Return to Education Report Index | Return to VBE Index | Vermonters for Better Education Homepage
..
..
..
..
www.SchoolReport.com
Vermonters
for Better Education
Return
to Education Report Index | Return to VBE
Index | Vermonters for Better Education
Homepage
________________________________________ THE VERMONT EDUCATION REPORT
February 13, 2006 - Vol. 6, No. 07
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Covering education news in Vermont and beyond...
Informative, provocative, unique...
Published by Vermonters for Better Education
VBE is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization whose mission is to enlist parents and the public at large in achieving quality educational opportunities for all the children of Vermont by monitoring the state of education in Vermont; promoting the value of educational freedoms for all parents; and giving parents the evaluative tools with which to identify excellence. Libby Sternberg, executive director: VTBetterEd@aol.com
NEWS & ANALYSIS...STATE BOARD OF ED CHAIR NOW SHOWS SUPPORT FOR UNIVERSAL PREK
Tom James, the chairman of the State Board of Education, is backing off a recommendation that the State Board only support funding early education for at-risk students.
James is a member of the SBOE's Ad Hoc committee that has been considering an early ed policy recommendation for presentation to the full board at its February 21 meeting. The Ad Hoc committee, comprised of James, Ruth Stokes, Chris Robbins and Matthew Francis, had come up with a draft recommendation weeks ago that included the following language:
"After extensive review of the available research, the committee determined that the benefits versus the cost of extending publicly funded pre-K programs to non-at risk students could not be justified. Therefore we recommend the following:
"School districts should only be allowed to count for ADM purposes early education students (3 and 4 year olds) who are 'at risk.' For this discussion, at-risk students are defined as those who have developmental delays, are English language learners or whose families' household income are less than 185 percent of the federal poverty level."
But at the February 9 meeting of the Ad Hoc committee, James balked at including that provision and instead suggested merely recommending to the legislature that they take "no action" until more study can be done. In other words, James doesn't appear to want the SBOE to take a position supporting early ed for at-risk kids only and only wants to provide advice to the legislature.
His position, if adopted, would mean that the Vermont Department of Education would continue actively encouraging schools to start universal preschool programs.
Curiously, however, he seems to agree with the premise on which the at-risk recommendation is based. When presenting his "alternative" recommendation to the Ad Hoc committee, James included the following rationale:
"Only one State in the nation has a Pre-K program that is described as universal. (Georgia for four year olds)
"Research findings are not available to support that heterogeneous class make up is necessarily beneficial to the students.
"Targeted programs are dominant in the Nation, even though a preponderance of anecdotal information is available to support 'Universal' programs."
In fact, James made a thoughtful presentation to the Ad Hoc committee about other programs across the country, laying out clearly how far afield Vermont's program seeks to go. As James points out in his rationale, only one other state has been implementing a "universal" program (for rich and poor alike) and most states use grant-based funding approaches, not the enrollment-based formula Vermont uses.
Because he made such a strong case against universal preschool, it was a surprise to hear James's recommendation that the Ad Hoc committee strike the language about targeting at-risk kids and merely suggest to the legislature that they not move forward with any program until more study is conducted.
James's position is even more odd when you consider that the SBOE's influence on the legislature is probably no more nor less than that of the average citizen. The SBOE does have influence on the Commissioner and Department of Education, however, and James seems unwilling to use that influence to recommend that the VDOE only encourage schools to start preschools for at-risk kids.
James was outvoted at the Ad Hoc Committee meeting but will present his weaker alternative language at the February 21 board meeting.
His email address is:
His email address is: tomjames1@adelphia.net
Other SBOE board members' email addresses are:
Chris Robbins: Chris.Robbins@EHV-Weidmann.com
Ruth Stokes: rstokes123@aol.com
Matthew Francis: matthew_francis@cvuhs.org
William Corrow: wbcorrow@aol.com
Linday Caslin: caz1072@yahoo.com
Lisa Cox: Cox@sover.net
Rick Manahan: RMan@together.net
Diane Mueller: Dmueller@okemo.com
Susan Schill: schills@wildblue.net
MEANWHILE OVER AT SENATE ED
The early ed bill, S.132, did not see a vote last week because Sen. James Condos (D-Chittenden) was called out of town due to a family emergency. Bill mark-up is scheduled for this week, however, and a vote might be imminent.
