Friday, April 16, 2010

Good Question!

Q: how many education professors does it take to run an acceptable school?

A: more than Stanford has, apparently!



hat tip to Malcolm.

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

While Stanford New School does better than most other California schools in student retention and sending them to college, the students’ standardized test scores are low.

Interesting. Maybe if they didn't retain so many kids their scores would go up?

John Thacker said...

When I read these things, it gives me warm feelings about charter schools. When regular public schools fail, they're allowed to just keep on failing.

The free market works because failure is punished.

HBanan said...

The other charter school in the neighborhood, Aspire, is doing much better. According to the article, Aspire has focused exclusively on academic performance, while the Stanford charter school has tried to help the students' emotional and personal lives as well, with teachers helping out families and spending their weekends reaching out. So apparently, all that effort from those teachers didn't help that much. At the other school, they work more on actually teaching. Hm. If you focus on teaching a subject & less on personal issues, the kids will learn the subject more. The great thing here is that the charter schools, with such different approaches, were actually able to each have it their way until the Stanford school lost its charter due to poor performance. Our public schools would have gone the Stanford way, only with less commitment, failed just like Stanford, and still have received money.

Angus said...

John and HB: I agree that this is a plus of charter schools that they are accountable in a way most regular public schools are not.

I was taking a potshot at Stanford and Education Profs, not at the charter school movement.

HBanan said...

Oh, I know! And a fine shot it was too. The entire education paradigm was tested in a real school and found -- wanting. They went with the current meme that schools can't really teach kids with messed up families, tried to teach and help the families at the same time, and got poor results in both. Meanwhile, the school that ignored the meme and just taught the subjects really well got good results.

From the statements by the interviewed Stanford & Education Profs, I think they learned exactly the wrong lesson. Instead of saying, hey our approach was wrong, they said that their perfect education system could not help these loser kids. So kids, families and teachers will continue to have the same poor result, even with the high effort. The Stanford teachers were working overtime, but their wrongheaded strategy backfired. Will they change strategies? I hope that eventually they will! But that would require an entire shift in their ideology and I just don't think that will happen. However, maybe the rising generation of idealistic teachers will take note and will be attracted to the successful schools, where they will be trained in techniques that actually work. Then instead of burning out working hard but not seeing results, they will forge great careers as successful educators.

Anonymous said...

When regular public schools fail, they're allowed to just keep on failing.

And when charter schools fail... the kids get sent back to the public schools.

If you focus on teaching a subject & less on personal issues, the kids will learn the subject more.

Or maybe they'll just be better at taking a test. Since that's what really matters here.

Anonymous said...

Do you think that test scores do not correlate strongly with a student's knowledge of the things that schools are expected to teach?

Schools need to teach math and English. Tests do a pretty good job of finding out whether kids know math and English. These skills are necessary (but not sufficient) for success in life for 99% of people. Snarky comments do not change this fact.