Mooresville’s Shining Example (It’s Not Just About the Laptops)

Jeremy M. Lange for The New York Times

CONNECTING Tammy Rigby, a fifth-grade science teacher at East Mooresville Intermediate, helping Grace Lateef, left, and Caitlyn Yaede with a class exercise.

By ALAN SCHWARZ

Published: February 12, 2012

Grading the Digital SchoolMOORESVILLE, N.C. — Sixty educators from across the nation roamed the halls and ringed the rooms of East Mooresville Intermediate School, searching for the secret formula. They found it in Erin Holsinger’s fifth-grade math class.

Lessons to Be Learned

Articles in this series are looking at the intersection of education, technology and business as schools embrace digital learning.

Previous Articles in the Series »

News, data and conversation abouteducation in New York.

• Join us on Facebook »
• Follow us on Twitter »

Enlarge This Image

Jeremy M. Lange for The New York Times

BREAK TIME Matthew Ward regroups during class, where each student has a school-issued laptop.

There, a boy peering into his school-issued MacBook blitzed through fractions by himself, determined to reach sixth-grade work by winter. Three desks away, a girl was struggling with basic multiplication — only 29 percent right, her screen said — and Ms. Holsinger knelt beside her to assist. Curiosity was fed and embarrassment avoided, as teacher connected with student through emotion far more than Wi-Fi.

“This is not about the technology,” Mark Edwards, superintendent of Mooresville Graded School District, would tell the visitors later over lunch. “It’s not about the box. It’s about changing the culture of instruction — preparing students for their future, not our past.”

As debate continues over whether schools invest wisely in technology — and whether it measurably improves student achievement — Mooresville, a modest community about 20 miles north of Charlotte best known as home to several Nascar teams and drivers, has quietly emerged as the de facto national model of the digital school.

Mr. Edwards spoke on a White House panel in September, and federal Department of Education officials often cite Mooresville as a symbolic success. Overwhelmed by requests to view the programs in action, the district now herds visitors into groups of 60 for monthly demonstrations; the waiting list stretches to April. What they are looking for is an explanation for the steady gains Mooresville has made since issuing laptops three years ago to the 4,400 4th through 12th graders in five schools (three K-3 schools are not part of the program).

The district’s graduation rate was 91 percent in 2011, up from 80 percent in 2008. On state tests in reading, math and science, an average of 88 percent of students across grades and subjects met proficiency standards, compared with 73 percent three years ago. Attendance is up, dropouts are down. Mooresville ranks 100th out of 115 districts in North Carolina in terms of dollars spent per student — $7,415.89 a year — but it is now third in test scores and second in graduation rates.

“Other districts are doing things, but what we see in Mooresville is the whole package: using the budget, innovating, using data, involvement with the community and leadership,” said Karen Cator, a former Apple executive who is director of educational technology for the United States Department of Education. “There are lessons to be learned.”

Start with math lessons: each student’s MacBook Air is leased from Apple for $215 a year, including warranty, for a total of $1 million; an additional $100,000 a year goes for software. Terry Haas, the district’s chief financial officer, said the money was freed up through “incredibly tough decisions.”

Sixty-five jobs were eliminated, including 37 teachers, which resulted in larger class sizes — in middle schools, it is 30 instead of 18 — but district officials say they can be more efficiently managed because of the technology. Some costly items had become obsolete (like computer labs), though getting rid of others tested the willingness of teachers to embrace the new day: who needs globes in the age of Google Earth?

Families pay $50 a year to subsidize computer repairs, though the fee is waived for those who cannot afford it, about 18 percent of them. Similarly, the district has negotiated a deal so that those without broadband Internet access can buy it for $9.99 a month. Mr. Edwards said the technology had helped close racial performance gaps in a district where 27 percent of the students are minorities and 40 percent are poor enough to receive free or reduced-price lunches.

Others see broader economic benefits
.

