I pointed out in that writeup that “college success” being defined as “obtaining a degree” is problematic, as measuring whether someone has managed to leap over an abysmally-low bar doesn’t tell us much. But it’s the best we can do, said Aldeman:

“Matthew, you’re right that we can’t measure “college success” much better than “obtaining a degree.” That’s unfortunate, but you have to remember that almost all previous studies have defined “success” as “first-year college grades” or “one-year retention rate.” Surely you’d agree that success is closer to graduation than it is to those interim measures.”

Yes, it’s closer. And a foot is nearer to being a mile than an inch is, but they’re both awfully far.

I’m pleased that Aldeman has admitted that he and Education Sector can’t conceive of success in education as being more than showing up and paying the bill for 4 years. It certainly saves some of us a lot of work. But he’s wrong about what’s unfortunate. The unfortunate part is the inability to look at history – that longitudinal study of people, which includes their education and its purpose – and see in its richness something of more value than a degree.

I had the temerity to challenge Aldeman’s claim that GPA mattered all that much as an indicator of academic talent. I find that GPA is often a measure of one’s ability to function within a higher ed system as weak as a public high school from which they came – not what they know.

Aldeman spins the criticism because the truth is too damning:

“By mocking perseverance–which I tend to think is a pretty important trait for just about everything in life–you’re also shifting the discussion away from college admissions policies to college quality in general.”

Perseverance isn’t to be mocked – and an honest reading of my comment to Aldeman can’t suggest otherwise. But we should recognize what perseverance shows and what it doesn’t.

For example, one’s ability to persevere, and a GPA that reflects it, doesn’t necessarily show us that one can do basic algebra. 90% CUNY students dropped the ball on a recent measure of skills:

“During their first math class at one of CUNY’s four-year colleges, 90% of 200 students tested couldn’t solve a simple algebra problem, the report by the CUNY Council of Math Chairs found. Only a third could convert a fraction into a decimal.”

John Jay College sophomore Ahmed Elshafaie, 19, who graduated from Long Island City High School, said he avoids math classes.

“I don’t want to ruin my GPA,” he said. “High school standards were really low.”

What can the quantitative section of the SAT tell us? That a student can convert a fraction to a decimal, for one, and that they’ve got a handle on basic algebra.

What does a GPA and high school diploma hide? That for 13 years, Ahmed got shorted on math instruction. That as a 19 year old college freshman, Ahmed can’t do the most basic 9th grade math, which is not only at the heart of every academic discipline utilizing any numbers, but is also required to understand compound interest on his credit card bill. That Ahmed’s professors will be burdened by getting his skills up to speed at the expense of teaching him a class’s main content.

… and that he’s shut out of studying any math in college because he was never prepared for it.

Ahmed sounds like a decent kid – he’s more honest about his academic preparation, and the prospects it affords, than the folks at EdSector. I’m sure he’ll persevere, too, and earn a degree from CUNY. He just won’t be able to convert a fraction to a decimal, despite his likely 3.0 high school GPA matching up with his obtaining a degree.

One could talk for hours about the significance of men and women swinging sledgehammers against the Wall. If you’ve ever swung a sledge against something solid – gosh, I’m going to have to describe this for the soft-handed Ivory Tower types, aren’t I? – you know that there can be a tremendous amount of recoil. Swinging such a large hammer is hard work, both propelling it forward and controlling it on the bounceback. Swinging it against something that doesn’t give way is Sisyphean.

Yet we’ve got photo after photo of mustachioed Germans hammering the wall with every bit of energy they can muster, recoil and uselessness be damned. That’s a mix of conviction, hope, frustration and certainty of outcome that’s rare in history. And from Ronald Reagan’s “Tear down this wall” [and the lesser-remembered "Open this gate"] speech to photos of the downtrodden, hammer-swinging Germans, you heard and saw little about the anniversary relative to its importance. Maybe next year, but probably not. It just isn’t in intellectual fashion, I guess.

