Kate McKeon » Education Issues

Cost of Education

katemckeon — Mon, 31 May 2010 13:57:52 +0000

Friday night my little sisters graduated from high school. Come Fall they are off to college. What better time to reflect on the changing values of a college education. Does it make sense to go to the best school you get into? Is it worth $100k, $200k in debt?

It seems to depend on what we expect to get out of the education.

1. If you just want to get a good liberal arts education so you can be witty conversation at cocktail parties, there are several low cost and no cost alternatives to a proper college. Do you really need to be signed up for Lit 201 to read Beowulf?

You’ll need a copy of the book, the online forum full of medievalists and a few discussion partners to really understand the significance that Beowulf plays in the great context of literature.That would take getting organized, but identifying what you want and going after it are two very useful skills.

Or you could watch any of the Foundations of Western Culture Classes at MIT . . . for free. So there’s really no excuse, if you want access to the best minds, this is a mighty fine start.

2. Perhaps you consider college preparation for the working world. That is perfectly reasonable, but let’s review….

Is there a causal relationship between wage rate and level of education? Is there a relationship between COST of that education and the wage rate? Seth Godin put together a chart comparing the relative, relevant cost increases. I added the aggregate wage data.

If the cost of education was a relatively small percent of the budget, then a 10-fold increase might not be that important. But the cost of education has been and continues to be a stumbling block for many families. Are we really getting the value out of it or is it a luxury item?

If you are preparing for a specific field: engineering, medicine, or any other field where you need access to equipment not likely to be found at Home Depot, then you must get thee to a University. But how is this different from a Vocational school?

3. Or do we really go to college simply because it is socially expected? Can we be honest enough to admit that? It isn’t bad to do things that are socially expected – we stop at stop signs (for those of us outside of Boston), but we shield college under the guise of higher education when in reality most schools require students to sit through junky, giant classes taught by disinterested Teaching Assistants. Star faculty are absent or inaccessible. Students will take multiple choice tests where only one answer is correct.

Where is the HIGHER in this form of education. On the whole schools are teaching average students average material and then handing them an average piece of paper that will not change the job prospects, nor the level of enlightenment.

We would benefit more as a society to teach our kids tolerance for ambiguity.

At no point is there just one option. It is challenging to authentically look at the purpose of our actions.

-All that being said, Kelly and Victoria are off to college in the Fall and I’m mighty proud of them. Kate

Yet, all of these require a child to be independent and self motivated . . . isn’t that what we really want for our kids?

Education Issues: Quantity, Quality?

katemckeon — Mon, 22 Mar 2010 04:23:45 +0000

So let’s go for a drive.

If you’ve ever had the opportunity to cross the US by car . . . say from Chapel Hill, NC to Berkeley, CA, or Boston, MA to Berkeley, CA or Atlanta, GA to San Diego, CA, you have seen that there are many choices to make along the way. Do you go Interstate Highway all the way, do you detour to Route 66 (recommend in limited portions, it ain’t what it used to be)?

Do you take the most direct route . . . well, actually, what is the most direct route? If it is winter, heading across on I-50 is a BAD idea with a U-Haul. Actually, even in late April that’s a bad idea.

Some choices are better than others. So as a rational person, you do two things:

1. You establish your objective – where are you going, speed or leisure, caravan or solo….
2. Then you decide how to get there.

Sounds a lot better than someone else mandating how you will drive, what you will drive and when you will arrive. This system works well. It is the brains behind the free market. You do it instinctively.

DETOUR

The Wall Street Journal featured the concept of Saturday school in this weekend’s edition. While I am a strong supporter of more education, not less, I slam on the brakes for this one. Quantity does not equal quality – sheer volume can occasionally overtake quality instruction, but brute force versus dedicated finesse has no chance.

The bigger issue we face is that we do not have an objective for American education. We talk about being strong in science, math, well, anything, but it’s all talk. Take a look at the standards in the average classroom.

