Education

California v. Texas

/ Matthew Clemente / 1 Comment

Okay, that wasn’t quite the proposition being debated on the Intelligence Squared podcast, but that was essentially what it boiled down to. Instead, the proposition debatined was “For A Better Future, Live In A Red State.”

Moderated by ABC News’ John Donvan, the debate featured Hugh Hewitt–radio host of The Hugh Hewitt Show–and Stephen Moore–editorial board member of The Wall Street, who argued for the motion; and Michael Lind–co-founder of New America Foundation–and Gray Davis–37th Governor of California, who argued against the motion.

Here is description of the debate:

While gridlock and division in Washington make it difficult for either party or ideology to set the policy agenda, single-party government prevails in three-quarters of the states. In 24 states Republicans control the governorship and both houses of the legislature, and in 13 states Democrats enjoy one-party control. Comparing economic growth, education, health care, quality of life and environment, and the strength of civil society, do red or blue states win out?

Revolting Against Standardized Testing

/ Gregory Clark / Leave a comment

For reasons unbeknownst to me, a reputable news source located in Washington, D.C. has removed an article from their website in the past few days; This severely harms the blog post I prepared in response. Despite their removal of the post in question, I wish to discuss the topic. As a substitute, I quickly tracked down a Fox News blurb that gives a similar impression of the topic.

The general idea is as follows: For a variety of reasons, parents and schools are opting out of standardized tests. Parents don’t want their kids to take the tests, and schools are not stopping this from happening.

Some of the reasons parents may do this:

-Prevent child’s stress induced by taking long exams.

-Boycott a system which they believe harms the school system.

-This can be either concerns raised about narrowing curricula, or

-General negative attitudes toward standards-based policies which utilize test results.

-Among other reasons; we could probably identify a host of viable rationale.

Whatever the reasons, this revolt against standardized testing has serious consequences. Here are a few things I suggest thinking about as a response to this ‘news’:

-Do you find the reasons for boycotting valid?

-Is it to protect the children from some harm inherent in the testing administration?

-Can this be interpreted as a new form of school choice?

-Is it a political action where parents are simply using their children as weapons?

 

My largest concern is from a scientific perspective.

-If some kids are not taking the test because parents are voluntarily opting them out, what are the implications for the validity of the results?

-Is it likely that kids with parents who opt out represent a specific subgroup of the population, thus making any results obtained invalid?

-Will their absence from observation impact the integrity of the test results and, by extension, policies based upon the conclusions drawn from them?

The Broader Education Policy Conversation

/ Gregory Clark / Leave a comment

The Broader Education Policy Conversation

This is a fitting post to begin a new year of blogging about (education) policy. Good policy does not only work to solve problems; it must also be vigilant in monitoring what problems exist. This notion calls us to not merely focus our attention on one problem, but to pay attention to the larger system within which we interact.

For example: If I were to pay attention solely to the uses and limitations of standardized testing in elementary schools, I may completely overlook the recent trends of racial segregation in Southern charter schools. This might happen despite any new advances in understanding whether or not Common Core is perceived as successful.

We must always be cognizant of the larger picture, being open to integrating new considerations and concerns. A holistic approach to policy is our best bet at improving the whole of our society. For me this sentiment is true of all policy, but especially education policy.

Jack Schneider, who writes the bulk of the opinion article in the above link, offers a critique of the current debates in education policy. His argument is that those engaged with education policy are too caught up in maximizing student test scores, fixing school administrations, and improving the academic credentials of their faculty. “Where is the talk of care in policy circles? Where is the talk of teachers as role models? Those are the characteristics that actually make a difference in kids’ lives”.

While I do not wish to answer the questions professor Schneider raises here in my blog post, I do want to encourage his approach to thinking about policy. We ought to be relentless in our defining what constitutes issues worth addressing in education policy. I recognize there is a division of labor among those who study and engage in education policy, but we must not focus our attention only on one cog of the machine. In between our thoughts about how the school choice movement impacts the academic achievement among low income students (if this is your drug of choice), we should pause to learn about and consider new realities which may play a role in how education is effectively delivered to the public. Maybe you’ll notice that the kindest of teachers can improve SAT scores. 

Malcolm Gladwell: College Football Should Be Banned

/ Matthew Clemente / Leave a comment

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-HNvZUIFU4]

Sunday on Fareed Zakaria GPS, Fareed interviewed author Malcolm Gladwell about his campaign to ban college football.

Here is an excerpt from the interview:

You compare football to dog fighting. Why?
Yes, I did a piece for The New Yorker a couple of years ago where I said it. This was at the time when, remember, Michael Vick, was convicted of dog fighting. And to me, that was such a kind of, and the whole world got up in arms about this. How could he use dogs in a violent manner, in a way that compromised their health and integrity?
And I was just struck at the time by the unbelievable hypocrisy of people in football, for goodness sake, getting up in arms about someone who chose to fight dogs, to pit one dog against each other.
In what way is dog fighting any different from football on a certain level, right? I mean you take a young, vulnerable dog who was made vulnerable because of his allegiance to the owner and you ask him to engage in serious sustained physical combat with another dog under the control of another owner, right?
Well, what’s football? We take young boys, essentially, and we have them repeatedly, over the course of the season, smash each other in the head, with known neurological consequences.
And why do they do that? Out of an allegiance to their owners and their coaches and a feeling they’re participating in some grand American spectacle.
They’re the same thing. And the idea that as a culture we would be absolutely quick and sure about coming to the moral boiling point over the notion that you would do this to dogs and yet completely blind to the notion you would do this to young men is, to my mind, astonishing.
I mean there’s a certain point where I just said, you know, we have to say enough is enough.

Affirmative Action After Fisher v. the University of Texas

/ Matthew Clemente / Leave a comment

Affirmative Action After Fisher v. the University of Texas

On Monday, the Supreme Court handed down Fisher v. the University of Texas  a highly anticipated affirmative action case.  In a somewhat anticlimactic decision, the High Court remanded “the case back to the lower court to apply “strict scrutiny” to the University’s admissions policy.” NPR’s Talk of the Nation discussed the future of affirmative action after Fisher.