Head on over to Darren’s “Right on the Left Coast” for one of the more memorable, moving pieces I’ve ever read in the blogosphere. “Freedom Is a Little Piece of Concrete” offers a personal view of the Wall and its destruction. It was a must-read a year and a half ago; it still is.

Today, November 10th, is another anniversary – the 234th birthday of the United States Marine Corps. I viewed a solid Marine tribute video from an unlikely place – Godaddy.com, the website host – that’s worth viewing.

They’ve never won the Nobel Peace Prize, but few organizations have done as much to facilitate good and stop evil in the world as the United States Marine Corps.

“I will be the first to acknowledge that our incumbent senator is a nice guy.”

I’ll be the first to acknowledge that I don’t much care if he’s a sweetheart – David Valesky is unashamedly weak on education.

Last year I gave Valesky a grade of C- on the education portion of his public candidate questionnaire. His opponent James DiStefano pulled an F – but that’s because DiStefano didn’t bother to submit a response. As always, no response constitutes failure.

Valesky made it clear last year that he had no interest in reforming education funding. When asked about funding, he pointed to cuts everywhere else, reconstructing government and reforming Medicaid:

“As the state faces an extreme fiscal crisis, my goal remains to reduce state government spending without impacting education. I have already voted for $1 billion in state spending cuts at the August special session. I anticipate we will do more in the upcoming special session, including efforts to consolidate state government and taking a hard look at the Medicaid system.”

Valesky seemed to believe then – as he does now – that an issue as serious as funding education can be resolved not by addressing it head-on, but by fixing every other serious issue around it. Common sense suggests that approach is overwhelming and ineffective.

I admire Valesky’s honesty on this issue as much now as I did then. He’s badly misguided, but he’s up front about it:

“While I have also supported capping property taxes, I believe cutting state education funding is the wrong answer, as this will only increase the burden on property tax payers and negatively impact education and its critical role in our economic recovery.”

Valesky doesn’t mention reforming education funding or even investigating any aspects of it to ensure that current expenditures are useful. It doesn’t even occur to him that funding can be cut at the state and local levels and not be replaced needlessly. I’d be more forgiving if this was a live interview; it wasn’t. He and his staff had plenty of time to think about this one – and this was the best they could do. No cuts, no examination, nothing – just spend, because, after all, it’s for the children.

That’s what a nice guy would say.

It was with great relief that I read Valesky will be challenged by at least two candidates come 2010. Andrew Russo, a well-regarded pianist who is also an artist-in-residence at Le Moyne College, has announced that he’ll stand in the GOP primary for Valesky’s seat. Jessica Crawford has also announced; she’s a young Upstate native whose background includes work with 40 Below, an organization dedicated to halting the “brain-drain” of intellectual and social capital that’s ravaging Upstate New York.

Russo is 34, Crawford is 31. If it’s one thing the Leatherstocking Region needs, it’s strong, young leadership. On that account, both challengers look good.

It’s still early. We’ll see how things play out with Russo, Crawford, Valesky and anyone else who tosses their name in the hat. Hopefully they’ll address public education a bit more fully – and with a bit more competence – than Valesky has, as evidenced by his weak performance and poor rhetoric. I don’t expect him to change; Valesky doesn’t even address public education with any gusto on his State Senate page. [Perhaps 2010 will bring Valesky's second Tweet, too.]

Good luck, Crawford and Russo – your heartbeats and warm bodies have already launched you both ahead of the flaccid Valesky. I’ll take a good Senator over a nice guy any day.

Summary: SmartBrief is a bit like the Metamucil of education media; it isn’t tasty, but some folks still have to consume it each day.

Today’s SmartBrief includes this inspirational quote:

If you can’t see the image, here you go: “I have learned to use the word ‘impossible’ with the greatest caution.”

