Who will tell you that your utopian school-improvement gambit has been tried before?

Jack Schneider is the star of Amy Scott’s Marketplace piece last Friday on the XQ competition to redesign high schools:

[P]eople have tried to reinvent high school before.

“That idea is as old as students sitting in desks and a teacher lecturing at the front of the classroom,” said education historian Jack Schneider, an assistant professor at the College of the Holy Cross.

In the mid-20th century there was a movement to make high schools much bigger, with more courses from which to choose, Schneider said. Fifty years later, people decided high schools were too big. The Gates Foundation spent $1 billion promoting smaller schools. Neither was a smashing success.

High school is far from perfect, Schneider said, but it’s been evolving all along.

I could also point out the idea of computer literacy as a fifth “R” in A Nation at Risk (1983) — something Mayor deBlasio probably is unaware of — let alone the New American Schools Development Corporation created under President George H.W. Bush, the Coalition of Essential Schools founded by Ted Sizer, and so forth. Laurene Powell Jobs may succeed where others have stumbled, but we should not ignore the fact that high schools have changed over time, and others have likewise had utopian visions for school redesign.

Today, we also have Stephen Sawchuk’s article on the decline of history of education courses in teacher education programs. Which raises the question, if courses and jobs in the field are declining, where will historians of education be when the next ahistorical proposal for education reform comes down the pipeline?1 I have a (paywalled) article from earlier this year, Prophet or Fool: The Professional Position and Role of Historians of Education, and the brief answer is, less from inside colleges of education and more from outside colleges of education. Jack is in a liberal-arts college with a liberal-arts education curriculum, like another Jack historian of education, others are in history departments, and others who write with an historical perspective are journalists such as Audrey Watters and Dana Goldstein.

Those of us who care about new scholars in the history of education need to prepare the next generation of scholars to be able to migrate across fields, and those of us who care about ongoing scholarship in the field must value good work wherever it comes from.

Notes

  1. There is the other question: in a world where our courses and jobs are declining, why are we still portrayed as the Saruman of teacher ed? []

Kudos to the U.S. Department of Education

Hold onto that blog entry title, folks — it’s going to be pretty rare around these parts. Two events this weekend justify the praise:

  1. The Saturday-morning release of institution-level data on loans, paybacks, income, and other data, including some data specific to Pell-grant recipients. Even more to its credit, the department made tools available so that other organizations such as ProPublica could create their own interfaces. This comes two years after announcing that the Administration wanted to create a rating-and-ranking system for colleges and universities. I was against it at the time, and I am delighted that not only did the Obama administration back away from the rating-and-ranking idea, but demonstrated how it didn’t need the “crack cocaine of today’s generation of education reformers” (my language from 2013). As Sara Goldrick-Rab noted, this data release is not a panacea, but it’s a great start.
  2. The clever shifting of FAFSA tax-record information today to a prior-prior-year basis — that is, students entering college in 2016 only need their or their parents’ 2015 taxes (which are already filed) rather than 2016 taxes, which would have been the case without today’s change. Why is it clever? It only required changing the timeline so that those who expect to be students in fall 2016 can start filing the FAFSA next month–previously, FAFSA (and student-need calculations) were only available beginning in January. Again, shifting the tax-year basis for student aid is a big step — and just one step — in addressing the nightmares many students face with financial aid. But it’s still a big step.

Why a state supreme court struck down a charter-school law

A week ago, the Washington State Supreme Court ruled that the use of common-school funds for charter schools violated the state constitution, and that the state’s 2012 charter-school law as a whole was invalidated as a consequence. I think some charter-school supporters are a bit emotional, from Rick Hess to Robin Lake. Lake went further than Hess and suggested that judicial campaign donations from the Washington Education Association essentially rigged the decision: “most of the judges accepted campaign contributions from the Washington Education Association, the state’s biggest teachers’ union—and also the plaintiff.”

Continue reading “Why a state supreme court struck down a charter-school law”

Causation cadge

Note: this post is a sort of mental marker, as I am partway thinking through a particular issue and do not want to lose my place.

One of my colleagues, Micki Chi, has divided causal modeling into two sorts, the type with narrative structures and the type without, which she calls emergent and has some evidence is more difficult for students to learn.

Continue reading “Causation cadge”

Is the College Board trolling high schools?

This week, we had a round of news stories about how average SAT scores are at their lowest level in years. In an example of particularly weak reporting, the Washington Post‘s Nick Anderson wrote,

The steady decline in SAT scores and generally stagnant results from high schools on federal tests and other measures reflect a troubling shortcoming of education-reform efforts. The test results show that gains in reading and math in elementary grades haven’t led to broad improvement in high schools, experts say.

All those experts who are saying? Fordham Institute’s Mike Petrilli’s the only one quoted in the article on the (minimal) national average trend, other than the assessment head for the College Board, which owns the SAT.

Continue reading “Is the College Board trolling high schools?”