about the simple act of asking kids what did they learn today and not accept “nuthin” as an answer? Kids who eat breakfast in the morning or those who could eat at school, but whose parents can’t get them to school on time? Kids of parents who meet with and work with teachers when a child is struggling or those who refuse to meet with school officials, even when school officials are willing to meet outside the normal school hours? This list could go on and on, but I think the point is made.
Our leaders’ answer to this social problem is merit pay for teachers and school choice. To date, the largest experiment with merit pay for teachers is Tennessee, the results released this year, indicate merit pay (bonuses were significant averaging $9600 to $11,300) had little to no impact on children’s academic performance and what positive effects were found, diminished over time.
Just as Americans (and American children) are getting fatter and as a result diabetes is on the rise, do we conclude then that there is a problem with US doctors?
Those who are interested should find Hanushek and Rivkin’s article in the May issue of the American Economic Review. In short, they lay out very well the problems of tying value added measures of student performance to teacher pay, and examine the relationship between teacher quality and academic outcomes. And contrary to Andrea Neal’s claim in Thursday’s newspaper, Hanushek and Rivkin examine observed differences in teacher quality (GPA, their own tests scores, etc) and find no difference on student outcomes. This is not to say there are no bad teachers. According to Hanushek and Rivkin, just replacing 6-10 percent of the worst teachers and replacing them with average ones (in terms of student outcomes), would make a significant impact on our education system.
Reformers commonly say the US has a good education system for 1950. Arguably, the US had better family situations and fewer distractions for academic performance then than we do today. The education problem can’t be solved by ignoring the contributions, good and bad, of parents and families.
Note: Steiger is married to a public school teacher.
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Merit pay may not bring positive results
Previously published in the Terre Haute Tribune Star, 21 November 2010
TERRE HAUTE — Gov. Daniels gets what he wants. He wanted to change the time in Indiana; no one talks about repeal. He wanted to lease Indiana roads for badly needed cash and he did it. He has set more land aside for conservation than probably any Indiana governor and no one criticized him. When he came into office six years ago, he faced a budget shortfall and fixed it without a tax increase (although he did suggest one, remember?). He pushed for a constitutional amendment on property tax caps and got it. And now, perhaps his final accomplishment before he sets his sights on a presidential run, is to fix Indiana schools.
His plan is simple. Use money to motivate teachers to do a better job and tie student academic performance to teacher pay and continued employment. What could be simpler?
I have seen “merit” pay up and close. I am not sure it changes anyone’s behavior. Why? Among many reasons, the amount of money is key. Gov. Daniels isn’t looking to add money to education, quite the opposite. That is why he pursues unproven educational reforms but doesn’t make full-day kindergarten, a proven means to improve student academic performance, a priority.
Pay for performance works when individuals can alter behavior that directly influences the measured outcomes. For example, sales professionals make more phone calls, contact more people, and result in more sales and more commissions. What behaviors do teachers need to do more of, or change, to increase student academic performance? Are there evidence-based practices that point the direction?
Learning theory is pretty straightforward: time on task impacts learning. So, maybe teachers will assign more homework. If the students don’t do the work (and parents complain about the amount), then student performance doesn’t improve and teachers won’t get paid for their performance.
Teachers are professionals, like lawyers, doctors, nurses, clergy, and accountants. Professional norms control their behavior. And like other professional groups, talent and skill differ across individuals. The “best” lawyers, however, are not necessarily the highest paid. Why would a highly paid lawyer accept a much lower paid position as a judge? Indeed, a judge is a civil servant while most lawyers are in private practice; they do it, in part, because of the honor.
Everyone cannot have the “best” doctor, lawyer, nurse, priest or accountant. Through training and professional norms, a minimum performance standard is established. No, such systems are not perfect and people in such professions can change, they can “burn out.” Are there bad doctors, nurses, lawyers, priests and accountants? Yes and there are “bad” teachers and there has to be a way to deal with those low performers.
When I directed the Sociology Research Lab, I compensated callers two different ways. One paid them for performance, the other was to pay by the hour. When callers were compensated based solely on performance, I found I had a lot of “cheating.” Callers would pretend to call and just answer the questions themselves. It was easy to spot these and remove those interviews from the data set. Others, who were paid by the hour, didn’t cheat. Some were phenomenal. They completed interviews at two to three times the rate of others. I established a reasonable quota of completed interviews per hour. Those who couldn’t make that quota usually quit. A few I had to let go because they were “too expensive.”