Having spent a few years reading subscriptions from hundreds of ed-related blogs, newsletters and discussions, one iron-clad guarantee each day – really, it’s as sure as the sun rising in the East and setting in the West – is that few will include any useful information we’d call part of one’s “education.” Casual ed-writers rarely mention anything of substance; it’s all process, or commentary on process, and no content. The ed-tech writers are the worst abusers. You can read 10,000 words about “collaboration,” “conversation” and “skills” and never get a scintilla of real academic content.

But sometimes they try. They struggle and strain – listen closely as you read and you can hear the grunting! – to throw in a quip, quote or factoid that, in their mind, echoes timeless meaning from the pedestal on which their education degree has placed them. Boy, do they try.

And that posturing without any real education to back it up is how we get the insertion of inspirational quotes like the one above. Wernher von Braun, the quote’s author, is described simply by ASCD as “German-American rocket scientist.” Short shrift, kids.

Wernher von Braun wasn’t just a wildly-intelligent scientist; he was the Nazi creator of the V-2 rocket that wrought destruction and thousands of civilian casualties upon London, Antwerp and other European cities during World War II.

von Braun’s story is intriguing and filled with fantastic nuance. It’s a mix of suspicious situations, claims both supported and refuted, and guesses about human nature as it relates to addressing opportunities. He claimed to have been forced to join the party in 1937, but has ties to the Nazis going back to 1933; he said he was most unwilling to hand-select and oversee slaves from the Buchenwald concentration camp, but there are testimonies of severe mistreatment of these prisoners at von Braun’s direction; by some accounts, he was a genius in the wrong place at the wrong time, and by others, a Nazi fanatic.

Despite the lack of clarity in assessing von Braun’s life, we can agree that he was a brilliant opportunist. He surrendered to American forces in 1945 and was given special immunity – the US had their eye on von Braun for some time, recognizing his past contributions and those likely to come. By year’s end he was living in the US with a clean record and working as a foundational piece of Operation Paperclip, the United States’ program to employ former Nazi scientists after the end of the war. [Side note: The operation is rumored to have been given the name "paperclip" because of the new work histories and background reports, minus black marks like Nazi party and military affiliations, attached to their files.]

von Braun was made a full US citizen in 1955; his work with NASA in the 1960s was of great value to the US victory in the race to put a man on the moon.

Was von Braun’s commitment to his life’s work so stringent that he would willingly collaborate with the Nazis for the sake of advancing his research? To what extent did his knowledge of, and potential participation in, human atrocities and targeting civilians in war factor in to his decisions – if at all? Was his willingness to work for the Americans after Germany’s defeat part of a true commitment to aiding a more just power, or was he simply carrying anyone’s water as long as it came with research funding?

… and all of it distilled into “German-American rocket scientist.” Why so lazy? Because the Oprah-style inspirational quote sounded good.

That’s the state of the education media, folks – lots of media, not much education.

If you want to know more about Wernher von Braun as badly as ASCD needs to, the Wikipedia entry isn’t a bad place to start.

*** Can’t help but point out – ASCD chose an “inspirational quote” by a Nazi SS officer on the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall.

Crossing the Finish Line has things to say about virtually every important factor in college life, but by far the most important thing is this:

The SAT and ACT do not matter in predicting college success.

I have been an unequivocal supporter of using the SAT/ACT* in making college admissions decisions (see here and here), but this sample of students and the rigor of this study are impossible to ignore.

No one should ignore what’s in Crossing, but I’m not about to gobble it hook, line and sinker.

The conclusions are based on a ton of data:

“Crossing the Finish Line, an important new book by former Princeton president William Bowen, former Macalaster College president Michael McPherson, and Matthew Chingos,  relied on two massive databases on the entering class of 1999–one on 96,000 first-time freshmen and 30,000 entering transfer students at 21 flagship universities and the other on 108,000 freshmen and 42,000 transfers at less selective state colleges and universities in four states (Maryland, North Carolina, Ohio, and Virginia)–to compile a wide-ranging book of empirical research on topics impacting American higher education.”