In classes taught in the science and social science subfields of Earth sciences, economics, geography, and government/civics, fewer than 50 percent of classes were taught by a teacher who held a major in the respective subfield. Fast Facts on Education

Without a clear objective, Saturday school is at best a thorn in the side of kids who yearn to play in creeks and at worst is yet more time for your children to be exposed to revisionist history and ridiculous propaganda. More college students arrive on campus fully aware of the recycling program (good), but totally UNAWARE that we participated in the Korean War of the 20th century (bad). No joke.

For any educational program to be successful, we have to establish standards. The purpose of No Child Left Behind was to do just that. The Teacher’s Unions were the most vocal opponents. No program is without flaws, but you can’t drive efficiently from the East Coast to the West Coast without a clear plan. Otherwise, you’re likely to end up running out of gas in Kansas and that means your history class never learns about the Asian theater of war in WWII or the Korean War.

2006, Twelfth-grade students who explained a reason for the involvement in the Korean War: 14%

So, before we have kids sit in class on Saturday, let’s make sure that we have teachers who understand the subject matter they teach and we have a curriculum designed for the most important elements for the students to learn. It’s nice to know how your future college’s recycling program operates, but if you stink at fractions . . . every day you will be further and further behind your international peers. And our ability to innovate as an economy dies.

Education Issues – Teacher Signaling

katemckeon — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 16:01:27 +0000

Confession: as a teacher I have challenges with the different levels of students who cycle through my classroom. I am not unbiased, and yes, I take my students’ performance personally.

But this is as it has been and should be….

Some students are bright, but it’s not just the ability level of the student it is the teacher’s interaction with that perceived ability level of the student that influences a student’s outcome.

In a study that measured a teacher’s ability to influence student academic performance, researchers found that a teacher who perceives her class to be bright can help an average group out-perform the control group (over the period of one academic year) and a teacher who perceives the students to be less bright will have students who under-perform the control group.

Average students elicit average teaching, you simply aren’t as invested as you are in the progress of the super star talent. The super star talent progress you take personally, you take as a reflection of your ability to teach. The average student you don’t take quite as personally. You build and adapt your plan for the average student’s success, but the progress of the average student won’t keep you up at night.

A co-conspirator in the world teaching sums up his view of his students this way when asked, “What goes through the teacher mind when a student demonstrates a lack of progress?”

Avg student: he’s an idiot for wasting this opportunity
Super Star: he’s insulting me – a slap in the face

That is a harsher version of what many of us are uncomfortable describing. It isn’t polite to confront a lazy student, nor is it our job. But what surprises more than reactions to average students is the backlash against perceived bright students who shirk their duties. If you are a bright student, step-up your game and your teacher will help you exceed your abilities, shirk your duty and prepare for wrath.

Do Girls Suck at Math?

katemckeon — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 06:41:57 +0000

It’s a common refrain both from the mouths of males and females. Yet, what evidence do we have to support this?

A former boyfriend even presented a LONG diatribe about the actual genetic reasons women are bad at math . . . but there’s just one problem. Namely, me.

Or Jill.

Or Heidi.

Or Shanti.

Or Leah.

Or . . .

The fact is, the hype surrounding the idea that women are bad at math is itself, bad math. If you look at the statistics from the experiments that indicate girls as less capable mathematically, they share one thing in common: they rule out the possibility that there is a social element in the testing. Even more telling, the fellas I’ve met who most loudly proclaim that women are bad at math, are themselves, not so good at math, or rather, not as good at math….

The one who presented the diatribe . . . explains how he won a math competition in high school. Dude, I won one in 3rd grade. Seriously.

Let’s bear in mind the realities of a 2 parent home…. Who is making the economic decisions?

Sure guys, of course you are…. Riiiiiight. Over 70% of all purchases for the home from toilet paper to chainsaws (you’ve seen the pink power tools) are DECIDED by the women. INCLUDING the flat screen TVs and Computers. That’s why computers now come in fancy colors. And none too soon.

