Saturday, March 5, 2011

BREAKTHROUGH



SchoolInfoSystem.org; Madison, Wisconsin

EducationNews.org; Houston, Texas

Will Fitzhugh
The Concord Review
March 2011

It is settled wisdom among Funderpundits and those to whom they give their grants that the most important variable in student academic achievement is teacher quality. I have long argued that the most important variable in student academic achievement is student academic work.


However, now a small number of dissenting voices have also begun to speak. Richard Arum and Josipa Roksa, in Academically Adrift have suggested that (p. 131) “Studying is crucial for strong academic performance...” and “Scholarship on teaching and learning has burgeoned over the past several decades and has emphasized the importance of shifting attention from faculty teaching to student learning...”


This may seem unacceptably heterodox to those in government and the private sector who have committed billions of dollars to focusing on the selection, training, supervision, and control of K-12 teachers, while giving no thought to whether K-12 students are actually doing the academic work which they are assigned.


In 2004, Paul A. Zoch, a teacher from Texas, wrote in Doomed to Fail (p. 150) that: “Let there be no doubt about it: the United States looks to its teachers and their efforts, but not to its students and their efforts, for success in education.” More recently, and less on the fringe of this new concern, Diane Ravitch wrote in Death and Life of the Great American School System (2010) (p. 162) that “One problem with test-based accountability, as currently defined and used, is that it removes all responsibility from students and their families for the students’ academic performance. NCLB neglected to acknowledge that students share in the responsibility for their academic performance and that they are not merely passive recipients of their teachers’ influence.”


There are necessarily problems in turning attention toward the work of students in judging the effectiveness of schools. First, all the present attention is on teachers, and it is not easy to turn that around. Second, teachers are employees and can be fired, while students can not. It could not be comfortable for the Funderpundits and their beneficiaries to realize that they may have been overlooking the most important variable in student academic achievement all this time.


In February, when the Associated Press reported that Natalie Monroe, a high school English teacher in Pennsylvania, had called her students, on a blog, “disengaged, lazy whiners,” and “noisy, crazy, sloppy, lazy LOAFERS,” the response of the school system was not to look more closely at the academic efforts of the students, but to suspend the teacher. As one of her students explained, “As far as motivated high school students, she’s completely correct. High school kids don’t want to do anything...(but) It’s a teacher’s job...to give students the motivation to learn.”


It would seem that no matter who points out that “You can lead a student to learning, but you can’t make him drink,” our system of schools and Funderpundits sticks with its wisdom that teachers alone are responsible for student academic achievement.


While that is wrong, it is also stupid. Alfred North Whitehead (or someone else) once wrote that; “For education, a man’s books and teachers are but a help, the real work is his.”


As in the old story about the drunk searching under the lamppost for his keys, those who control funds for education believe that as long as all their money goes to paying attention to what teachers are doing, who they are, how they are trained, and so on, they can’t see the point of looking in the darkness at those who have the complete and ultimate control over how much academic achievement there will be—namely the students.


Apart from scores on math and reading tests after all, student academic work is ignored by all those interested in paying to change the schools. What students do in literature, Latin, chemistry, calculus, and Asian history classes is of no interest to them. Liberal education is not only on the back burner for those focused on basic skills and job readiness as they define them, but that burner is also turned off at present.


This situation will persist as long as those funding programs and projects for reform in education pay no attention to the actual academic work of our students. And students, who see little or no pressure to be other than “disengaged lazy whiners” will continue to pay the price for their lack of education, both in college and at work, and we will continue to draw behind in comparison with those countries who realize that student academic achievement has always been, and will always be, mainly dependent on diligent student academic work.



BREAKTHROUGH


SchoolInfoSystem.org; Madison, WisconsinEducationNews.org; Houston, Texas

Will Fitzhugh
The Concord Review
8 March 2011


It is settled wisdom among Funderpundits and those to whom they give their grants that the most important variable in student academic achievement is teacher quality.

However, a small number of dissenting voices have begun to speak. Richard Arum and Josipa Roksa, in Academically Adrift have suggested that (p. 131) “Studying is crucial for strong academic performance...” and “Scholarship on teaching and learning has burgeoned over the past several decades and has emphasized the importance of shifting attention from faculty teaching to student learning...”

This may seem unacceptably heterodox to those in government and the private sector who have committed billions of dollars to focusing on the selection, training, supervision, and control of K-12 teachers, while giving no thought to whether K-12 students are actually doing the academic work which they are assigned.

In 2004, Paul A. Zoch, a teacher from Texas, wrote in Doomed to Fail (p. 150) that: “Let there be no doubt about it: the United States looks to its teachers and their efforts, but not to its students and their efforts, for success in education.” More recently, and less on the fringe of this new concern, Diane Ravitch wrote in Death and Life of the Great American School System (2010) (p. 162) that “One problem with test-based accountability, as currently defined and used, is that it removes all responsibility from students and their families for the students’ academic performance. NCLB neglected to acknowledge that students share in the responsibility for their academic performance and that they are not merely passive recipients of their teachers’ influence.”

There are necessarily problems in turning attention toward the work of students in judging the effectiveness of schools. First, all the present attention is on teachers, and it is not easy to turn that around. Second, teachers are employees and can be fired, while students can not. It could not be comfortable for the Funderpundits and their beneficiaries to realize that they may have been overlooking the most important variable in student academic achievement all this time.