Aldeman details his position-reversal on the value of these tests:

I have been an unequivocal supporter of using the SAT/ACT* in making college admissions decisions (see here and here), but this sample of students and the rigor of this study are impossible to ignore. Here’s what the authors found:

• Taken separately, high school GPA is a better predictor of college graduation rates than SAT/ACT score. This findings holds true across institution type, and gets stronger the less selective an institution is. High school GPA is three to five times more important in predicting college graduation than SAT/ ACT score.
• SAT and ACT scores are proxies for high school quality. When the authors factored in which high schools students attended (i.e. high school quality), the predictive power of high school GPA went up, and the predictive power of SAT/ ACT scores fell below zero.
• High school quality mattered, but not nearly as much as the student’s GPA. Other research, most notably on Texas’ ten percent admission rule, has proven this before. It’s somewhat counter-intuitive, but it shows that a student’s initiative to succeed, complete their work, and jump any hurdles that come up matters more than the quality of their high school.

Then he asks, “What should various actors do with this information?”

Time out.

As I wrote on the Quick’s blog entry, here’s why:

“Keep in mind that Alderman’s entire argument – and the authors’ – rests on the definition of “college success” being “graduation” or “obtaining a degree/certification.”

In theory, that’s sufficient. I’d prefer to talk about reality.

In reality, some degrees are watered-down and border on useless. At some institutions, the majority of programs fall into this category. If we pretend for a second that the degrees they award are little more than certificates of attendance and good standing with the Bursar’s Office, we do higher education reform a disservice.

Bowen, McPherson and Chingos, in a roundabout way, may have just proven not that SAT/ACT scores indicate nothing, but that high school GPA-as-harbinger means higher education is increasingly mimicking the weakness of the average American public high school.”

Mr. Aldeman et al.: Get serious about what a degree means – and what it doesn’t – and then we’ll get to work on the value of the ACT/SAT. Until then, I’m not about to worship at the altar of Crossing along with the EdSectorites.

Come to think of it, Education Sector could profit a bit from ACTA’s What Will They Learn?

The film raised several general questions: What do we do about it? Is anyone already doing anything? Is it even possible?

Sounds like “Two Million Minutes: The 21st Century Solution” addresses a few of those questions. I’ll find out Thursday night what this mystery school does that the others don’t.

Event will unveil new documentary, Two Million Minutes: The 21st Century Solution, demonstrating that ordinary students can excel if given the right environment

(Washington, D.C. – September 15, 2009) – The Education Equality Project (www.edequality.org) and American Solutions (www.americansolutions.com) announce today that Reverend Al Sharpton and Former Speaker Newt Gingrich will host a major education reform event on Thursday, September 17 in Washington, D.C.

The event will feature commentary from Gingrich and Sharpton and be the platform for the world premiere of a new documentary called Two Million Minutes: The 21st Century Solution. The film, conceived and produced by venture capitalist and entrepreneur Robert A. Compton, is a sequel to his 2007 internationally acclaimed film Two Million Minutes – A Global Examination. This first film analyzed how six students from the U.S., India and China prioritized their four years or “two million minutes” of high school and demonstrated that the Asian students were, academically, years ahead of their American peers.

Now, two years later, Compton will unveil the sequel. In Two Million Minutes: The 21st Century Solution, Compton discovers and reveals an open-enrollment school in the U.S. that teaches “ordinary” students at an extraordinarily high academic level. This school, located in a largely low-income area, beautifully demonstrates that American students are capable of competing academically with the best in the world given the right curriculum, the right teachers and the right inspiration and expectations for success.

“I was shocked to find what I consider to be the world’s best high school in one of the poorest parts of America,” said Compton. “This school is educating its students at a level that is globally competitive and preparing them to compete in the 21st century economy. As Education Secretary Duncan and President Obama have both stated, charters are supposed to be laboratories of innovation that we can all learn from.” The U.S. needs to take some pointers from this school and apply them widely across our public school systems to sufficiently prepare our students for the global workforce.”