Small businesses?

Yeah, it’s the ladies making the financial decisions there too.

So how do you take this “girls suck at math” argument seriously?

Where is there enough common ground to make a valid point?

Alex DiBranco presents a new study from the University of Chicago that indicates girls identify with their weak female teacher role models. Okay, plausible. I don’t like it, but it is plausible.

Still smacks of total lameness.

So ask yourself this, if someone told you that your daughter is ugly. How would you respond?

Angry, defensive, indignant?

Now what if that same person told you that your daughter is bad at math. How would you respond?

Angry or accepting?

As families, why do we accept the notion that girls would be worse at math? There is no legitimate reason for this to be the case. But, 6th grade roles around and all of a sudden girls are expected to roll over. Is that what you want for your daughter?

Women outlive men, make the family financial decisions that have the greatest impact (daily decisions FAR outweigh investing decisions), and really, aren’t all that bad with numbers . . . when no one is watching. If you care about the economic decisions made by the 52% of this country who happen to be female, you may want to contribute some knowledge to the dames.

Less denigration, more derivatives.

Pi, pi, pi, pi, pi
3.14159
I like mine with lots of Wine
Pecan, Apple, all divine
Expanding that bottom line. (TM)

This is one (of many) iterations of my pi song, sung each time I bake pies. As LBJ would say, share early, share often.

Careful what you tell your children. They will believe you . . . until they realize you’re full of SH*T. And then they’ll choose your nursing home.

Photo Credit

It’s Not the Size of (the School Day), It’s What You Do With It.

katemckeon — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 15:18:24 +0000

What would you do if you had another hour everyday? Could you get more done? How would you spend that time? In Chicago, the parents are raising money so their kids can spend an additional 1 hour a day at school. At a cost of $385 per student, per year, that breaks down to $2.13 per hour – the base wage of a waitress.

So parents who would otherwise be paying for childcare would save money by keeping the children at the school. To implement this district wide, Chicago parents would have to find $280 Million, but at $385 a child that is well within reach for some neighborhoods and decidedly out of reach in others. Can they bridge that gap?

When the Robin Hood plan took effect in Texas in 1989, we fought it vigorously and were able to stall it through other programs that would answer the original need without being as costly as Robin Hood itself (administrators were magically making 40% of tax dollars for education disappear, poof!). One of those programs was a school adoption program.

“Wealthy” school districts adopted “poor” school districts. The adoption meant that literally the wealthy school district shared it’s tax base with the poor school district, but there were two elements to the program that made this work, WELL.

1. The School districts cross trained teachers and administrators. Noodle on this for a moment, we actually let school districts running efficiently and effectively share best practices with school districts (many of whom were) not running efficiently. The wealthy school districts tended to have better management, because the local tax base demanded it. In the cases I studied, the wealthy school districts were running with fewer staff per student dollar being spent.

They were simply spending money on the right staff. And the “poor” school districts got to benefit from those best practices.

2. The warm fuzzy part, we also exchanged students. Delegations from each school swapped schools for a week each. We learned about each other and shared how we do things and learned how other kids do things. This served two purposes – we learned that kids are kids are kids, no matter where you go and we increased awareness of needs. For some of the wealthy kids it was life changing. If you’ve only ever heard about food stamps and you’ve never known someone who was actually on them . . . you have a very different perspective than when you meet a cool kid who you find out comes to school hungry. It can rock your world.

It was also eye-opening for the “poor” school district kids to see how much the “rich” kids work, everyday. The barriers of “that group” is just lazy fell away. The person-to-person connection was far more effective than the check from the State could ever be.

We improved both schools and the children’s lives.

This is what responsibility is all about. Caring for each other – locally. The state will never care for you like a neighbor can. Love thy neighbor.

Photo: Jose Kevo

Getting the Scoop on Entrepreneurship Early

katemckeon — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 18:14:15 +0000

A new program at Milford High School in upstate NY has opened the doors of entrepreneurship to students in grades 9-12. The students are building their own businesses and interacting with local business owners.

