Education RSS feed for this section

Coming up in the Senate Education Committee on Wednesday, May 21: One Small Step Towards Proficiency-Based Learning


2. S2950: Mandates that the RI Board of Education adopt “a competency-based/proficiency-based learning policy and a model district policy designed to increase programmatic opportunities for students to earn credits through demonstrations of competency”. (S Education; Wed, May 21)

We seem to be going through a particularly acute postmodernist words-mean-whatever-you-want-them-to-mean phase of education policy right now, largely resulting from some bad ideas about how to “market” the Common Core. With that disclaimer, “proficiency-based learning” usually means that students are “promoted” once they show they’ve mastered an area of knowledge, without being required to remain at a certain “grade level” in a curriculum area for an inflexible amount of time.

Proficiency based learning, effectively implemented, could be an effective outside-of-the-box solution for a host of education problems. It’s most significant difference from factory-model education is that very concrete incentives are created for students to learn academic material and demonstrate their mastery of it as quickly as they can, so that they can spend more time advancing in the subject areas they’d prefer to study while in school, or even complete school altogether in less time.

10 News Conference Wingmen, Episode 30 (NECAPs, Right to Education, Common Core)

Justin and Bob Plain talk about standardized testing and whether school committees have a right to sue for more money from other communities.

Big Government Is a Business Model, Not a Political Philosophy

The other day, I suggested to somebody that, from a certain perspective, charter schools (and mayoral academies) are like the government’s way of cutting into the private school market.  Funded like public schools, charters are an alternative for which parents don’t have to pay if they’re lucky enough to make it through the lottery. It’s likely, therefore, that they don’t poach students just from regular district public schools, but also from local private schools, particularly the lower-cost parochial schools.

So, it was utterly without surprise that I noted this passage in a Providence Journal article today about a hard-squeezed middle-class Rhode Island family:

Danielle herself is tiring. Awake at 6:30 a.m., an hour after Josh left for work, she managed the boys’ morning routine and drove Cade at 7:30 a.m. to Blackstone Valley Prep, with his brothers riding along. Ditto the return trip, when Blackstone Valley let out at 4:15 p.m.

Of course, given that the thrust of the article is how little financial space a working family in Rhode Island has, the Maziarzes are fortunate that taxpayers are funding schools to compete in the alternative space.  They mightn’t be able to afford even low-cost private schools, or they might have to find even more ways to squeeze their budget.

This is the circumstance of young families in Rhode Island, and it’s a good indication of why they’re leaving.  In another state, with lower costs and more opportunities, the family might have no trouble covering private school tuition… or even trusting their local public schools for their educational needs.

Instead, we patch a broken system with some schools that evade some of the more egregious of the government-imposed burdens.  The danger is that the tear will spread.  One conceivable future may find all private schools that aren’t targeted at the most elite of families going out of business because fewer families have enough disposable income and because the government is aggressively moving into their market space.

Then the interests that have shown such dedication to destroying Rhode Island will move in to kill or undermine the charters, leaving us back where we started, but without even an option for which a hard-working family can scrimp and save for an alternative.

A Testing Notification Bill Passes a Semi-Present Senate Committee


Yesterday evening, the Senate Education committee passed a high-school testing bill which, as a result of the amendment process, is substantially different from the bill originally introduced.

The original bill placed a permanent prohibition on the use of standardized testing as a graduation requirement. The amended bill assumes that a “state assessment requirement for graduation from high school” will be in place, and defines procedures for notifying parents and students that assessment requirements are in danger of not being met, and for informing the governor and the executive branch of various test-related results.

The bill passed by a 6-0 vote of the Education Committee with 6 members absent, but only reached 6 votes with the help of the Senate President and Majority Leader adding their two ex-officio “yes” votes to four “yes” votes from regular committee members — to state the obvious here, this means that only four of ten regular committee members showed up to vote on a potentially important bill.

I will point out here that you cannot come to the conclusion that a quorum was present at the committee hearing with a simple answer of “ex-officio members do count towards a quorum” [only 6 of 12 members present] or “ex-officio members don’t count towards a quorum” [only 4 of 10 members present]; you only get to a quorum for last night’s vote by saying that ex-officio members do count when determining how many members are present, but don’t count when determining how many people need to be present.

For reference, here what Roberts’ Rules has to say about ex-officio committee members and quorums

If the ex-officio member is under the control of the society, there is no distinction between him and the other members except where the president is ex-officio member of all committees, in which case it is evidently the intention to permit, not to require, him to act as a member of the various committees, and therefore in counting a quorum he should not be counted as a member.

Like most parliamentary procedure rules, this one is grounded in solid principle; the principle to consider here is whether committees should be passing bills, dependent on ex-officio votes, when a majority of regular members can’t be bothered to show up or may have decided to avoid a difficult issue.

