Why no large-scale testing of American education ideas?

RantRave.com ^ | Nov. 6, 2013 | Bruce Deitrick Price

[BruceDeitrickPrice]

So much of modern, progressive education pretends to be based on big, profound insights and massive research.

More often, bits of theory and dabs of testing are taped together and presented to the world as a mighty fortress, which on proper examination turns out to be a house of cards.

The striking fact about education is how easy it would be to test one curriculum against another, one textbook against another, and so on. You could have 1000 students on the west side of a city compete against 1000 students on the east side. There are so many millions of K-12 students, it’s easy to create the equivalent groups, matched for gender, income, IQ, ethnic origin, or anything else you want to test. A few years later, you would know with confidence that program A is superior to program B or vice versa.

You have to wonder: why is this not done?

There seems to be no comparative testing throughout public education. More crucially, there seems to be no curiosity about what such testing would show. Apparently the Education Establishment knows its favorite theories and methods won’t show up well in testing.

Here is an interesting historical fact. John Saxon, the famous textbook author and publisher, routinely challenged the Education Establishment to engage in large-scale competitions. He offered to pay all expenses. He claimed that his books would beat the Reform Math materials “by an order of magnitude." Guess what? The pretenders in charge of our public schools refused to accept Saxon’s challenge. It seems fair to say they tacitly acknowledged they would lose. (Even without this head-to-head testing, Saxon’s books were shown to be clearly superior because Saxon students signed up for further math courses at a much higher rate. They understood math and enjoyed math. Conversely, Reform Math ruins both ability and appreciation.)

So what do our official experts do instead of testing proposals in an empirical and scientific way? Basically, they concoct little ideas in little laboratories. Often, the ideas are nothing but truisms, something on the level of: if children know a little about X, they will more quickly be able to learn more about X. Different professors conduct experiments with small groups of children, and announce support for this or that aspect. The theory is propounded in ever more grandiose ways until finally every action the school takes must revolve around what students know about X. A million hours will be wasted assessing this trivial question.

Here is the common research pattern. Smith (2010) references Jones (2007), who had previously referenced Wilkens (2004). Finally, Henderson writes a book demonstrating that children learn more if they already know something, citing Wilkins, 2004; Jones, 2007; Smith, 2010. It seems as if a vast scaffolding of evidence supports this theory. You can imagine that young teachers or students in graduate school are suitably dazzled.

This example is similar to what happened in the case of Self-esteem. It’s a safe truism that if children feel good about themselves, they will be more successful in school. Does that need to be said? But the Education Establishment took this wisp of common sense, treated it as a theory that should rule the world, and used it to eliminate anything that might be difficult for anybody. (Some children can’t memorize multiplication tables? The obvious answer is that nobody should be required to do this task. Failure is just too painful and must be outlawed.)

The biggest hoax in American education was known as Look-say circa 1930 when it was introduced. The sophistry (that words could be memorized as diagrams) was not tested against phonics. In fact, what little testing there was showed that Look-say was a loser.

Years go by and Rudolf Flesch writes “Why Johnny Can’t Read” in 1955. The reading wars were begun in earnest. The appropriate thing at that point was to conduct large-scale experiments. But such tests did not happen. Instead, the professors created a propaganda organization called the International Reading Association, whose job was to smash phonics and trash Flesch. They had their answer; and the task after that was to make everything conform to the answer they had already chosen

There are two striking points. Large-scale testing is easy to do. But it’s hardly done at all. Apparently our Education Establishment selects its winners and losers in back rooms, like banana republic dictators, and then creates window dressing to justify the picks.

At this moment the Education Establishment is trying to push Common Core through, with dozens of little gimmicks hidden inside of it, none of which have been subjected to proper testing. It’s time for education to be far more scientific. Curricula should be carefully verified in large-scale test. Let’s find out what actually works, for a change.

------------------------------

JOHN SAXON--A PRAGMATIST AMONG PRETENDERS (See "The Legend of john Saxon") http://www.rightsidenews.com/2012062223739/life-and-science/health-and-education/the-legend-of-john-saxon-math-warrior.html

WHY SO MUCH QUACKERY IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS? (See: "Education Establishment are Big Pretenders") http://www.rightsidenews.com/2013032632242/life-and-science/health-and-education/education-establishment-are-great-pretenders.html

WHY SUCH CONTEMPT FOR FACTS? (See "45: The Crusade Against Knowledge") http://www.improve-education.org/id70.html

DUMBING DOWN ACHIEVED BY FAKE READING THEORY (See Samuel Blumenfeld's history of Reading Wars) http://www.ordination.org/dumbing_down.html

[Attention Surplus Disorder]

It’s all about the selling of fantasy, of utopia, that is communism/socialism, liberalism. No more, no less. The breeding of unfocused discontent with the state of affairs as they now exist HOWEVER they might exist, and the pursuit of utopianism based upon someone’s or some group of someones’ vision(s) of the future. A future you are supposed to buy from them (and so many will, reflexively) even as they mangle to death and destruction each and every thing they try to do in the present.