I used the first system to train and to gauge the work ethics and habits of callers. The “good” ones were invited to move to an hourly pay system. This system worked because I could establish and easily measure outcomes and establish standards.
How many points on standardized tests should be adequate to keep a new teacher employed? If those benchmarks are not reasonable or if they are vague or unstated, those who are subject to them will not have confidence in them, “cheating” will occur, and cynicism will grow.
I applaud Gov. Daniels for trying to fix education. I suggest he change the teacher retirement system so that burned-out teachers don’t feel handcuffed to a system that only rewards extremely long service. Push for full-day kindergarten. And quit bashing teachers or the most idealistic will instead choose sales, instead of teaching. Continued bashing of teachers will stigmatize the profession and eventually those who make the best teachers will turn away.
Editor’s note: Steiger is married to a public school teacher.
TERRE HAUTE — Gov. Daniels gets what he wants. He wanted to change the time in Indiana; no one talks about repeal. He wanted to lease Indiana roads for badly needed cash and he did it. He has set more land aside for conservation than probably any Indiana governor and no one criticized him. When he came into office six years ago, he faced a budget shortfall and fixed it without a tax increase (although he did suggest one, remember?). He pushed for a constitutional amendment on property tax caps and got it. And now, perhaps his final accomplishment before he sets his sights on a presidential run, is to fix Indiana schools.
His plan is simple. Use money to motivate teachers to do a better job and tie student academic performance to teacher pay and continued employment. What could be simpler?
I have seen “merit” pay up and close. I am not sure it changes anyone’s behavior. Why? Among many reasons, the amount of money is key. Gov. Daniels isn’t looking to add money to education, quite the opposite. That is why he pursues unproven educational reforms but doesn’t make full-day kindergarten, a proven means to improve student academic performance, a priority.
Pay for performance works when individuals can alter behavior that directly influences the measured outcomes. For example, sales professionals make more phone calls, contact more people, and result in more sales and more commissions. What behaviors do teachers need to do more of, or change, to increase student academic performance? Are there evidence-based practices that point the direction?
Learning theory is pretty straightforward: time on task impacts learning. So, maybe teachers will assign more homework. If the students don’t do the work (and parents complain about the amount), then student performance doesn’t improve and teachers won’t get paid for their performance.
Teachers are professionals, like lawyers, doctors, nurses, clergy, and accountants. Professional norms control their behavior. And like other professional groups, talent and skill differ across individuals. The “best” lawyers, however, are not necessarily the highest paid. Why would a highly paid lawyer accept a much lower paid position as a judge? Indeed, a judge is a civil servant while most lawyers are in private practice; they do it, in part, because of the honor.
Everyone cannot have the “best” doctor, lawyer, nurse, priest or accountant. Through training and professional norms, a minimum performance standard is established. No, such systems are not perfect and people in such professions can change, they can “burn out.” Are there bad doctors, nurses, lawyers, priests and accountants? Yes and there are “bad” teachers and there has to be a way to deal with those low performers.
When I directed the Sociology Research Lab, I compensated callers two different ways. One paid them for performance, the other was to pay by the hour. When callers were compensated based solely on performance, I found I had a lot of “cheating.” Callers would pretend to call and just answer the questions themselves. It was easy to spot these and remove those interviews from the data set. Others, who were paid by the hour, didn’t cheat. Some were phenomenal. They completed interviews at two to three times the rate of others. I established a reasonable quota of completed interviews per hour. Those who couldn’t make that quota usually quit. A few I had to let go because they were “too expensive.”
I used the first system to train and to gauge the work ethics and habits of callers. The “good” ones were invited to move to an hourly pay system. This system worked because I could establish and easily measure outcomes and establish standards.
How many points on standardized tests should be adequate to keep a new teacher employed? If those benchmarks are not reasonable or if they are vague or unstated, those who are subject to them will not have confidence in them, “cheating” will occur, and cynicism will grow.
I applaud Gov. Daniels for trying to fix education. I suggest he change the teacher retirement system so that burned-out teachers don’t feel handcuffed to a system that only rewards extremely long service. Push for full-day kindergarten. And quit bashing teachers or the most idealistic will instead choose sales, instead of teaching. Continued bashing of teachers will stigmatize the profession and eventually those who make the best teachers will turn away.
Editor’s note: Steiger is married to a public school teacher.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)
Posts
