Click. Connect. Learn.

All posts in bad education journalism

Nicholas Kristof, Olly Neal, Stealing Books, and Good Teaching

In his most recent Sunday column, Nicholas Kristof again wades into discussing education. This week, Kristof discusses the story of Olly Neal; When Neal was in high school in the 50's, he described himself as a "troubled high school senior" turned reader turned law student turned judge turned member of the Arkansas Court of Appeals.

Kristof opens his piece with a link to a study that used value-added methodology to determine that good elementary school teachers can make a difference.

He then goes on to the story of Olly Neal - and the story of Olly Neal is a great story.

Earlier in his high school career - as recounted in the Kristof article, Olly Neal

remembers reducing his English teacher, Mildred Grady, to tears.

“I was not a nice kid,” he recalls. “I had a reputation. I was the only one who made her cry.”

Later in his high school career, Neal cut another teacher's class and went into the school library, where Mildred Grady also worked. While there, he saw a book with a picture of a scantily clad woman on the cover - The Treasure of Pleasant Valley by Frank Yerby - and, as he didn't want to be known as someone who actually checked out books from the library, he stole the book. He brought it home, read it, and loved it, and returned to the library, where he found another Yerby novel.

And he stole that too.

And then, another.

And then, another.

According to the story on NPR about Olly Neal, Neal "read four of Yerby's books that semester — checking out none of them."

Later, at one of his high school reunions, Grady let Neal know that the supply of Yerby books was no accident. As described in the NPR story:

"She told me that she saw me take that book when I first took it," Neal said.

"She said, 'My first thought was to go over there and tell him, boy, you don't have to steal a book, you can check them out — they're free.'

"Then she realized what my situation was — that I could not let anybody know I was reading."

Grady told Neal she decided that if he was showing an interest in books, "she and Mrs. Saunders would drive to Memphis and find another one for me to read — and they would put it in the exact same place where the one I'd taken was."

And this is one of the ways that great teaching manifests itself: in meeting a kid where they are at, and by providing them opportunities that they are able to reach. At times, great teaching also means taking a look at the rules that are in place, and understanding that the potential success of one particular kid means breaking or ignoring those rules.

Kristof takes the story of Olly Neal and attempts to bend it to support a preconceived narrative.

The implication is that we need rigorous teacher evaluations, more pay for good teachers and more training and weeding-out of poor teachers.

Unfortunately, this interpretation doesn't align with Olly Neal's story. In fact, Olly Neal's story illustrates the weaknesses of the exact types of evaluations that Kristof celebrates.

Mildred Grady was interacting with Neal in her role as a librarian, not in a teaching capacity. In a value-added assessment, Neal's other teachers - and NOT Grady - would receive the credit for any improvements made by Neal.

In fairness, Kristof also says, "there are no silver bullets to chip away at poverty or improve national competitiveness, improving the ranks of teachers is part of the answer." But, no one is really arguing that. We can burn that straw man. This is about the same as someone declaring, "Reducing poverty is predicted to improve the nation's financial well-being."

Of course good teachers are part of the answer. And, of course, fair and rigorous teacher evaluations are part of the process of determining what makes teachers more effective. But, the successes of Mildred Grady - and the thousands of teachers who do similar things in difficult situations - don't fit into the types of evaluations that are being pushed as the cornerstones for measuring teacher effectiveness. Driving to Memphis to buy books for one kid to steal doesn't translate directly into a kid having success on the scantron - but this type of thoughtful, targeted attention is essential to the success of individual people.

I recently talked with another teacher who works in a high poverty school. This teacher works in special education, and their school has been on the cusp of not making Adequate Yearly Progress (or AYP) for several years.

In this teacher's class, there were three children who were on the verge of passing the test. Two of these children had diagnosed special needs, and had a primary language other than English. A third student also had a diagnosed special need and had a primary language other than English, but also had a physical disability, was on the free and reduced lunch program, and had been placed in foster care.

This teacher's principal approached the classsroom teacher around six weeks before the test with some explicit instructions: focus on the kid with the physical disability, and don't worry about the other two.

This administrator had done the math: according to the metric that determined a school's progress, the school would get more points toward AYP if the one student with more pronounced learning disabilities passed than if the other two students passed. In short, if the one kid passed and the other two failed, the school would look better on paper. This administrator had broken down the math on a class by class basis, and was giving his teachers - schoolwide - instructions on how to "succeed."