This is a brilliant way to encourage growth!

These students have the rare opportunity to understand and appreciate the economic drivers of our country first hand. This is the type of learning we can support.

Not only will these kids start to get an understanding of the complexities of having their own business, but also they get to see first hand that business owners – the media term – are not evil/corrupt/stealing/mean/abusive, or any of the other things that certain elements of our media elite say about us to spread discontent.

This has educational and political consequences. The more we do to bring the ownership mentality to kids the less of a stranglehold the far left has on their fabulously optimistic, energetic young minds. We’re fighting for gray matter here!

Sophomore Tim Borggreen, 16, said he heard about the class at the end of last year and jumped at the chance to participate.

“It will open up a whole new door on what I can do in my life,” he said.

He said he hopes to start his own garage and customize cars in the future, adding that “this will give me an idea about what I can expect.”

Inspiring dreams is best when those dreams are within reach. Getting kids excited about creating the next YouTube/Facebook/Google is not productive. Yes, it is possible, but Tim Borggreen has it right. Focus on what he can do based on what he knows now. As his skills grow so too will his dreams. Providing the business acumen he needs now to see his current dreams as a reality is what takes him from the employee class and puts him in the owner class. Even if he is an employee for years to come . . .

That mindset shift is important to inspire.

Does your community have an entrepreneurship program for high school kids?

For more on the Milford class

Education Issues: Peer Effects?

katemckeon — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 20:42:09 +0000

The gadflies at Fordham are stirring the pot again. Mike Petrilli takes issue with a recent statement from Kevin Welner, “(Tracking student progress) is a destructive practice that has the undeniable effect of lowering expectations and opportunities for students who have already fallen behind.” As far as Mr. Welner is concerned the debate is closed….

But ask any teacher of merit and I bet you’ll get a very different take. I track my students religiously. Better yet, I have them track themselves, rigorously.

At the beginning of each course students are informed how and WHY they must track themselves. Granted, I’m working primarily with adults, but when conveyed properly, tracking provides insight in to a process for improvement. We must teach children to understand their education, not just how to do the multiplication tables, but the value to be earned by doing so efficiently. In the short term, the value is test performance, in the long term, the value is enhanced contribution to society, earning power, or perhaps more powerful, avoiding the embarrassment of being the dumbest person in the room….

Mike Petrilli lucidly explains why Mr. Welner’s open/closed statement is a complete crock. And then goes on to enhance the debate:

But here’s where the debate—and the evidence—is still totally up for grabs: is pushing more kids into these higher classes (he mentions Advanced Placement classes) truly a cost-free reform? Are we sure that it doesn’t harm higher-achieving students, who might be slowed down by having peers that are coming into their class less prepared?

As I mentioned the other day, rigorous “peer effects” research by economists like Caroline Hoxby indicates that high achieving students benefit from being around other high achieving students. The trick is that, to a point, low-achieving students benefit from being around higher-achieving students too.

To a point, low-achieving students make great gains surrounded by higher-achieving students. But there is a tip within a class – at a certain quantity of lower-achieving students, the median falls (the mean falls either way, it’s when the median falls that we have big trouble). A number of factors change as the average of the class falls. Teacher ability to infotain the full spectrum of students, intra-class attitudes, depth and breadth of material that can be covered . . .

Students know when someone doesn’t belong in the class. One person is not likely to be resented . . .

. . . 4 low students will be.

Those are students who in some cases are taking the spots of other mid-high achieving students who are closer in capabilities. That’s enough to tilt the AP Calculus class to pre-cal or calculus lite.

On more than one occasion I have had to back-off a lesson plan to accommodate particularly weak students even though ALL of my students are within a fairly narrow band of high-achievers. This is wholly unsatisfying as a teacher. My best students deserve the best. Having multiple levels of students in the “high-achieving” curriculum is destructive to our students at the top.