The school and its location will be revealed during the film’s premiere on Thursday.

“This is one of the most important events I will participate in all year,” said Gingrich. “Education reform is crucial to America’s success, and Compton’s films bring the issues and solutions into light. I implore every American to watch these films and demand change. Our future depends on it.”

The event and film premiere will take place on Thursday, September 17th from 6-9pm ET at the National Association of Homebuilders, located at 1201 15th Street, NW, Washington D.C. 20005. Attendance is by invitation only.

For more information on Compton or to purchase copies of his documentary films, visit www.2mminutes.com.

I show no mercy – none – to the folks in education who say that NCLB, various teaching/administrative/reform initiatives, etc. inspire “terror” in children or that their practitioners are “terrorists.” On this point, I am almost entirely alone in terms of vocal, specific criticism.

Watch the video embedded in my re-post below – you’ll see why I never, ever let it slide.

[Originally posted in September, 2008]

We’re winning 7-0, and I’d like to go for the shutout.

I don’t really use the phrases “9/11″ or “September 11.” Instead, I refer to the events 7 years ago today as what they were – a terrorist attack on the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and the United States. I understand that “9/11″ and the like are shorthand; it’s a convenient way to refer to a complex event. But I don’t bother with the day for the same reason I don’t say “December 25″ when I really mean Christmas.

Mark Steyn has reprinted his September 12, 2001 column called “A War for Civilization” and added a bit of perspective – it demands a careful read, and should be read annually.

For those of you who don’t yet read Evan Coyne Maloney’s Brain Terminal, start with his brilliant, harrowing ‘Hell on Earth’ essay. Then watch the video memorial Crystal Morning, edited from David Vogler’s footage:

I got a package in the mail from my brother about two days after the attacks [it was beef jerky and apple cider]. It included this note:

The biggest problem? They’re just plain lazy.

It’s a brash blanket statement, but it’s one that coverage of the most recent education blockbuster bears out.

There’s a bit of fatigue related to the Obama-education-speech coverage, so now’s really not the time to go into detail. Having said that, I’ll present a tiny variation on the theme.

EdWeek’s new “District Dossier” blog is right on top of another controversy [!]. Arlington Independent School District [Arlington, TX] chose not to broadcast President Obama’s speech as it happened – they didn’t want to interrupt instructional time/schedules, they said – but is busing fifth graders to Cowboys Stadium for a Super Bowl-related education event. The list of speakers at that event includes former President George W. Bush and former First Lady Laura.

Fear not! EdWeek’s on the scene!

Well, they’re on the scene – if linking to other news outlets’ stories and failing to present the situation with any degree of relevant detail is “on the scene.” The kicker is that they give you the issue, then make you do all the work to get to the truth.

Lazy.

At the end they ask you to make a judgment based on their useless coverage. They’d like you to spur on that “conversation” web 2.0 wants so desperately – i.e., you comment on their story and they get traffic. Giving you complete news simply isn’t a priority.

Here’s the response I left on the District Dossier site:

“What do you think? Is there a double standard at work or are some people being overly sensitive?”

It’s impossible to tell from such incomplete coverage. In order to answer the question, we’ve got to dredge up the information EdWeek didn’t – or that EdWeek didn’t bother to lay out for us.

EdWeek failed to explain what the Super Bowl ed program is about. By reading this summary, you’d think the event revolved around George W. Bush. Does it? To what extent? What’s on the docket at this event?

Research it yourself, folks – EdWeek’s not interested in telling you.

We want to read facts about the story – real details, not gossipy, incomplete speculation or the illogical rambling of yet another interview subject residing on the fringe.

Give us something to work with and we might be able to answer your question.

The investigative talents of the current ed journalists make Maxwell Smart look like Hercule Poirot. The education sector and the general public are worse off for it.

School’s upon us – and so is the terrible professional advice doled out by ‘expert’ speakers and teachers that pocks the path to success like errant dog-doo in the park.

