More "old" essays

I found some more essays I wrote for the Trib-Star before I began posting them here. They follow.....Iwe'll they will actually be above...

STEIGER REPORT: Nothing extraordinary about charter schools’ formula for success

(Previously published in the Terre Haute Tribune Star, 17 March 2011)

TERRE HAUTE — Charter schools are different. I’ve been reading the websites of the 30 charter schools listed on the Indiana Department of Education’s website. I’ve also been reading the websites of a selection of conventional public schools. I wanted to see if I could sense the charters’ freedom from bureaucratic and regulatory restraint, the aspect of charters that is supposed to make them better than conventional schools.

What I found is irony. Apparently, sometimes more regulation is less regulation, as in the current Indiana Senate Bill 1. According to Dale Chu, Indiana’s assistant superintendent for policy, charter schools have not lived up to their potential, in part, because they are still required to follow too many rules but also because of a lack of accountability. SB1 will correct those shortcomings. More accountability means more regulation, doesn’t it?

What I found in my examination of the Indiana charter schools is a lot of rules and regulations. The student (and parent) handbooks are about 50 pages long, listing all the laws the charters must comply with. The handbooks from conventional schools were similar. Is part of regulatory relief freedom from laws and regulations that constrain schools from imposing stricter (more rigorous?) requirements on students and parents?

Both conventional schools and charters have dress codes. Many charters require uniforms, specifying acceptable colors, styles, and list stores from which to purchase them. Anderson Preparatory Academy, a “military-style academy” complete with a commandant instead of a principal, requires students to wear Air Force Academy-style uniforms. Uniforms could impose some “order” in schools (a common goal in charter schools). Order is needed when so many kids live in chaotic homes. So, why not? Why not free conventional schools from regulatory barriers to uniforms?

Many charter schools have longer school days and longer school years than conventional schools. KIPP Indianapolis College Preparatory requires students to arrive at 7:15 a.m. and remain at school until 5 p.m., Monday-Thursday, and until 2:30 p.m. on Fridays. There is school on some Saturdays, 8 a.m. to 1 p.m. KIPP summer school is also required. That is remarkable. The results? Fifty-two percent of their students passed the English and language arts ISTEP and 49 percent the Math section. So, why not? Why not fund conventional schools for full-day kindergarten, year-round school, 10-hour school days, or Saturday school?

Charter schools don’t just involve parents through volunteer opportunities, parent teacher conferences, newsletters, and serving on committees; they require commitment(s) from parents. Indeed, what I like most about Indiana’s charter schools is the up-front, in-your-face admission that the most important factor in a child’s education is parents. So parents sign a contract with some teeth.

At Andrew J. Brown Academy in Indianapolis, parents sign a “Commitment to Excellence” contract in which, among other things, they “will attend parent-teacher conferences, volunteer for school activities, and complete parent satisfaction surveys.” They will also “read school correspondence, check my child’s homework, and promptly notify the school if he/she will be absent.” There is also a homework commitment. Grades K-3 can expect homework four days a week, and grades 5 -8, five days a week. Expected time spent on homework per night varies from 15-30 minutes for kindergartners to 90-120 minutes for eighth-graders. “Tiger Moms” would approve!

At Galileo Charter School in Richmond, parents commit to providing 50 hours of family service to the school each year. BASIS Schools, Inc., manages charter schools (one organization Indiana hopes to attract to Indiana through SB 1). Their website is so littered with accolades it is hard to find any information about them, but I did find the “Master Teacher Campaign” which is how BASIS, in part, pays its teachers. BASIS asks “that families commit to contributing or raising $1,500 annually (or $125 a month over 12 months), to help support their child at BASIS.”

What kind of teeth do these contracts have? At Charter School of the Dunes in Gary, the line in bold above the parents’ signature line reads: “Returning this signed form to CSD is mandatory. Failure to do so by August 23, 2010, may result in expulsion of the student.” At KIPP Indy, this statement is just above the parent’s signature line: “Failure to adhere to these commitments can cause my child to lose various KIPP Indianapolis College Preparatory privileges and can lead to my child returning to his/her home school.” Wow! So if parents don’t do their part, their kids may not be able to continue. That has to help the school’s test scores, if they can get rid of students (and parents) who don’t follow rules. So, why not? What regulations stop conventional schools from holding students accountable for their lame parents?

Charter schools are not just involved in the three Rs, some include additional curricula, such as morals education (Andrew J. Brown Academy) or character education (Charter School of the Dunes). Disciplinary infractions of school behavior codes “may deem public service a necessary component of the disciplinary action” which “include, but is not limited to: repairing or cleaning property damaged as a result of the offense(s); participating in landscaping, gardening and/or other projects aimed at beautifying school property or the community; and/or providing services that improve the quality of life for community members.”

These schools require more than grades and test scores, they require students to be decent human beings. So, why not? What regulations stop conventional schools from forcing students to do community service for infractions of dress codes, tardiness, having a cell phone or not doing their homework?

Charter schools are smaller than conventional schools. They limit class size to 18 or 19. Conventional school classrooms may be as much as a third or more larger. So, why not? Why not budget enough money so conventional schools can limit class sizes, too?

Some charter schools feel like a local eatery — a lack of polish maybe, in an old building, but with a lot of local color. Indeed, emphasizing locality is what is unique about the Rural Community Academy in Graysville. But others seem “corporate,” like visiting the website of a chain restaurant. Several Indiana charters are “managed” by nonprofit charter school companies who offer “franchises.” BASIS Inc. is one; so are American Quality Schools and National Heritage Academies. I wonder how free the local schools are to vary from the “franchise agreement?” After all, “local control” is a cornerstone of the current push for education reform. Why not free conventional schools of “state control” and return them to the local control that has characterized American public education throughout its history, until recently?

I think charter schools have hit on the recipe for a good education: keep class sizes small, hold students and parents accountable for their actions, and get rid of those students who are problems. What could be simpler?

So, why not give the same freedom to conventional schools? Give conventional schools the same regulatory and bureaucratic freedom given to charter schools so they can create more enforceable expectations for student and parent behavior. Why not?

Ironic, isn’t it?

'Tiger Mom' sparks debate over parenting style

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.

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.

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.

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.

Are teachers not part of learning equation?

Previously published in the Terre Haute Tribune Star, 12/5/10