(HT: Carpe Diem for 1 & 2)
3. A Forbes article about an online tutor bot, Knewton - This article has links to even more online resources.
Check your FoxNews lineup and set your DVR to record John Stossel’s recent education special, Stupid in America. If you know when it will next air, let me know and I’ll provide an update.
It originally aired last weekend. I watched it tonight. It’s worth watching. He covers teachers unions, union bosses, firing teachers, the Washington DC school district, charter schools and Khan Academy.
In an interview, one union boss, who represented a district with bad student test scores, assured us that he knows his kids are learning because “he can see it in their eyes.” Now that’s compelling stuff. I certainly think there are numerous issues with test scores as a measure of teacher performance, but I much prefer those over what this man sees in his students eyes.
This same union leader defended bad teachers from being fired (I’m paraphrasing): It would be a tremendous cost and a major adjustment for the teacher. We need to seek professional development opportunities for that teacher.
lol? I did.
I find it strange that we should have to train teachers to be teachers (isn’t that what they were supposed to do before they became a teacher?) to prevent them from not being a teacher. I also find it strange how a trade that’s based so strictly on credentialing (e.g. education certification), would then want to take on the expense of the training the teacher what he or she apparently didn’t learn before. With that logic, why require credentials at all? Just let anyone come in and they will be trained.
Of course, this union boss believes training will be the antidote. What if the teacher doesn’t want to teach? Why not free up the spot for someone who does?
Another union boss proclaimed that he would try to physically prevent people from going to charter schools in “our” (meaning teacher union) buildings. Excuse me, aren’t those the taxpayers’ buildings? I didn’t realize that the teachers union now owns their buildings as well.
As Stossel so aptly put it in the show, much of what is wrong with education is that we have “adult fools” running things.
Stossel also showed lots of signs of progress education.
In the Wall Street Journal Opinion Weekend, Jason Riley asks Bill Gates, Was the $5 billion Worth It?
Bill Gates, through his charitable foundation, has sought ways to improve education for 10 years and has failed to produce results.
In this paragraph, Gates seems to rely on some data to back his position:
“We have heavy union states and heavy right-to-work states, and the educational achievement of K-12 students is not at all predicted by how strong the union rules are,” he says. “If I saw that [right-to-work states like] Texas and Florida were running a great K-12 system, but [heavy union states like] New York and Massachusetts have really messed this up, then I could draw a correlation and say it’s either got to be the union—or the weather.”
Immediately following, however, is this paragraph:
Mr. Gates’s foundation strongly supports a uniform core curriculum [i.e. one-size-fits-all] for schools. “It’s ludicrous to think that multiplication in Alabama and multiplication in New York are really different,” he says. He also sees common standards as a money-saver at a time when many states are facing budget shortfalls. “In terms of mathematics textbooks, why can’t you have the scale of a national market? Right now, we have a Texas textbook that’s different from a California textbook that’s different from a Massachusetts textbook. That’s very expensive.”
Nor does he see the need for competition among state standards. “This is like having a common electrical system. It just makes sense to me.”
So, with unions he relies on data to see if they have any effect on quality. Yet he seems to want to whack out competition and innovation of curriculum without evidence to support that this would actually drive improvement in education quality. It just makes sense to him.
I’ve seen quite a few decisions made by folks that just made sense. They learned shortly thereafter why it didn’t make sense.
I was disappointed the article didn’t mention Gates’ involvement with the Khan Academy. Ultimately, as with any other market that has evolved over the past few centuries to deliver amazing products, bottoms-up innovation and competition is what drove it. Khan Academy is disruptive.
Top-down innovation rarely works and often causes massive failures.
The article made it appear like Gates kind of knows this, but he’s too timid to upset the existing rent-seeking constituencies in the education establishment.
As said by Bill Gates. He might be right.
Thanks to Arnold Kling on EconLog for posting a link to this excellent TED video:
Here are some of my thoughts.
I’m glad to hear school teachers are trying to figure out how to use and integrate the Khan Academy videos into their programs. I expected them to see Khan’s work as competition and try to use government to limit access to the site.
At the very least, I thought we’d hear criticism from the establishment that this guy is not a trained and credentialed educator or that he’s not an educational expert or that his videos don’t really work. So far, I haven’t heard any of that. It’s tough to argue with his results.
This is a black swan.
At about the 8th minute, Khan describes the traditional classroom:
…homework-lecture-homework-lecture-homework-snapshot exam. And then whether you get a 70%, 80%, 90% or 95%, the class moves onto the next topic.
Even the 95% student, what’s that 5% that he missed?
That’s analogous to learning to ride a bicycle where I give you a lecture, give a bike to you for a couple weeks and then come back and evaluate you. You can’t quite stop, you can’t make left turns. You’re an 80% bicyclist. I put a “C” stamp on your forehead and then I give you a unicycle.
You fast forward and you see smart students start to struggle because they have these Swiss cheese gaps that kept building.
That reminded me of my own experience. I was a reasonably good math student. When I entered college I signed up to tutor algebra. The rigor of the tutor training made me realize that I had Swiss cheese gaps in my skills, like Khan mentioned. But, that training filled in those gaps and helped me considerably in other courses. I remember thanking that rigorous tutor training out loud while taking a few exams in the weed-out physics courses.
Our model is learn math the way you learn anything. The way you learn to ride a bicycle. Stay on that bicycle. Fall off that bicycle. Do it as long as necessary until you have mastery.
Next, Khan articulates amazingly well a problem I have recognized with our education model, but have struggled to explain it:
The traditional model penalizes you for experimentation and failure, but does not expect mastery [e.g. time to move onto next subject even if you only mastered 90% of the last one].
We encourage you to experiment. We encourage you to fail. But we do expect mastery.
That is excellent.
About 14 minutes in, Khan talks about the progress students make in his model vs. the traditional model.
When you go five days into it [learning a new subject], there are a group of kids who have raced ahead and a group of kids who are a little bit slower.
In the traditional model, you do the snapshot assessment. You say these are the gifted kids and these are the slow kids. You say things like maybe we should put them in different classes.
But, when you let every student work at their own pace, we see it over and over and over again, you see students who took a little bit extra time on one concept or the other, but once they get through that concept they just race ahead.
So the same kids you thought were slow six weeks ago, you now would think are gifted.
It makes you wonder if a lot of the labels that maybe many of us have benefited from were really just due to a coincidence of time.