Eduflack: Recent Comments

Comment on Some Ed Reccs for Senator Obama

Paul Bahlin — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 06:54:26 GMT

I have a huge problem with national standards if they are implemented as standards are today. Standards create arbitrary grade level groupings tied to age. There is no evidence that this is effective. Standards become a median goal for a non-existant median child.

Standards become cookie cutters that hold back kids ready for more and frustrate kids not ready for them yet.

If you have standards decoupled from age/grade/phase of the moon then you've got something. A national standard, that perpetuates the arbitrary groupings we have now, would not be productive.

Comment on Some Ed Reccs for Senator Obama

Sina — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 02:41:11 GMT

The thing about positing ideas for eduaction reform is that they're a dime a dozen. Robert Hess talked about how reform regimes (i.e. politics that gear toward education reform) can end up like spinning wheels, churning policy after policy with no real traction for margins of error or delayed results. While there is certainly a need for reform, I would seem sceptacle about a candidate running on reform ideas because he or she can end up just pandering to the crowd. While an education platform is crucial, I think we need longer term players that make the big decisions, and not a 4 year spinning of wheels. In other words, yes, I'd like to see serious talk about education policy by the big guns, but I really want policies that stick, and not just meet the fancy of the hour. You know what I mean?

Cheers,
Sina
www.educationequityinternational.org

Comment on Some Ed Reccs for Senator Obama

Kimmy — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 00:44:44 GMT

Hmm.. I feel like I need to write a list from a first-in-accountability and non-union perspective!

Comment on A Display of RF Commitment

Independent Scholar — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 10:36:05 GMT

Is a detailed budget available so we can know why $1.6 million is necessary? Those dollars represent actual services and/or supplies. We need to know WHAT is facilitating the magic.

Comment on A Display of RF Commitment

Eduflack — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 10:28:12 GMT

As originally written into the federal law, the U.S. Department of Education was supposed to study the effectiveness of RF across the nation. That's why they were given $150 million. It is a researcher's dream budget. We all should be asking where the remaining $120 million went. If it is still available, maybe it can be designated for the sorts of effectiveness studies you are discussing.

I would beg to differ, though, that there is no scientifically based research on the effectiveness of RF. I've recently seen (or heard about) studies on the statewide effectiveness of Reading First in Idaho and Ohio. ANd these methodologically solid studies do show a real, positive effect.

The focus, though, should be on the impact of SBRR, not RF. RF is merely a funding mechanism. We should be looking at what schools are using scientifically sound approaches and the achievement results coming from it.

I have been doing work with a company that has had real success in NYC offering supplemental reading opportunities. They're also making the sort of gains you point to.

Personally, RF doesn't need the credit. We just need to figure out what is working. ANd what is working at scale.

Comment on A Display of RF Commitment

Nigel Collins — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 10:14:13 GMT

There is no scientifically based reading research that RF works - there is only anecdotal evidence that in some schools it works and in some that it doesn't.

Why does no one want to look a the effectiveness of RF across all the schools in a district? Look at the formative assessments within RF and look at the correlation with the State ELA scores.

Maintaining the fiction that understanding the research and choosing the program will make a difference is ridiculous.

It not the program, it's the instruction. A bad teacher will get lousy results with RF, a good teacher doesn't need RF to move kids.

In NYC last year, one Principal in Brooklyn got outstanding results using RF, she had to teach it herself in some of her classrooms as some of her teachers were failing with. By monitoring her students progress within the program she was able to make the necessary decisions that led to her students doing exceptionally well on the State ELA tests. Is this an example of RF working or an example of a Principal making RF work? If I was keeping score, I would give RF 10% of the credit and the Principal 90%.

Comment on Mr. Weaver, Tear Down the NEA Wall

Nigel Collins — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 18:40:10 GMT

Why do we send education dollars to Washington to then beg for it back? Why can't the States be the sole funder of education within each state?

Comment on Is This the Ed of Our RF Study Quest?

Nigel Collins — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 17:59:49 GMT

My company works with over 60 New York City Public Schools - Our primary aim is to help schools use data to improve the effectiveness of their instruction. We consolidate summative as well as formative information from hundreds of different programs and assessments.

I have Reading First schools that are very successful and Reading First schools that are not. I have Teachers College Schools that work and others that do not.

I can go on, but there are certain buzz words and slogans that drive me nuts:

Scientific / Research Based: It is impossible to measure the impact of a specific program within a school. Children are not lab rats whose environments can be limited and studied with variables such as parents and teachers excluded.

Professional Development: Is not measurable or quantifiable. Most professional development is conducted away from students and classrooms. Lack of professional development is the number one excuse for lack of student achievement. Why do we need so much PD that doesn't work? Doesn't almost every teacher have a masters degree?

#1 Reason Why So Many Students cannot read at grade level:

The were never taught to read by teachers who were willing to take the time to figure out what they knew and what they didn't know. They were never taught what they needed to know, at a level, or in a way that they could be successful.

Only when schools start collecting, analyzing and using data to determine what is needed, and provide the necessary instruction will this problem begin to fade away. A bad teachers cannot make a good program work, and a good teacher can make a bad program like it is working.

Comment on Is This the Ed of Our RF Study Quest?

Eduflack — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 13:11:02 GMT

It's not a matter of a passing score in reading, it is an issue of being proficient in reading, based on the grade level. We know the reading skills students should have to be successful in second grade or fourth grade or eigth grade. If they can demonstrate those skills, they are proficient. If they can't, they are not. We see the "test" on just about every state reading assessment across the nation -- PSSA, SOL, MCAS, etc.

And we aren't talking about the alphabet. We're ultimately talking about fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. Kids do a cold read on a passage they've likely never seen, and they answer questions about what they've read to demonstrate understanding.

We should be outraged that 40 percent of fourth graders are not proficient in reading, rather than questioning the test itself.

Comment on Is 100% Proficiency Possible? You Betcha

Independent Scholar — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 09:39:46 GMT

Congratulations to what WORKS!