Education Gap Grows Between Rich and Poor, Studies Say

By SABRINA TAVERNISE

Published: February 9, 2012

• 
  

WASHINGTON — Education was historically considered a great equalizer in American society, capable of lifting less advantaged children and improving their chances for success as adults. But a body of recently published scholarship suggests that the achievement gap between rich and poor children is widening, a development that threatens to dilute education’s leveling effects.

It is a well-known fact that children from affluent families tend to do better in school. Yet the income divide has received far less attention from policy makers and government officials than gaps in student accomplishment by race.

Now, in analyses of long-term data published in recent months, researchers are finding that while the achievement gap between white and black students has narrowed significantly over the past few decades, the gap between rich and poor students has grown substantially during the same period.

“We have moved from a society in the 1950s and 1960s, in which race was more consequential than family income, to one today in which family income appears more determinative of educational success than race,” said Sean F. Reardon, a Stanford University sociologist. Professor Reardon is the author of a study that found that the gap in standardized test scores between affluent and low-income students had grown by about 40 percent since the 1960s, and is now double the testing gap between blacks and whites.

In another study, by researchers from the University of Michigan, the imbalance between rich and poor children in college completion — the single most important predictor of success in the work force — has grown by about 50 percent since the late 1980s.

The changes are tectonic, a result of social and economic processes unfolding over many decades. The data from most of these studies end in 2007 and 2008, before the recession’s full impact was felt. Researchers said that based on experiences during past recessions, the recent downturn was likely to have aggravated the trend.

“With income declines more severe in the lower brackets, there’s a good chance the recession may have widened the gap,” Professor Reardon said. In the study he led, researchers analyzed 12 sets of standardized test scores starting in 1960 and ending in 2007. He compared children from families in the 90th percentile of income — the equivalent of around $160,000 in 2008, when the study was conducted — and children from the 10th percentile, $17,500 in 2008. By the end of that period, the achievement gap by income had grown by 40 percent, he said, while the gap between white and black students, regardless of income, had shrunk substantially.

Both studies were first published last fall in a book of research, “Whither Opportunity?”compiled by the Russell Sage Foundation, a research center for social sciences, and the Spencer Foundation, which focuses on education. Their conclusions, while familiar to a small core of social sciences scholars, are now catching the attention of a broader audience, in part because income inequality has been a central theme this election season.

The connection between income inequality among parents and the social mobility of their children has been a focus of President Obama as well as some of the Republican presidential candidates.

One reason for the growing gap in achievement, researchers say, could be that wealthy parents invest more time and money than ever before in their children (in weekend sports, ballet, music lessons, math tutors, and in overall involvement in their children’s schools), while lower-income families, which are now more likely than ever to be headed by a single parent, are increasingly stretched for time and resources. This has been particularly true as more parents try to position their children for college, which has become ever more essential for success in today’s economy.

A study by Sabino Kornrich, a researcher at the Center for Advanced Studies at the Juan March Institute in Madrid, and Frank F. Furstenberg, scheduled to appear in the journal Demography this year, found that in 1972, Americans at the upper end of the income spectrum were spending five times as much per child as low-income families. By 2007 that gap had grown to nine to one; spending by upper-income families more than doubled, while spending by low-income families grew by 20 percent.

“The pattern of privileged families today is intensive cultivation,” said Dr. Furstenberg, a professor of sociology at the University of Pennsylvania.

The gap is also growing in college. The University of Michigan study, by Susan M. Dynarski and Martha J. Bailey, looked at two generations of students, those born from 1961 to 1964 and those born from 1979 to 1982. By 1989, about one-third of the high-income students in the first generation had finished college; by 2007, more than half of the second generation had done so. By contrast, only 9 percent of the low-income students in the second generation had completed college by 2007, up only slightly from a 5 percent college completion rate by the first generation in 1989
.

Kiss Your Textbook Goodbye

By Robert Slavin on February 2, 2012 7:40 AM

When I was a kid, I loved my textbooks. I loved their heft, their musty smell, and the long list of names of previous users in the back. I loved the confident, definitive prose that led into new worlds of thought and experience. When I grew up, I even wrote some textbooks myself.