In February, when the Associated Press reported that Natalie Monroe, a high school English teacher in Pennsylvania, had called her students, on a blog, “disengaged, lazy whiners,” and “noisy, crazy, sloppy, lazy LOAFERS,” the response of the school system was not to look more closely at the academic efforts of the students, but to suspend the teacher. As one of her students explained, “As far as motivated high school students, she’s completely correct. High school kids don’t want to do anything...(but) It’s a teacher’s job...to give students the motivation to learn.”

It would seem that no matter who points out that “You can lead a student to learning, but you can’t make him drink,” our system of schools and Funderpundits sticks with its wisdom that teachers alone are responsible for student academic achievement.

While that is wrong, it is also stupid. Alfred North Whitehead (or someone else) once wrote that; “For education, a man’s books and teachers are but a help, the real work is his.”

As in the old story about the drunk searching under the lamppost for his keys, those who control funds for education believe that as long as all their money goes to paying attention to what teachers are doing, who they are, how they are trained, and so on, they can’t see the point of looking in the darkness at those who have the complete and ultimate control over how much academic achievement there will be—namely the students.

Apart from scores on math and reading tests after all, student academic work is ignored by all those interested in paying to change the schools. What students do in literature, Latin, chemistry, calculus, and Asian history classes is of no interest to them. Liberal education is not only on the back burner for those focused on basic skills and job readiness as they define them, but that burner is also turned off at present.

This situation will persist as long as those funding programs and projects for reform in education pay no attention to the actual academic work of our students. And students, who see little or no pressure to be other than “disengaged lazy whiners” will continue to pay the price for their lack of education, both in college and at work, and we will continue to draw behind in comparison with those countries who realize that student academic achievement has always been, and will always be, mainly dependent on diligent student academic work.

Friday, March 4, 2011

Motivation


A super teacher can help to motivate (almost) all of the students some of the time, and some of the students (almost) all of the time, but even a super teacher can not motivate all of the students all of the time (with apologies to Mr. Lincoln). (And it helps a lot if the students do bring some motivation with them...)

Tuesday, March 1, 2011

Google Analytics

Google Analytics tells me we had 836 visitors from 53 countries from 2/21/2011 to 2/27/2011...

Our website (www.tcr.org) has had foreign visitors from: Algeria, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Canada, Chile, China (Beijing, Shanghai, Taijin, Youngzhou, etc.), Colombia, Costa Rica, Cote D’Ivoire, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Dubai, Ecuador, Egypt, Ethiopia, Faroe Islands, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Grenada, Guam, Haiti, Honduras, Hong Kong, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Libya, Macao, Macedonia, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Moldova, Mongolia, Morocco, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Niger, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Puerto Rico, Qatar, Romania, Russian Federation, Sarajevo, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia & Montenegro, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, Tanzania, Thailand, Trinidad, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom (England), United Kingdom (Scotland), Uruguay, Yemen, Vietnam, and Zambia. www.tcr.org/blog

Wednesday, February 23, 2011

Colin Rhys Hill


You should know that the Oxford interview tutors for politics spent a lot of time talking to me about my TCR essay in the interview. Oxford doesn't recognize or consider extra-curriculars/sports in the admissions process (no rowing recruits) because they are so focused on academics. So I thought it was pretty high praise of the Review that they were so interested in my essay (at that time it had not won the Ralph Waldo Emerson Prize).


Also, FYI, most of the "get into college" publications I read referred to The Concord Review as the "Intel Science Competition" of the humanities and the only serious way to get academic work noticed.

[TCR Author and Emerson Prize winner who went from high school in Atlanta, Georgia
to Christ Church College, Oxford.]

Monday, February 21, 2011

San Diego City College

Dear Mr. Fitzhugh:

My name is Peter D. Haro and I am the Chair of the History and Political Science Department at San Diego City College in San Diego, California. I read the article about you and The Concord Review in the New York Times about a month ago and I must say that I had a rejuvenating moment as I read about you and The Concord Review. I also believe that student writing is an imperative that must not be allowed to decline. Unfortunately, in today’s culture of testing mania, texting, etc., good research writing is something that is often overlooked or ignored. I have students who are dumbfounded when I tell them that a research assignment is part of their semester grade. However, I do have students that also rise to the occasion and produce outstanding undergraduate research papers. My question to you is, are you accepting submissions from community college students? I think that this would be an excellent opportunity for my students who do intend to transfer and many of them have moved on to top-tier colleges and universities all over the United States, such as Columbia, Cornell, Stanford, UC Berkeley and UCLA. Please let me know if this is something that The Concord Review is interested in or if you are aware of any similar organizations dedicated to publishing the research of community college students. Thank you for your time in this matter and I hope to hear from you soon.

Saturday, February 5, 2011

National Writing Board


[Professor Stotsky's comment on a four-page assessment report
from the National Writing Board on a high school research paper from Dubai] [www.tcr.org]


"What extraordinary feedback for a high school student to get! How lucky he/she is, even if the paper received a poor rating and doesn't get published. That feedback is worth more than probably a whole year of college teaching. How can we get current high school history and English teachers to understand what it means to write like a historian?

This should be a case study example in every workshop that will be given to high school English and history teachers to understand what the Common Core 'literacy' standards imply."


Sandra Stotsky
former Deputy Commissioner of Education in Massachusetts
Professor of Education
University of Arkansas