The worst education idea of the year turns out not to be a new idea at all. "Unschooling" has roots in Rousseau, in Summerhill, in John Holt and Ivan Illich and any number of other progressive/romantic/libertarian nihilists. It takes an acceptable educational alternative--home schooling--and turns it into a parody. I kept being reminded of tales of babies raised by wolves and other wild beasts. While I do not doubt that some few parents have the knowledge and imagination to embed the acquisition of important skills and knowledge in enjoyable activities that don't feel much like school (so do many veteran kindergarten teachers, by the way), for most, I'm pretty sure, "unschooling" resembles the Taliban's idea of education for girls: Keep them home and keep them ignorant. Make sure they don't learn the parts of speech or multiplication tables, the causes of the War of 1812 ??or the election of 1912 or the concept of separation of powers or why Lady Macbeth kept washing her hands. The co-founder of the "Family Unschoolers Network" estimates that ten percent of home-schoolers are really unschoolers. If true, that's close to 200,000 kids who deserve a proper education so as to succeed in the modern world but who almost certainly aren't getting it. Not to mention that it's going to make people even more suspicious of home schooling. As Teri Flemal, director of Quality Education by Design, puts it, "I'm reading e-mail from unschooling parents who think having their kids remodel their house...
Whether the United States should embrace national standards and tests for its schools is perhaps today's hottest education issue. For guidance in addressing it, the newest Fordham report looks beyond our borders. How have other countries navigated these turbid waters? What do their systems look like? How did they get there? What can we learn from them? Expert analysts examined national standards and testing in Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, the Netherlands, Russia, Singapore and South Korea. This report presents their key takeaways.
David Whitman, fresh off of being honored by the American Independent Writers, has now done an interview with EducationNews.org about his book, Sweating the Small Stuff: Inner-City Schools and the New Paternalism. EdNews Senior Columnist Michael Shaughnessy asks David, among other things, why he wrote the book, why it has had broad-based appeal, and what paternalism has to do with education. Here's a snippet of David describing the schools that he examined and wrote about:
When you spent time in the schools I studied, you couldn't help but be struck by the fact that they were highly-prescriptive institutions???they meticulously supervised student behavior. They were not just academically demanding schools but schools that sought to relentlessly shape the character of their students. But I do want to be clear about one thing: The new paternalism works only when it is combined with intense caring and commitment--it is not just about the supervision of students. The students have to know that their teachers and principals care deeply about them and their future.
In 2002-2003, 1 million students participated in AP by taking at least one exam. Five years later, nearly 1.6 million did—a 50+ percent increase. But is growth all good? Might there be a downside? Are ill prepared students eroding the quality of the program? Perhaps harming the best and brightest? To find out, the Thomas B. Fordham Institute commissioned the Farkas Duffett Research Group to survey AP teachers in public high schools across the country. Perhaps not surprisingly, the AP program remains very popular with its teachers. But there are signs that the move toward "open door" access to AP is starting to cause concern. Read the report to learn more.
An interview with Steve Farkas, President of the Farkas Duffett Research Group. Fordham commissioned the FDR Group to research and write this report.
As Gov. Ted Strickland concludes his 12-city "Conversation on Education" tour to gather ideas for reforming public education in Ohio, the Thomas B. Fordham Institute has put forth a report of five recommendations designed to keep improvements in the Buckeye State's public schools on track toward three critical goals: 1) maximizing the talents of every child; 2) producing graduates as good as any in the world; and 3) closing the persistent academic gaps that continue between rich and poor, and black and white and brown.
The five recommendations include:
Creating world-class standards and stronger accountability mechanisms.
Ensure that funding is fairly allocated among all children and schools.
Recruit the best and brightest to lead schools and empower them to succeed.
Improve teacher quality.
Expand the quality of, and access to, a range of high-performing school options.
The report offers relevant examples of the best practices and thinking from across the nation and world as well as within the state of Ohio. These recommendations were developed on the basis of the work over the past decade of many organizations, including Achieve, McKinsey & Co., the Ohio Grantmakers Forum, the National Governors Association, the Council of Chief State School Officers, the National Center on Education and the Economy, the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, and Ohio's State Board of Education and Department of Education....
The most exciting innovation in education policy in the last decade is the emergence of highly effective schools in our nation’s inner cities, schools where disadvantaged teens make enormous gains in academic achievement. n this book, David Whitman takes readers inside six of these secondary schools—many of them charter schools—and reveals the secret to their success: They are paternalistic.
The schools teach teens how to act according to traditional, middle-class values, set and enforce exacting academic standards, and closely supervise student behavior. But unlike paternalistic institutions of the past, these schools are warm, caring places, where teachers and principals form paternal-like bonds with students. Though little explored to date, the new paternalistic schools are the most promising means yet for closing the nation's costly and shameful achievement gap.
This publication reports the results of the first two (of five) studies of a multifaceted research investigation of the state of high-achieving students in the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) era.
Part 1: An Analysis of NAEP Data, authored by Brookings Institution scholar Tom Loveless, examines achievement trends for high-achieving students (defined, like low-achieving students, by their performance on the National Assessment of Educational Progress, or NAEP) since the early 1990s and, in more detail, since 2000.
Part 2: Results from a National Teacher Survey, authored by Steve Farkas and Ann Duffett of Farkas Duffett Research Group, reports on teachers' own views of how schools are serving high-achieving pupils in the NCLB era.
5:30 - Tom Loveless, Brookings Institution 19:05 - Steve Farkas, Farkas Duffett Research Group 33:25 - Josh Wyner, Jack Kent Cooke Foundation 41:15 - Ross Wiener, Education Trust 48:30 - Question & Answer
Over at the "ELL Advocates" blog, whole language apologist Stephen Krashen makes a lame attempt to poke holes in Sol Stern's recent Fordham report, Too Good to Last: The True Story of Reading First. In particular, he takes issue with Stern's claim that the Golden State's adoption of whole language reading in 1987 led to California's disastrous, bottom of the barrel NAEP performance in 1992. Krashen is right about one point: The '92 NAEP was the first to break out results state-by-state, so it's impossible to know whether California's scores "plummeted," as Stern argues. But then Krashen goes on to make a fool of himself. First, he offers this stunning piece of revisionist history:
Whole language, according to (urban) legend, was introduced by the 1987 Framework committee, which I was a member of. The 1987 Framework committee never mentioned whole language. We recommended that language arts be literature-based, hardly a revolutionary idea. Phonics was never forbidden.
This is ridiculous; of course California adopted whole language reading in 1987. For the definitive history of this episode, see here. Then Krashen goes on to argue:
Of great interest, and rarely noted, is that fact that California still ranks at the bottom of the US. NAEP scores released 2007 show that California is still in the basement, in a virtual tie for last place with Mississippi and Louisiana. Dumping whole language did not improve things.
But if dumping whole language did not improve things, why...