Senate Ed will also hear testimony on S.189, a bill that would allow independent schools in Vermont to use the college-entrance ACT test instead of the state's own assessment for tuitioned students.
This is a good common-sense bill with many advantages. Some of those advantages are: the Act could be cheaper than the state test and is definitely faster; it includes a science component which the state has not yet configured; it allows schools and students to compare themselves to their peers nationwide; and -- perhaps most importantly -- it can spur some students, who had ruled out post-secondary education, to consider college.
With so many advantages, this should be a slam-dunk, and the SBOE has already approved this change with a unanimous vote at an earlier meeting. But look for opposition to crop up in Senate and House Ed where the Education Lobby might kick up resistance.
* * *
FROM ELSEWHERE...From The Fordham Foundation
On the web at: http://www.edexcellence.netTHE MAD, MAD WORLD OF EDUCATION RESEARCH
by Douglas Reeves
"What? Me Worry?" Alfred E. Newman, Mad Magazine's mascot since the late 1950s, delivered this signature line whenever the world around him was going, well, mad. So, too, it seems, those working in the field of educational research.
That's the upshot of an important study by Peggy Hsieh and Joel R. Levin, which ran in the Journal of Educational Psychology and chronicles ed researchers' continued retreat from accepted research methodology. In this case, randomized experiments.
Randomized experiments, aka field trials, whereby an experimental group that receives an intervention (say, Whole Language) is compared with a control group that receives no intervention, have been standard operating procedure since rats were first run through mazes. But who needs control groups in the age of feelings-based research? Never mind that it's the theme song of Russ Whitehurst and the federal Institute of Education Sciences.
Hsieh and Levin report that "The percentage of total articles in these four journals [Cognition & Instruction, Contemporary Educational Psychology, Journal of Educational Psychology, Journal of Experimental Education, American Educational Research Journal] based on randomized experiments decreased over the 21-year period in both the educational psychology journals (from 40 percent in 1983 to 34 percent in 1995 to 26 percent in 2004) and the American Educational Research Journal (from 33 percent to 17 percent to 4 percent)."
To be sure, education is not the only field to succumb to the allure of fact-free debate. Jeffrey Pfeffer and Robert Sutton report in the January 2006 Harvard Business Review that "thousands of studies are conducted on medical practices and products every year. Unfortunately, physicians don't use much of it. Recent studies show that only about 15 percent of their decisions are evidence based." Pfeffer and Sutton add, "The same behavior holds true for managers looking to cure their organizational ills. Indeed, we would argue, managers are actually much more ignorant than doctors about which prescriptions are reliable--and they're less eager to find out."
There is, of course, abundant research available for those genuinely interested in effective practices. But the prescriptions arising from that research--eat less, exercise more, learn phonics, know your math facts, devote more time to literacy instruction, have people who know science teach science, etc.--are so much less appealing than the Ouija board hints that emanate from ersatz research from a variety of fields. Perhaps this explains why the doctors of medicine and business who write about education are frequently no more helpful than the doctors of education.
Why are randomized experiments being dropped faster than a tainted control group? Hsieh put that question to a number of folks. One "speculated that with the increasing popularity of qualitative methods (i.e., not relying on quantitative data), some researchers may have rejected the underlying assumptions of experimental research in favor of a post-modern, relativist view." A more cynical interpretation holds that because empirical research is difficult to conduct and yields unpopular results, many authors simply take their studies down an easier path. Why risk tenure by studying the effectiveness of phonics, for example, if a university promotion committee member worships at the altar of whole language? Why bother with multivariate analysis when a feminist critique of patriarchal statistical methods will do?
Universities and their faculty members are not the only culprits here. A bevy of publishers and other vendors benefit financially from research that is short-term, isolated, unscientific and devoid of context. Thus we often find assertions that "research proves" this or that program is associated with increased student achievement, even though other analyses show that the same program is associated with no such gains. Education policy makers and school system consumers are more likely to be in hot pursuit of the latest magic bullet than they are to make fundamental changes in course content, assessment rigor, daily schedules, and professional requirements for administrators and teachers.
In fact, no educational program exists in isolation. Thus, careless and isolated studies of those programs will yield misleading results. Does Success For All or Open Court or Read 180 or, for that matter, McGuffey's Reader really work? Typical research that considers only the presence or absence of these programs is unlikely to provide answers. The programs are effective when partnered with effective teaching, accurate feedback, and meaningful leadership support. When these contextual variables are absent, the programs usually accomplish little.