So it is with mixed emotions that I'm witnessing the demise of the textbook as we know it. Apple recently announced that it will be partnering with major publishers to create online textbooks, and the Obama Administration set the goal of having e-textbooks in the hands of every student by 2017, It's only a matter of time before the textbook goes the way of the slide rule, the typewriter, and the chalkboard.

The end of the paper textbook will lessen the weight in students' backpacks and perhaps reduce schools' costs, but will it be beneficial to students' learning? It's our job to make it so. If electronic textbooks are just like paper ones, there is little reason to expect them to be more effective. But e-texts offer many possibilities for innovation. Electronic texts can be linked to videos, including tutoring or alternative and more in-depth explanations. They can provide study aids, such as outlines, summaries, self-assessments, and embedded definitions. They can connect students in online study groups to jointly prepare each other for assessments. They can continuously assess students' understanding and prescribe either remedial work to fill gaps or offer extensions for students willing and able to go beyond the ordinary. Digital textbooks may be linked to content shown by teachers on interactive whiteboards, tablets, or other electronic devices used in classrooms to supplement teachers' instruction. They may communicate to teachers students' current levels of knowledge and skill so that teachers can adapt their class lessons to meet the needs of their class and identify individual students who need additional assistance.

Using video, games, online study groups, and other means, electronic homework might actually become something students want to do, perhaps even replacing some of the vast wasteland of mindless television and shoot-'em-up video gaming that currently occupy a huge proportion of children's days.

The move toward electronic textbooks will soon require that every student has secure, reliable access to technology at home that connects to school-approved networks. When teachers can count on the idea that every student (and parent) has access to technology, the possibilities for home-school collaboration will be limitless.

Of course, all of these possibilities are just that - possibilities. When electronic textbooks become the norm, it will also be possible to rigorously evaluate each of hundreds of variations in how they are used. Even if electronic textbooks are no better than paper ones at first, e-textbooks can be rapidly and continuously improved in a way that paper textbooks never could. A hundred years ago, cars were not much better than horses, as they were expensive, difficult to maintain, and prone to breakdowns. However, it was easy to see that eventually, the car would prevail. Horses had reached their limit, while cars could be progressively improved.

Electronic textbooks will provide opportunities for researchers and developers to create exciting, astonishingly effective learning opportunities for students. They will also provide opportunities to create "killer apps" that turn out to be ineffective or even harmful. As we cross this digital bridge, the onus is on us to test the numerous applications and know which are beneficial and which are not, not just which are popular.

I, for one, will miss the old-fashioned textbook, but I welcome the great potential of its electronic successor. Now let's make sure that this potential is realized.

Evaluate Teachers and Doctors the Same Way

By Walt Gardner on February 3, 2012 7:14 AM

The ratings game that has triggered fierce opposition from teachers is about to apply to doctors. Medicare intends to open its files to insurers, employers and consumers so that they can prepare report cards on individual doctors ("Prescription with side effects," Los Angeles Times, Jan. 30). The announcement has doctors up in arms for reasons that are uncannily similar to those expressed by teachers.

What stands out in both professions is that neither doctors nor teachers are miracle workers. Doctors who practice medicine in communities where patients become partners in health because of their backgrounds stand a much better chance of posting successful outcomes than doctors who treat patients in inner cities or in rural areas. For example, Loma Linda, Calif. is overwhelmingly populated by Seventh Day Adventists. They shun alcohol and smoking, and consume healthful diets. The National Geographic in 2005 identified Loma Linda as one of the world's healthiest towns, with many of its residents living into their 90s and past 100.

When McDonald's announced that it was coming to the town of 21,000, a group of preventive health professionals responded by considering putting a measure on the ballot to ensure that fast-food restaurants are kept to a bare minimum ("McDonald's proposal divides healthy Loma Linda," Los Angeles Times, Jan. 22). It's little wonder, therefore, that doctors there say they have a dream practice. In contrast, doctors in Watts wage an uphill battle because liquor stores and fast food franchises are ubiquitous and supermarkets are rare.