Allowing lower-achieving students to join high-achieving classes is a social experiment with repercussions in education. Not the other way around. Why should a star student be held back by someone who has not earned his/her way into the class?

But, the debate is open and I am open to feedback. If there is a way to optimize student experience, I’m all ears. Please leave your thoughts below.

See the full text of Mike’s article on education research.

Education Issues: Cuts to Classtime is Unacceptable Way to Cut Costs

katemckeon — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 15:46:31 +0000

Reprint in full from education.change.org

>>>>>>

One of the highest ranking education officials in America has told Hawaii they’re going in the wrong direction by reducing the number of school days, and that the state and union need to put their personal agendas aside to help their students. Peter Cunningham, the assistant secretary for communications and outreach at the Department of Education, explained that shortening the school year by 17 days is an unacceptable way to cut costs: “There are lots of ways to do this, the one way you shouldn’t do it is by cancelling class time.”

As we reported in October, Hawaii was been forced to cut the school year as the state continues to suffer the effects of the economic crisis. Cunningham says that school days are already too short, and standards are not high enough. Further cuts to teaching time is only going to exacerbate the problem. Parents recognize the essential investment that children constitute, and the necessity to educate them to help America compete internationally. Margaret South, a parent and President of Friends of Niu Valley, explained that “I’m hoping we realize as a country that we need to put our investments in children and their education so they can compete on a world stage.” Cunningham and other education officials are touring the U.S. to “listen and learn” as the Department of Education plans to revamp the No Child Left Behind Act. There is no surer way to leave children lagging behind that to close schools an extra 17 days a year.

Photo credit: Torres21

>>>>>>

It is possible, just possible that the biggest costs of the school district aren’t the teachers. When Dallas ISD laid their books open some 20 years ago (Robin Hood Plan was threatening Texas), it became obvious that the increasing layers of administration were eating the school budgets more than the cost of the teachers. Not only were there no efficiencies to be gained by being a large school district, but also, it seemed to encourage . . . shenanigans. Systematic shenanigans.

Why aren’t we talking about the cost of administration?!?!?

Education Issues: Calling Out Bill Gates on Treating Schools Like Corporations

katemckeon — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 15:32:25 +0000

Now they’re eating their own! Mike Smith at Change.org skewers Bill Gates’ plan to provide $200 Million annually to schools willing to take on his ideas for reform. Apparently the idea of basing teacher pay on student test score performance is untenable. What I keep circling back to is this, if we are not to use test scores (never mind that we could simply fix the current flaws in the tests…), then what the blazes are we to use?

Bill Gates is smart, clever and incredibly dedicated . . . which is exactly his problem when approaching education. Despite running a very large organization, Bill hasn’t consorted with the hoi-polloi . . . ever. He wasn’t like other boys and girls growing up; he was working from the time he was 12 (give or take).

Well, most teachers and most students will never really understand that kind of dedication, that kind of insatiable curiosity, nor that work ethic. Let’s look at it another way, how many students WILL understand 80+ hour work weeks at the age of 12? How many teachers?

So yes, Gates’ plan to open mini high schools hasn’t gone as well as he’d like. But it hardly seems appropriate to attack him personally as Alan Singer does. Unimpressed by Gates’ big vision to put the best teachers’ lectures online, of Gates he explains “not only are you fool, but you are cheap fool at that.” He goes on to explain that students will suffer as a consequence of Gates’ involvement.

So here’s what Mike Smith said at Change.org:

… annual corporate results and a student’s report card are not the same thing, and believing that increasing test scores indicates a better education is misguided. Achievement is not signified solely by a report card, something the CEO-like managers coming in to run America’s schools don’t seem to understand. When we further consider the increasing importance of the arts in early-learning and cognitive development, we learn that numbers aren’t anything, and that not everything of value can or should be measured in dollars and per cents.