The teacher, who had tenure, told the administrator where to go. The teacher paid for this "disobedience" in the form of less than stellar evaluations.

So, when people like Nick Kristof call for more rigorous teacher evaluations, we need to be clear that one aspect of tying teacher evaluations to test scores leads to some people attempting to game the system.

Nick Kristof justly celebrated the creativity and caring of Mildred Grady. What types of evaluation measure the excellence of people like her? Portfolio-based professional development comes to mind as one option, but accurate, reliable, rigorous teacher evaluations involves improved education policy.

Improved education policy needs to look at education, poverty, and health as equally important elements to be addressed.

What Nicholas Kristof Leaves Out: Discussing the Value of Teachers

Nicholas Kristof has a piece in today's NY Times titled The Value of Teachers. In this piece he points to a recent comprehensive study that looks at the earning gains for students who have "good" teachers.

The money quote comes in the third paragraph:

That’s right: A great teacher is worth hundreds of thousands of dollars to each year’s students, just in the extra income they will earn.

Kristof buries the fact that the study is based on value-added methodology and conflates student performance on test scores with good teaching. He alludes to value-added in the 11th paragraph, but never actually addresses the fact that test scores and value added analysis aren't infallible.

Ms. Powaga - Fifth Grade, an Oasis in the Desert

The study authors (and this piece shouldn't detract from the worth and value of the study, which merits a read) are clear on this, even though Kristof is not. The executive summary (pdf download) of the study leads with a discussion of value added analysis:

Researchers have not reached a consensus about the accuracy and long-term impacts of VA because of data and methodological limitations.

The researchers conclude that, for their study, value-added analysis is a valid tool, as they look at over a million students from 4th grade to adulthood. As I said earlier, the study is a good read.

However, in his article on the study, Kristof uses false equivalencies:

Conversely, a very poor teacher has the same effect as a pupil missing 40 percent of the school year. We don’t allow that kind of truancy, so it’s not clear why we should put up with such poor teaching.

Truancy and the quality of a teacher are two very separate things. Conflating them here serves a rhetorical purpose (truancy = bad; bad teaching = truancy) but aside from being an interesting rhetorical gimmick, it just doesn't make sense.

The piece also commits one of the standard mistakes made in many pieces about teacher quality: it assumes that there is an objectively "good" teacher that will work for every kid in every class. The reality is (and people who have worked in school with kids can attest to this) different teachers connect with different kids. Sally's great teacher will be Jimmy's average teacher. We're dealing with human beings here, and human experiences differ.

However, the main (intentional?) oversight in the piece is the complete inattention to the elephant in the room in the school reform debate. If a kid comes from an upper middle class or higher in the socioeconomic ladder, they will attend one of the best schools in the world, in the United States Public School System. The "crisis" in public education is not present in high-rent zip codes. So, when we talk about the problems facing public education, let's situate them honestly. They are connected to issues of poverty, and issues of health, and in many cases, to problems surrounding food insecurity.

Kristof alludes to the importance of poverty, but then dismisses the importance of the issue as something that can be undone by good teachers:

we need an array of other antipoverty measures as well, especially early childhood programs. But the evidence is now overwhelming that even in a grim high-poverty school, some teachers have far more impact on their students than those in the classroom next door.

In the piece, Kristof declares that the problems facing education have an "obvious" solution:

The obvious policy solution is more pay for good teachers, more dismissals for weak teachers.

Wouldn't it be awesome if it was that simple? Unfortunately, the realist in me has a hard time believing that poverty and inequal access to quality education can be solved just by giving good teachers a raise. Until we start talking about education, poverty, and health together, as three related issues, the "obvious" solutions will obscure our vision of the hard challenges we need to overcome.

And part of that discussion needs to include what happens to education when good teachers are forced to work under the limits of bad policy.

Image Credit: "Ms. Powaga - Fifth Grade, an Oasis in the Desert" taken by Michael 1952, published under an Attribution license.

Khan Academy Is Better Than (Most Of) The Writing About Khan Academy

I've been spending some time recently looking at Khan Academy from a few different angles. This is something I probably should have done earlier, but I was so put off by some of the writing about Khan Academy that I almost made the mistake of discarding the subject because of the ill-formed praise directed at it. And this would have been unfortunate, because there is a lot to like about Khan Academy.