By the same token, teachers who teach in schools where parents are deeply involved in their children's education and possess the resources to provide enriching experiences in the form of summer camp, vacations and the like have a dream assignment. On the other hand, their colleagues who teach in schools located in impoverished areas are forced to attend to a host of factors that their students bring to class before they can begin to teach subject matter. In medicine, it's called performing triage.

Doctors know that treating the sickest patients will unavoidably have a negative effect on their report cards because Medicare's new strategy does not take into account the patients they see. Likewise, teachers who are in schools serving large numbers of disadvantaged students from chaotic backgrounds will be penalized because they cannot produce the results that teachers in affluent suburbs routinely post. Unless report cards in both fields take into account these factors, doctors and teachers will avoid working with those most in need of their respective services.

The value-added metric is supposed to credit teachers who demonstrate progress with their students, even though they haven't reached proficiency. But I wonder if it can ever capture the complexity of the task facing teachers whose students bring huge deficits in socialization, motivation and intellectual development to school through no fault of their own? Doctors have long known that the status of patients with factors beyond their control largely determines outcomes regardless of their professional expertise. Why are teachers treated differently?

The facts that school reformers ignore

By Richard Rothstein

Education “reformers” have a common playbook. First, assert without evidence that regular public schools are “failing” and that large numbers of regular (unionized) public school teachers are incompetent. Provide no documentation for this claim other than that the test score gap between minority and white children remains large. Then propose so-called reforms to address the unproven problem — charter schools to escape teacher unionization and the mechanistic use of student scores on low-quality and corrupted tests to identify teachers who should be fired.

The mantra has been endlessly repeated by Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, and by “reform” leaders like Michelle Rhee, former Washington D.C. public schools chancellor, and Joel Klein, former New York schools chancellor. Bill Gates’ foundation gives generous grants to school systems and private education advocates who adopt the analysis. In Chicago, Mayor Rahm Emmanuel makes the argument, and in New York, Mayor Michael Bloomberg has frequently sung the same tune.

And now, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo has joined in. On Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s birthday last week, the governor cast attacks on unionized teachers as a defense of minority students against the adult bureaucracy. “It’s about the children,” Mr. Cuomo said. Because of failing public schools, “the great equalizer that was supposed to be the public education system can now be the great discriminator.”

But this applause line about school failure is an “urban myth.” The governor, mayor and other policymakers have neglected to check facts they assume to be true. As a result, they may be obsessed with the wrong challenges, while exacerbating real, but overlooked problems.

Careful examination discloses that disadvantaged students have made spectacular progress in the last generation, in regular public schools, with ordinary teachers. Not only have regular public schools not been “the great discriminator” — they continue to make remarkable gains for minority children at a time when our increasingly unequal social and economic systems seem determined to abandon them.

We have only one accurate performance measure. The government administers periodic reading and math tests to samples of fourth, eighth and 12th graders. Called the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP, pronounced “nape”), it is less subject to corruption than standardized tests now legally required of all schoolchildren.

NAEP samples are only large enough to produce reliable national and (for fourth and eighth graders) state estimates, but not for classrooms or schools. Thus, principals or teachers suffer no consequences for poor NAEP scores, giving them no incentive to steal time from instruction to drill on NAEP-type questions.

Not every selected student gets identical NAEP questions. Scores aggregate answers from different students’ booklets, covering different topics from the math and reading curriculums. In contrast, state and city standardized tests change little each year; teachers can predict which of many topics will likely appear, and focus instruction on those.

Here’s what NAEP shows: Average black fourth graders’ math performance in regular public schools has improved so much that it now exceeds average white performance as recently as 1992. The improvement has been greatest for the lowest achievers, those in the bottom 10 percent. Eighth graders show similar, though less dramatic trends. The black-white gap has narrowed little because whites have also improved.