First, “numbers aren’t anything” are you kidding me? This fellow must be a journalist. As fascinating as it is to read and discuss news all day, someone must go design the airplanes, computers and buildings – the things you depend upon . . . and all of them use numbers. Numbers are extremely important. And that’s where we’ve fallen behind our international peers the most.

Second, everything has a cost. Direct and indirect costs are the very reason we provide education to the masses. It is not a god-given right to have someone else foot the bill for your child’s education. That is a decision we made as a country. Why? Twofold. Ultimately, it is less expensive to care for an educated population AND it is more productive for our economy to have talent for hire locally. If we had to depend on outside talent every time we wanted to design buildings, machines, highways . . . we’d be a podunk, backwoods, back water country.

The attacks are from people who put forth no solution. No solution, no credibility. And so my question to you is this – if we are not to measure progress by test scores, HOW DO WE?

What is your solution?

Photo credit: World Economic Forum

Education Issues: Performance Pay’s Effect is Weak?

katemckeon — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 15:32:25 +0000

This post was sent to me and sadly I do not have the original link. This brings up the debate between the perpetuated myth of evil business and good education as though the two must remain mutually exclusive. Which reminds me, why do we educate everyone?

Most countries don’t.

So, callous though it may be, I put forth that we educate the masses to reduce our cost of running the country – more people have the skills they need to care for themselves and to increase our potential for productivity - educated people innovate more. Okay, now, I’m not claiming we do that well, but those reasons are perfectly respectable.

from original source:

Despite $300 million being handed out to teachers as part of the Governor’s Educator Excellence Grants, the program has had an inconclusive impact on student achievement. The evaluation paints an even murkier picture in its conclusion that performance pay led to a “weakly positive, negative or negligible effect.” The money was handed out over the course of three years, given to teachers in high-poverty schools. The good news though was that teachers liked the money and liked the program, even when they didn’t win the bonus.

Diane Ravitch at EdWeek uses this study to frame a general discussion of Obama’s education policy. She fears that despite this report’s conclusions being weak, and despite a lack of evidence, too many school districts, and too many people in Obama’s administration are pushing ahead with their agenda anyway — for both performance pay and wider measures. They poke holes in studies rather than accepting their findings as inconclusive and accepting that inconclusive grounds are not grounds on which to build comprehensive and risky reforms.

Ravitch further fears that the Obama administration’s education vision is more business plan than education strategy. This is clear in many distracts with an appointment to the Chicago public schools system of an uber-technocrat who’s experience is perhaps more suited to management and business than education. Same for the new Ed Tech director, who many fear is too close to business. These people are keen on helping run schools as better businesses and ensure the money that is available is spent well, but Diane Ravitch is right to be discouraged by educational leaders shunning evidence in the hope that half-blind drastic reform will lead to higher quality teaching.

Photo credit: Ed Yourdon

MY TAKE

Are you joking, you’ve measure results over 3 years? You have the same teachers in the same districts, there isn’t much ability to demonstrate results. The point of paying teachers more – despite, I agree weak evidence that higher teacher pay gets better student results (because of the way the studies are designed to MEASURE that… ahem), is to draw talent to the field of teaching who would otherwise not teach.

Here’s the short term problem: Teacher Unions.

The Unions have been the drivers behind keeping strict “standards” of teaching, which appear to be based more on willingness to acquiesce to the union’s status quo and less on excellence. If you have time and talent to teach, but not a certificate of teacher-ship, which is really just a trumped up piece of paper saying you endured pedagogy lessons from someone who’s only ever taught pedagogy (think about that for a moment – it’s like having a virgin teaching sex ed), you can’t get into teaching. You are specifically excluded.

And really, if you have talent, you look a the pay scale and think . . . gee whiz, I could teach for $45,000/year (tops) working 60 hours a week, putting up with whiny parents, the politic of school boards, and other assorted irritations, or I could be a scientist/business owner/private tutor where the market sets my rate.

The unions block talent. The unions have outlived their useful lives in the profession of teaching. Instead of creating value they create overhead and prevent local communities from responding to the communities’ needs.