Unfortunately, it is the rare research study that provides long-term observation of student performance, teaching practices, and leadership support, and also provides a systematic measurement of other contextual variables. McGuffey's Reader will be a terrific program when implemented with the necessary time, diligence, and supervision. But the most elegantly conceived 21st Century reading program will fail without these essential elements. Consider one of the most basic contextual variables: time. One superintendent swore to me that he had effected "system-wide" implementation of a "proven" reading program. Yet a cursory review of the schedules of his 67 elementary schools revealed that teachers devoted from 45 to 180 minutes each day to the program. What really caused that district's success? The program or the time and attention provided by teachers and school leaders?
Karen Harris of Vanderbilt University, editor of the Journal of Educational Psychology, deserves credit, along with Hsieh and colleagues, for publishing an important study. They prove what many have long suspected: that the quality of research in education has deteriorated. This does not mean sound empirical research is unavailable. It just means that we have to dig deep, and plow through a lot of fluff in order to find the analysis we should expect.
Douglas Reeves is CEO and founder of the Center for Performance Assessment.
* * *
SENATE & MEDIA CONTACT INFO...WOULD YOU LIKE TO WEIGH IN ON EARLY ED OR SCHOOL CHOICE -- OR OTHER EDUCATION ISSUES?
If you'd like to contact members of the Senate Education Committee, their email addresses are below. You can also leave a message for them by calling the Statehouse at 1-800-322-5616.
Members of the Senate Education Committee:
-- Senator Don Collins of Franklin District, Chair, dcollins@leg.state.vt.us (supports S.132, the early ed bill)
-- Senator Bill Doyle of Washington District, Vice-Chair, wdoyle@leg.state.vt.us (position unknown on S.132)
-- Senator Jim Condos of Chittenden District, jcondos@leg.state.vt.us (supports S.132)
-- Senator Bobby Starr of Essex-Orleans District, bstarr@leg.state.vt.us (position unknown on S.132)
-- Senator Wendy Wilton of Rutland District, WWilton@leg.state.vt.us (opposes S.132)You can also consider writing letters to the editor. Here are some newspaper addresses in key senators' districts:
Times Argus
540 N. Main Street
PO Box 707
Barre, VT 05641
802.479.0191
letters@timesargus.comCounty Courier
209 Main Street
Enosburgh Falls 05450
802-933-4375
county.courier@verizon.netSt. Albans Messenger
Daily/5100
St. Albans 05478-2503
802-524-9771
Editor, Emerson Lynn
opinions@samessenger.comBurlington Free Press
College Street
Burlington 05401
802-865-4600
letters@bfp.burlingtonfreepress.comVermont Guardian
Northern Vermont: PO Box 335,
Winooski, VT 05404
Southern Vermont: 139 Main Street, Suite 702,
Brattleboro, VT 05301
802.861.4880
877.231.5382 (toll-free)
info@vermontguardian.comOther Paper
South Burlington 05403
802-864-6670
otherpaper@adelphia.netBusiness People VT
1233 Shelburne Road
South Burlington 05401
802-862-4109
editorial@vermontguides.comSeven Days
29 Church Street
Burlington 05401-4417
802-864-5684
letters@sevendaysvt.comColchester Sun 14 Main Street
Essex Junction 05452-3132
802-878-5282
news@essexreporter.comShelburne News
1929 Shelburne Road
Shelburne 05482-7171
802-985-3091
news@shelburnenews.comVermont Times
Webster Road
Shelburne 05482
802-985-2400
grahamcomm@adelphia.net
editor: Roz Graham 985-2490* * *
WHO COVERS EDUCATION IN VERMONT?
We do! Consider a gift to Vermonters for Better Education, the publisher of the weekly Vermont Education Report, Vermont's ONLY continual source of education news. Send donations to: VBE, 170 Church Street, Rutland, Vermont 05701. VBE is a nonprofit organization and contributions are tax-deductible.
* * *
The VERMONT EDUCATION REPORT is published by Vermonters for Better Education 170 Church Street, Rutland, VT 05701, 802.773.5240 Contact VTBetterEd@aol.com for more information.
SubscribeRemove
........