These irrefutable facts characterize both the nation as a whole, and New York State specifically. In fact, New York State’s black children made enormous gains in the 1990s, and much slower gains once the federal No Child Left Behind, and Mayor Bloomberg’s and Chancellor Klein’s test-based reforms kicked in. From 1992 to 2003, for example, black fourth graders’ math performance jumped 22 scale points (about two-thirds of a standard deviation). From 2003 to 2011, the gain was only 5 scale points.

There is something perverse about using Dr. King’s birthday as the occasion for an accusation that schools have been the “great discriminators” when those schools have been boosting the achievement of African Americans at a far more rapid rate than they’ve been able to boost the achievement of whites.

Overall, the national and New York State data are hard to reconcile with a story that schools are filled with teachers having low expectations, poor training, and complacency arising from excessive job security, and the way to fix public schools is more accountability for student test scores.

There are certainly ineffective teachers, and schools should do better at removing them. But data suggest that this problem, while real, is relatively small compared to others we ignore. Here are two: There has been substantial reading improvement at the fourth but not eighth grade; and no comparable improvement, even in math, for 12th graders.

Assuming systemic failure to justify a frenzy of ill-considered reforms, we’ve spent almost no time investigating what caused these trends. We can only speculate.

Plausibly, schools have more influence on math. Reading, especially for older children, results more from exposure to vocabulary and complex language at home, and to visiting museums, libraries, and zoos, to gain context for the written word.

We do know that the verbal gap between middle class and disadvantaged children is well established by age 3. We can improve reading scores for fourth graders by drilling basic skills, but not for older children whose reading depends more on relating text to the world beyond.

Popular reforms, holding schools and teachers accountable for test scores, are consistent with the facts only if we believe that most teachers work hard to teach math, but not reading. More plausible is that elementary schools do at least a passable job, and we should focus reform instead on establishing early childhood centers that give disadvantaged children greater verbal exposure and the breadth of experience that affluent children typically receive.

Rather than spending such energy imagining how schools have failed, so we can fix them, we might devote attention to investigating what schools have done well, so we can do more of it.

High schools’ apparent lack of improvement for disadvantaged youth remains puzzling. Here, too, we should consider some factors outside of schools, where racially isolated communities with concentrated poverty and few jobs can demoralize adolescents. We might get greater academic success by creating more after-school and summer programs that provide enriching experiences, competing with adverse neighborhood influences.

Systems cannot improve if prescriptions rely on flawed diagnoses. The governor and mayor should now step back, take a deep breath, and try to follow facts rather than ignore them.

-0-

Follow The Answer Sheet every day by bookmarkinghttp://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet.

10 Telling Studies Done on Longer School Days

by Kaitlyn Cole 
http://www.onlineuniversities.com/10-telling-studies-done-on-longer-school-days

With test scores faltering in many school districts and American students lagging behind their counterparts in other countries around the world, education reform has become a hot topic of late. One of the ways many school districts are looking to improve their grades and test scores is by lengthening the school day, with the idea that more time at school means more time that teachers can work with and educate students.

While longer school days may work for some students and districts as a whole, research on the issue is divided. Some studies have found little to no benefit to extending the school day, at least not without making serious other changes to the school’s curriculum as well. Others take a more positive view. We’ll leave it to you to make up your own mind whether lengthening the school day is a good move for America’s schools (it comes at a pretty hefty cost, too). No matter how you feel, make sure to check out these studies that will help you better understand the real-life impact extended school days may or may not have on American education.

1. 1. One study showed that longer school days resulted in a big jump in test scores.

   One of the studies that has helped to popularize the idea of lengthening the school day is this one, conducted by the Department of Education in Massachusetts. The study, conducted in 2006-2007, found that increasing the school day by 25% in 18 schools around the state caused test scores to rise by 4.7-10.8 percentage points. Other pilot programs conducted in regional schools, including one in New Hampshire, were found to improve not only test scores but grades as well. Additional funding from state grants has helped to offset the costs associated with the extra in-class time required by these new plans, and with the success of these early programs, more schools are expected to apply for the grants this year.

