Winerip’s 3 suggestions

The New York Times’ Michael Winerip has written his last column. I’m curious to know why he has ended his education column. It will be missed.

In the column, he makes “three departing suggestions”

“First, why not add a provision [to NCLB] rewarding states and districts that mandate small class size? It’s an idea that enjoys great support among parents and teachers and is easily carried out on a national scale.”

This one is hard to contest. Everyone seems to want smaller class sizes (have you ever heard anyone advocate LARGER class sizes?). Our research has shown again and again over the years that students, parents, teachers and administrators all want smaller class sizes and have rated it as a high priority for improving educational outcomes. The challenge seems to be in paying for it. A well designed incentive program supported by the federal government could do the trick.

        My collegue Jean Johnson(SVP here at Public Agenda and Executive Director of Education Insights) had some interesting thoughts on this when I mentioned Winerips’s first suggestion. She says:

"I was at a recent meeting with a number of experts from across the political spectrum who agreed that this solution is unaffordable. Their consensus seemed to be that the research shows that it doesn’t make a difference until classes are down to 15, which would be big bite economically. The other public opinion specialist and I joined in trying to persuade them that it deserved a serious hearing because of the broad education leader and public interest in it, but I was quite surprised by the strength of their belief that this is completely off the table because of the expense."

Just how much would it cost to get classes down to a number that makes a difference? I don’t have numbers to prove it, but it seems to me that a class with 20 kids in it would be infinitely more manageable than one with 30 kids in it, even if test scores on average don’t rise unless it’s down to 15. This definitely demands more exploration.

Winerip’s second suggestion:

“We need a No Family Left Behind Law. This would measure economic growth of families and punish politicians in charge of states with poor economic growth for minority families. For example, in Ohio, black families earn only 62 percent of white household income, one of the biggest disparities nationally. So every year, under No Family Left Behind, Ohio would be expected to close that income gap. If it failed to make adequate yearly progress for black families’ wealth, the governor and legislators would be judged failing, and after five years, could be removed from office. This way public schools wouldn’t be the only institutions singled out for failing poor children. And if states succeeded in closing the economic gap, test scores would be expected to rise, giving politicians and teachers a chance to celebrate together.”

Novel idea. What’s good for the accountability goose is good for the accountability gander. Good luck with that one, Michael. (Look for this one in the “never gonna happen” file.)

Winerip’s third suggestion is implied in his “final concern”:

“A final concern with the federal law is that it is so driven by state testing that there’s too much time devoted to test prep, too much time spent drilling facts for survey courses, and not enough emphasis on finding something children will fall in love with for a lifetime — the Civil War, repairing engines, science research, playing the trumpet.”

On this, I believe Winerip is right on target. Kids need to fall in love with learning. THAT must be the ultimate objective of our education system. High test scores are not the point. Everyone memorizing algebraic formulas is not the point. We need to balance imbuing core facts that every young citizen should know with inculcating kids with a curiosity and passion for something.

When I was in high school, I made it through my math, science and history classes so I could get to the end of the day and participate in my school’s theater productions. The rest of the stuff was just what I did to get through and to get the grades I needed to please my parents. But it was the fun stuff that got me out of bed and on the bus in the morning. You have to give kids a reason to WANT to go to school in the first place.

Sure tests and standards are important, but let’s not loose track of what it’s all about: creating a system that provides every kid an opportunity to be inspired to begin a process of life-long learning. Michael Winerip always kept that in mind, and that’s why his column will be so missed.

-- Michael Remaley

Comments

[thebizofknowledge]

You make an excellent point that, even if a class size of 20 wouldn't impact substantially on test scores, it still eases the burden on teachers by making the class more manageable, and a less stressed teacher is often a more effective teacher.

[Jean Russell]

The last posting is illogical. There is no evidence that a less stressed teacher is a more effective teacher. Further, are we trying to reduce stress on any other occupation? What about air traffic controllers? Should we fly fewer planes?