I reco David Horowitz’ recent speech to/at the Heritage Foundation

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-y0MtreTb4

He gets off to a sort of slow start. Stay wit’ it.

[G Larry]

Author assumes somebody actually wants it to work.....

The objective is control and liberal indoctrination.

A broad education, leading to productivity and self sufficiency is NOT the goal!

[muir_redwoods]

US education practices are tested rigorously with every class, every year.

The results are ignored.

[Born to Conserve]

To fix the education system, simply stop all forced redistribution of wealth. No more school taxes, no more student loans, no more government grants. Without subsidies, this mucked up system would die, and be replaced with a functioning one.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

You refer to Common Core, and it is interesting that Salman Khan respects Common Core, at least in the math curriculum, and is at pains to assure that his math teaching materials be a superset of Common Core math.

I am very impressed with Salman Khan, and like to think that he would not be praising CC if it were a bust.

And yet I know that many whom I also respect are contemptuous of CC.

What is your opinion?

[Little Ray]

Folks keep thinking that the education system is about “educating.” It is not.
It is about 1: Union Power and 2: Child Indoctrination.
The US education system is doing exactly the Federales intend it do; if, by some chance, the school is actually educating your kids, it is doing it despite the US Department of Education...

[Jeff Chandler]

You could have 1000 students on the west side of a city compete against 1000 students on the east side.

Don't even bother with the south side.

[huldah1776]

Testing in class inexpensively goes against the lobbying and funding of millions of dollars of “studies” with the outcome of only 20% of first time studies being replicable. Besides that when you do a study there are no winners. Can’t have kids winning these days. What they want is everyone to be equal. Trophies for all. Bringing down the standards so everyone can climb over the wall.

[colorado tanker]

We don't need testing. We know what works. It's being done right now in thousands of charter schools accross the country, many in some of the poorest neighborhoods of large cities. Denver Public Schools' test scores have been rising, but virtually all the increase has been in the charter schools.

So, if we know what works why don't the neighborhood District schools use that model? Plus, these reforms can be implemented without the massive tax increase the Education Establishment wanted. Why not? Answer: the teachers union contract won't allow it and they are not about to allow any change to their work rules and would allow it.

[Steve_Seattle]

My theory is that programs like Common Core are deliberately designed to lower overall U.S. achievement relative to the rest of the world, to foster immigration of high-skilled people into the U.S. to the detriment of native-born Americans, to destroy the traditional American role as world leaders of technological and scientific advancement, to dumb-down the American public and erase our links to our own past, and to create a proletariat, replacing the idea of landed citizenry with the idea of subjects of the state.

[Black Agnes]

We have a winner.

[BruceDeitrickPrice]

Okay, this is a good question. I also respect Salman Khan and think he will be one of our saviors.

But he is naturally eager not to pick a fight with Common Core. He wants to work with it as much as possible. Another factor is that Common Core is sometimes written very cleverly to sound flexible and intelligent. In this respect, it reminds me of Obama saying that everyone can keep their plan. If only.

So the problem with Common Core is tbat it dangles possibilities in front of people. But the tendency seems to be always toward what you don’t want and didn’t expect to happen. The commissars in DC want to have more control over what goes on in your local school. Have these people shown they will make good decisions with all that power?

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

I liked your article - but your stock really went up with your reply - I read and reread it, and find that the only way you could change it for the better might be to change where you put the paragraph breaks - you agree with me exactly at the start, then you compare CC’s promise to “If you like your plan, you can keep your plan. Period.” Congratulations on a devastating critique.

Lately I have been quoting Adam Smith a lot. And I’ve reread some of the conclusion of Theory of Moral Sentiments recently, and have begun to expand the quote I had been using from there; it just seems to tie things together for me.

The natural disposition is always to believe. It is acquired wisdom and experience only that teach incredulity, and they very seldom teach it enough. The wisest and most cautious of us all frequently gives credit to stories which he himself is afterwards both ashamed and astonished that he could possibly think of believing.

The man whom we believe is necessarily, in the things concerning which we believe him, our leader and director, and we look up to him with a certain degree of esteem and respect. But as from admiring other people we come to wish to be admired ourselves; so from being led and directed by other people we learn to wish to become ourselves leaders and directors. -  Adam Smith, Theory of Moral Sentiments

To read the bolded paragraph segment is to understand the motivation of journalists. Add to that     

People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary. - Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations (Book I, Ch 10)

and - considering that the Associated Press (and any other wire service) is nothing but an ongoing continual virtual meeting of all journalists - you have a perfect analysis of “bias in the media.”

I guess you still have to throw in Teddy Roosevelt’s “Man in the Arena” quote, and point out that journalists don’t actually do things for which they are responsible and accountable, and the fact that journalists use “objectivity” the same way that Sophists use “wisdom,” but that is the story. Makes me wonder if perchance anything in Adam Smith’s writing covers either of those two points . . .

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Let me also add that Khan has some discussions of “macroeconomic” on his site. I can discuss macroeconomics with the best of them, and in a single word -

Bunk.

[PGalt]

Thanks very much for the ping; posts, BTTT!