Coming up in the Relevant House and Senate Education Committees: Banning Standardized Testing as a Graduation Requirement Forever*


Other 1. H7672/S2185: Prevents a standardized assessment, and possibly any statewide assessment, from ever* being used as a graduation requirement. (H Health, Education and Welfare; Wed, Apr 2 & S Education; Thu, Apr 3)

S2185 was heard in the Senate Education Committee last week, as one of three possible alternatives for postponing/prohibiting standardized testing as a graduation requirement. It’s definitely the prohibit-not-postpone bill, and is the only bill of the three that’s been called back. It’s listed on the Education committee agenda as “scheduled for consideration”, which means there is a very strong likelihood it will be voted on.

If it is eventually passed by the entire Senate, the question will of course become what will the new House leadership (including new House Majority Leader and old Providence Teachers’ Union legal counsel John DeSimone) do with it.

The Disparity of Spending and Results in Education

This morning, I took a look at a chart whose creators seemed to see something sinister in the fact that productivity would go up at a steady pace while inflation-adjusted median income stagnated. This afternoon, I’ve come across a chart with an even more dramatic comparison, and it’s one in which the causes may be more sinister.

From page 45 of a new report from Cato:

Note that the spending is inflation adjusted, so it’s actually significantly less of a leap than the absolute spending would show.

A quick skim through the report suggests that Rhode Island has worse results than the average, but it would be fair to say that most states have some variation of the increase in spending and decrease/stagnation in SAT scores. It would also be fair to argue that SAT scores may not be the best measure of success, for one reason or another.

But those are both arguments that have to be made. Faced with this sort of evidence, the burden should be on those who want to continually increase the resources that our state and our society direct to public education to prove that the problem is not the way the system is set up.

Until such arguments are made, the public is justified in seeking new alternatives and reductions in the money that they spend on a failing school system.

Coming up in Committee on February 11 and 12: The Worst Institutional Design in Education History?


1. S2265/Bud. Art. 20: Completion of a full Dilbert cycle of Rhode Island’s education bureaucracy, where one board that was created by merging together two previous boards is re-reorganized into one board with two “councils”, each council being given basically the same responsibility as one of the original boards. (H Health, Education and Welfare/H Finance joint meeting; Tue, Feb 11, as Bud. Art. 20 & S Education/S Finance joint meeting; Wed, Feb 12, as S2265)

Akash Chougule: School Choice Can Bridge the Gap

One policy that would serve President Obama’s objective of reducing income inequality is school choice.

How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust?

How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality. It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority. Segregation, to use the terminology of the Jewish philosopher Martin Buber, substitutes an “I-it” relationship for an “I-thou” relationship and ends up relegating persons to the status of things. Hence segregation is not only politically, economically and sociologically unsound, it is morally wrong and sinful. Paul Tillich has said that sin is separation. Is not segregation an existential expression of man’s tragic separation, his awful estrangement, his terrible sinfulness? Thus it is that I can urge men to obey the 1954 decision of the Supreme Court, for it is morally right; and I can urge them to disobey segregation ordinances, for they are morally wrong.

– From “Letter from Birmingham Jail“, by Martin Luther King, Jr.

RI’s High Cost, Low Results Schools

Another report gave RI schools a bad grade for their schools, relative to spending. WPRI’s Dan McGowan covered it today and wrote that Educacation Week gave Rhode Island a D+ for student achievement. There are a couple places where RI students have improved in the last 10 years, like math achievement and advanced placement scores. But [...]

Could Talking Curriculum Instead of Standards be More Agreeable to Conservatives?


I know the idea of a “common curriculum” in the United States will raise some immediate hackles, but if advocates for let’s-call-it a national movement for curriculum reform want to win over a few conservatives, they should try following the lead of CitizenshipFirst Executive Director Robert Pondiscio; it could even awaken some pockets of enthusiastic conservative support…

You [Deborah Meier] write that the struggle to define democracy and liberty continue to evolve and that schooling “ideally prepares us to join in that struggle.” I strongly agree, but here again I must insist on specificity. Do you expect children to absorb what they need to know to contribute to this discussion by osmosis? Through patient and persistent modeling of democracy in our schools? Or do you wish, as I do, for children to learn the story of America’s founding, study the American Revolution, read the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights, and become familiar with major historical events and movements of the past 250 years, warts and all, so that they might understand, in your excellent phrase, “precisely what protects other rights such as fairness, liberty, equality, privacy, and happiness.” Yes or no?

The civic virtues we both prize are empty platitudes without history to make them meaningful. Why is it so difficult to say—loudly and proudly—there are things all Americans should know to be competent citizens, so there must be a common curriculum

My sense of how we got to the current moment in education policy, dominated as it is by the “Common Core”, is that a group of establishment-type education reformers thought that a national focus on “standards” would be less acrimonious than a national focus on “curriculum”, but that this turned out to be a horrible strategic misstep.

As Mr. Pondiscio has argued in other places (and I agree with him) the focus on doing education right and making it better should be on imparting knowledge. You may find it surprising that this point is contentious, or maybe you won’t, but splitting the discussion over “standards” apart from the discussion over “curriculum” seems to raise the level of contention more than it ameliorates it.