Facepalm

But getting into Khan Academy can be difficult if you actually read about it first, because many of the writers who attempt to cover Khan Academy invariably use Khan Academy as a vehicle for some other narrative about education.

From the Huffington Post:

Khan says his personal view is that "teachers unions don't act in the interest of most teachers. Many of the best teachers I know are being laid off because their unions value seniority over intellect, passion, creativity and drive."

Quotations like this - quotations that fetishize youth, and perpetuate the myth that an experienced teacher can't be intellectually curious, passionate, creative, or driven - really don't help. Generalizations about any profession are bound to be inaccurate. The fact that Salman Khan can make good videos shouldn't delude anyone into thinking he knows about teacher professional development, or the craft of working with kids.

We get this gem from Fast Company:

As thousands of college students graduate with no hope for employment, and the United States continues to lag behind others in math and science, citizens will be seeking some type of change. Perhaps Khan’s proposals are as likely as any.

This quotation is notable because it perpetuates the narrative that US scores are failing wholesale, and it embeds this narrative in an otherwise worthless puff piece on Khan Academy.

But, as we see here, if we actually look at the effect of socioeconomic status, the kids of rich people in the US get a great education. It's only the poor folks who get shortchanged.

One of the more notable articles about Khan comes from Clive Thompson at Wired. In the interest of brevity, I limited myself to only selecting one quotation from this article, but really, it is sufficiently bad to be worthy of several posts shredding its nearly infinite inadequacies.

Reformers today, by and large, believe student success should be carefully tested, with teachers and principals receiving better pay if their students advance more quickly and getting canned if they fall behind. They’re generally in favor of privately run charter schools and hotly opposed to the seniority rules of the teachers’ unions, if not the existence of unions altogether.

This quotation perpetuates the falsehood that all people looking to improve schools see unions as the problem, and more testing, more charter schools, and merit pay as the solution. It's unclear whether this fallacy is executed due to bad writing, intellectual laziness, or utter cluelessness about the educational landscape, but, for example, the folks at the Save Our Schools March are clearly interested in reform, yet share none of the attributes cited by Mr. Thompson.

But here's the thing: despite the hype machine in place behind Sal Khan, what he has created is actually better than the hype lets on. It's also different than the hype; the people hyping it are missing some of the better aspects of Khan Academy.

Over the next few days, I'll be putting out some additional posts looking at other aspects of Khan Academy. As I said earlier, the low quality of much of the writing about Khan Academy almost dissuaded me from looking at it altogether, and that would have been a mistake.

For those of you looking for examples of good writing about Khan Academy, look no further than Audrey Watters over at Hack Education. Her recent post, as well as her past writings on Khan, provide a good overview.

Image Credit: "Facepalm" taken by Santiago García Pimentel, published under an Attribution Non-Commercial ShareAlike license.

Bad Education Coverage, NY Times Edition

A NY Times piece, published April 9th, titled The Deadlocked Debate Over Education Reform, provides today's example of bad education journalism. The premise of the piece is solid, if a bit clichéed: discussions around education reform have become polarized to the point where progress is difficult to achieve. This is not inaccurate, and similar claims could be made for many other political issues.

This story, however, is weakened because the author attemts to reduce the topic into manageable chunks by creating a false frame around the issue.

False frame: there are reformers, and there are those who are against reform.

Framed Sunset

Once a false frame is dropped around a story, people can be neatly defined by the terms of the frame, and it will sound coherent, and logical. However, it will be false and misleading, because the terms of the frame are inaccurate, incomplete, and/or misrepresent the beliefs of people.

Within education, people want different things. There are people and organizations who are pro-charter schools. There are people who believe that non-unionized teachers will provide school administrators more flexibility to solve problems. There are people and orgnizations who believe that measuring teacher performance against standardized tests, and issuing merit pay based on those tests, will improve education. There are people and organizations who want assessments of student learning to look at more than just standardized tests, and at the development of higher level skills that are difficult to measure with standardized testing instruments. There are people and organizations who believe that social issues like poverty and the growing gap between the rich and the poor have an outsized and measurable impact on learning outcomes.

And the list goes on. All of these people are working for reform and change. They define this reform and change differently, but there are no "reformers" or "critics of the reform movement." - the author of the NY Times piece actually calls Diane Ravitch a "critic of the reform movement", a stunning misrepresentation of her viewpoints.