John Thompson guest blogs [or blog-shares, or partner-blogs, I've never figured it out] over at This Week in Education. Here’s today’s charmer – “Back to School”:

“A summer of verbal give and take in the blogosphere could not keep me in shape for the big league trash talking of the urban classroom. I picked up some tricks from the back-to-school convocation, however. The keynote speaker, Jack Berkmeyer, said that we should randomly dub a student as “Sparkie” and rather than yell at a student who is disrupting class, we should yell at a student who is not in class. Then, when students do not listen, the teacher should just express their frustrations to the chalkboard. “Chalkboard, I went into the classroom to talk to students, but I see that you are the only person who will really listen …”

Sometimes I warned the designated “Sparkie” and the rest of the class of the reason why I would engage in those antics. Other times I just started to converse with my new, inanimate best friend. I loved shouting at last year’s student ”Caitlin, what am I, a potted plant? Just because you don’t listen the to plays that your coach calls …” And now, the students have a standard comeback, “D.T., talk to the chalkboard.”

When I was defeated in one round of trash-talking, the student’s closing reply was “D.T. I have not begun to rag on you. When I do, I’ll be looking at your sneakers.” This was the student who had complained, “D.T. if you make me write so much, I’m going to have a cardeo-viscectomy [sic].” – John Thompson”

Eep! I replied.

It’s “Berckemeyer.”

And how much did the school pay Jack – or is it Jacko, Piggie or Chuckles? – to encourage adults to ditch self-respect and erode their own modeling of professional behavior? At least it’ll serve the staff well when they audition to be that well-meaning but pathetic teacher in the next CW urban school sitcom. You know, that role of a teacher who’s about 20-25 years behind and who stands in sharp contrast to his class full of eye-rollers?

Here are some other tips:

1. Use words like, “hip” and “gnarly.” You want to weave a pedagogical tapestry from two skeins of thread: Berckemeyer’s advanced psychology and Jeff Spicoli way-cool charm.. Trust me, it’ll totally give those kids a cool learning buzz.

2. Be daring with your wardrobe. Parachute pants are in; so are ripped pink half-shirts.

3. Put on a Billy Squier CD [or cassette, if you want to be state-of-the-art] to serenade kids as they walk into class. They’ll LOVE it.

I’d write more, but I can’t just give this stuff away for free. Maybe next year you can pay me $5k to inspire your staff a la Berckemeyer.

Best of luck to you and your staff in 2009-2010, Spanky. Hope you like your new nickname – it’s gonna make for a rad year!

I really do.

Not this year, thanks to the American Council of Trustees and Alumni.

WhatWillTheyLearn.com introduces a novel way to rank colleges – on how they provide academic knowledge. [For those of you not used to the education sector, ranking schools by their ability to educate is a novel, courageous proposition.] The Wall Street Journal mentions ACTA’s efforts:

“The newest entrant in the ranking game is the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, which has the quaint notion that a university be judged on what it teaches its students. At the group’s Web site, WhatWillTheyLearn.com, schools are given grades based on the extent to which students are required to take classes in the core subjects of a general education, such as math, literature, science and history. Their effort to change the focus to learning is no doubt an admirable one, but I suspect that it will have a limited effect. Any grading scale that gives an “A” to the University of Arkansas and an “F” to Yale may prove too contrarian to capture the public imagination.”

Any newspaper that can’t fathom why Yale could earn an F is too ignorant of the state of higher education to capture my imagination.

The New York Daily News explained why Brooklyn College and Hunter stood tall in ACTA’s rankings.

… and how does your alma mater rank? I’d check mine – Boston University – but it’s not yet on the list.

What do I think of this new ranking system? I think it’s wonderful – finally, a ranking with an academic seriousness of purpose to replace that nearly-useless US News tripe. There are few organizations – if any – that could do it better than ACTA.

If the image below doesn’t entice you to check out WhatWillTheyLearn.com, nothing will.