Experts and many non-experts both understand that knowledge to be taught is contained(?) (<< have to think some more if this is right verb) in the curriculum, meaning that trying to discuss “standards” apart from “curriculum”, and hyper-emphasizing a discussion of standards first, has had the unintended consequence of suggesting that there are more important parts to education than imparting knowledge. Proponents of the Common Core don’t help their cause when they try to argue that conservatives should be in favor of standards, because the idea of standards is supposed to be a conservative one, when in other discussions, “standards” are regularly used to mean something very different from a guide to the specific knowledge that students are expected to possess, which is the idea of “standards” that conservatives might be predisposed to support.

Ultimately, if the curriculum reformers who believe that imparting knowledge is the essence of education want to successfully bring conservatives on to their side, they need to enthusiastically make the case that knowledge exists which is worth having — as Robert Pondiscio does in the above excerpt — and make clear what that knowledge is. Debates about standards and curriculum, and testing and accountability, and most of everything else about education cannot fall into their proper place until this basic issue is resolved.

So the “Dual Role” Has Become An Excuse to Give the President of CCRI A Hearty Raise?

This week, GoLocalProv‘s Kate Nagle shined a multi-part spotlight on various spending items at CCRI, the Community College of Rhode Island, one of three state colleges/universities and, accordingly, annual recipient of many millions of state tax dollars. We have yet to hear why, for example, it is prudent and appropriate that college funds are used [...]

Taveras’s First Major Policy Proposal of Questionable Value

A universal pre-K proposal from Providence Mayor Angel Taveras may be fighting the current of research showing such programs to be of dubious benefit.

Five Rhode Island Scholars Sign a Letter to US Bishops Opposing the Common Core


Five professors from Rhode Island institutions of higher learning have signed on to a letter sent to all of the Catholic Bishops in the United States, urging that the Common Core not be adopted by Catholic primary and secondary schools.

Where We Do and Don’t Have Rights

It’s beyond dispute that progressive activists don’t really believe in a right to free speech, in the sense of the American founding, and where that will take the country ought to be of desperate concern of Americans who value freedom.

10 News Conference Wingmen, Episode 10 (School Choice)

Justin Katz and Bob Plain discuss school choice in Rhode Island for this week’s Wingmen segment.

Districts for the Indoctrination of Children

Linking to yet another story of a parent’s facing surprising behavior from people within a public school district, Glenn Reynolds repeats his common refrain, “I’m beginning to think that putting your kids in public schools is parental malpractice.”

In this instance, a Jewish man from Pennsylvania objected to the political slant that he perceived in his child’s homework, related to the government shutdown, and his complaints appear to have inspired the local teacher union president to make at least one call to a third party in the community suggesting that he is a neo-Nazi.

Another recent story concerns a Georgia mother who has allegedly received a criminal trespass warning banning her from her disabled daughter’s school because she posted on Facebook about having been issued a concealed carry permit.

On the list of Rhode Island stories on which I have information, but for which the involved people are disinclined to come forward for fear of repercussions against them and their children, is one about a student assigned to do a project on one of the amendments in the Bill of Rights who told that he had to pick again when he chose the second amendment.

Add into the mix a worksheet “aligned with the controversial national educational standards” called Common Core that uses subversive sentences as examples for grammar assignments — un-American notions like, “the commands of government officials must be obeyed by all.”

Of course, as with random shootings, it’s easy to get the impression of epidemics when there’s a nation’s worth of bleeds-it-leads local news coverage flying across the Internet. That said, Americans should realize that there are no inherent protections in government when it takes over a public activity like education and a growing degree of opportunity to use its assumed authority to restrict and to indoctrinate.

Ravitch’s Lather-Without-Rinsing Rhetorical Style on School Choice

Anti-school-choice advocate Diane Ravitch misleads her readers on “vouchers” and the opinions of Rhode Islanders.

Go figure: aid down, cost increases slow.

I was just telling my eldest daughter (still some years away from high school, let alone college) that everybody should study economics for a mandatory year when I came across a blurb that made me chuckle. It’s the text summary of a data inlay to an article about moderating tuition hikes at public colleges and universities:

College costs rose again this academic year, but not as steeply as they have in past years. However, federal aid, which eases the burden for most students, has declined over the past two years.

The punchline is that “however.” Imagine that: When the federal government pours less money into higher education, colleges slow down their tuition increases! It’s almost as if federal aid doesn’t help students so much as inflate the cost of education.

The Ideology of Speech Restriction, at Brown University and Everywhere


There are two dimensions of political ideology useful for understanding yesterday’s events at Brown University. The first is attitude towards the nature of rights. The second concerns beliefs about the relationship between individual, groups and society.

If you believe that 1) that rights are not natural but granted by a collective and that 2) membership in a collective is primary — perhaps even everything — to social relations, then the idea that those outside of your collective don’t enjoy the full range of rights granted by your collective is an easy step to take.

(Alternate Title: I’ll describe the ideology of speech restriction. You determine its name.)