Most importantly, though: people with these differing viewpoints all actually care about kids. People with these differing viewpoints all want our educational system to improve. Using a false frame frees a writer from exploring the depths of an issue, and misses the actual key to how we can move through gridlock: once we start to respect the basis of other points of view, we can work together to find islands of common ground, and craft solutions from disagreements.

However, with a false frame, one viewpoint is elevated above others, and given a greater legitimacy. Via the magic of the false frame, one vision of school change is granted the status of true reform, and differing viewpoints can only be defined relative to the one "true" viewpoint. By falsely reducing the intellectual playing field to one viewpoint defending itself against counter-positions, the shape of the actual discussion changes. Differing opinions become "counter-narratives." Jon Stewart's deconstruction of some of these arguments can now be relegated to a corner of the partisan fray.

Fortunately, the actual discussion is richer than what the media understands, or at least what the media writes about. It would be nice, however, to see journalists covering education who actually understood education, or who made the time to tell the complete story.

Image Credit: "Framed Sunset" taken by Sudhamshu Hebbar, published under an Attribution license.

When Data Does Nothing Useful

It looks like the folks over at Oregon Capitol News published all the salaries of every Portland Public School employee under this breathless heading:

Ever wondered how much Portland Public School employees make? Oregon Capitol News now provides a searchable database of employee salaries from Portland Public Schools.

I admire their restraint in not using any exclamation points.

So now, you can find out exactly how much teachers make, and, depending on your political/social leanings, you can say either, "Did you see that Ms Jones makes X a year? Just another example of wasteful government spending," or, "Did you see that Ms Jones makes X a year? Teachers don't get paid anything. Why would anybody go into a profession where you are subjected to long working hours, endless criticism, armchair quarterbacking, and a crappy salary?"

No, the former football coach at Portland's Lincoln High doesn't make $140,000 a year | OregonLive.com

However, one small problem. The folks at Oregon Capitol News got it wrong. They published inaccurate data. And to make matters worse, they don't appear to admit it, or to take any responsibility.

This is an amateur's mistake, and it's one that calls the overall accuracy of what they are attempting to do into question. Anybody working with datasets of any size knows that you need to vet the data you are given for accuracy, reliability, and any one of countless abnormalities that arise from the reality that data takes work to keep in a usable form. Posting this data without any context (like the pay scale? Like job descriptions?) is sloppy. Posting it with inaccuracies, and then denying any accountability for the accuracy of what you publish compounds the problem, and reduces or eliminates the usefulness of the data you release.

And, as there is more of a push toward big data journalism, these types of sloppy mistakes need to be eliminated.

Also of interest: the Oregonian's "reporting" on this story comes complete with a picture with the following caption:

Lincoln High fans are passionate about their Cardinals. But could they pull strings to make a teacher and former winning coach one of the highest paid employees in the Portland district?

The answer to this rhetorical question is, of course, no. That's the point of the article. That's the mistake they are actually reporting on. But, by including incorrect information as a question, they create the impression that maybe, just maybe, those nefarious schools are pulling strings to get Special Advantages (™). I don't know whether this falls under the category of outright dishonesty or a feeble attempt to make a story more sensational by stirring up the fears of a system gone awry. In any case this type of misinformed slop is also not really surprising, because it's published by an education writer in the Oregonian.

Press Release RE Education Nation, to go out 27 September

Dear NBC Studios - thank you for the advance notice on this press release. We will gladly reprint this in our blog. Can't wait to see Education Nation! Keep up the great work!

Press release below:

Following up on the success of Education Nation, NBC's Brian Williams will be convening two additional panel discussions.

The first - Neurosurgery Nation - will look at recent advances and areas for improvement within neurosurgery. The speakers list will be finalized soon, but leading representatives from the American Psychological Association and the Modern Language Association have been invited to participate. If you are interested in participating, please contact NBC directly.

The second panel discussion - The Future of American Journalism - will be staffed by a herd of wildebeests. Some have questioned the participation of wildebeests in a panel discussion of American journalism, as wildebeests are not native to America. However, as Jeff Zucker recently assured us during his appearance on the O'Reilly Factor, "The opinions of wildebeests on the future of journalism are nearly as relevant as the opinions of a coterie of business people, politicians, journalists, and edupreneurs on the state of education."

Syndicate content