2. 2. Other research has found no link between longer school days and improved scores.

   One of the reasons studies on extended schools days can be so confusing is that many come up with quite different results, making them hard to reconcile with one another. While Massachusetts may have had great success in extending the school day, other school districts and states haven’t found the same to be true. An independent evaluation of DC-area schools found that, with the exception of higher science scores for fifth graders, there were no statistically significant differences between schools with expanded schedules and those with conventional days. Fans of extended-program schools point out, however, that the extended day at these schools (only 30 minutes more) simply may not be long enough to produce any real results.

3. 3. Some scholars have argued that it isn’t longer school days that improve scores, but the quality of interactions students have with teachers.

   When it comes to the school day, quality is much more important than quantity. At least that’s what some researchers believe. Larry Cuban, a professor of education at Stanford, argues in his book Hugging the Middle that too much attention is being focused on the length of the school day, when the real issue is the quality of education students receive while they’re in school, no matter how long they’re there. He showcases a range of studies showing that there’s little evidence to suggest that lengthening the school day alone is enough to create a marked change in student performance. Schools use extending the school day as a way to avoid making real, sustained, difficult changes in how schools are run.

4. 4. Extended school days may be most beneficial to at-risk students.

   Those who stand to benefit the most from extended school days may be students who are at-risk, low-achieving, or who come from low-income areas. Numerous programs like KIPP schools and the LA’s BEST program have helped thousands of low-income students improve their grades, stay in school, and even go on to college. The numbers don’t lie when it comes to these programs, but they aren’t accurate representations of the average American school. When it comes to public schools in general, the results of studies are much less clear on the benefits of an extended day, even for at-risk students. Research results have been mixed for both extended-day and after-school programs, leading many to question if they are truly worth the cost.

5. 5. Studies find that some students are only on task for about a third of the hours spent in school.

   More time in school may not make a bit of difference if students aren’t using it effectively. One study found that students weren’t on task for a majority of the hours they were in school, citing problems that ranged from motivation to poor delivery of instruction. These findings suggest that money may be better spent on improving curriculum, delivery, and teacher development rather than extending school days.

6. 6. Extended school days are most effective when the added time is carefully structured and planned.

   In 2010, a paper called "Extending the School Day or School Year: A Systematic Review of Research" reviewed a decade’s worth of studies on extended school days. It found a number of things, including that extending the school day could help improve student outcomes, but only under certain circumstances. Extending the school day alone doesn’t lead to an increase in student achievement. The best and most reliable gains were achieved by schools that didn’t just add extra time but that made plans detailing exactly how that extra time was to be used. This may be part of what causes so much confusion between research that supports extended school days and that which doesn’t, reemphasizing the importance of the quality not the quantity of time spent at school as the deciding factor.

7. 7. Shorter summers may benefit students more than longer schools days.

   The Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness conducted a study on the difference between extended school days in charter schools versus public schools. While they didn’t find a major difference in how the extended day programs were working for students, what they did find was that schools that had a shorter summer, using a year-round or extended school year program, had better long-term outcomes for students than those that didn’t. Students in a year-round program spend less time out of school on break and thus have less time to forget what they’ve learned, get in trouble, or otherwise set back their education. Students in these schools returned to school in the fall at a higher level than their peers, showing that spreading vacation out through the year may have just as big an impact as adding hours throughout.

8. 8. For some students, any supervised time in school may be beneficial.

   Whether it’s after-school programs or extended days, for some students, simply having activities to keep them in school and out of trouble may be enough to improve their educational outcomes. Activities like marching band, drama, chess, and a variety of academic clubs may help motivate struggling students get through the school day and increase their engagement in school activities. Studies have shown that 8 million children ages 5 to 14 regularly spend time without adult supervision, in some cases as much as 25 hours a week. This time is generally spent watching TV, playing video games, or using the Internet, not on school work or self-improvement. Additionally, studies have shown that students without adult supervision are at a greater risk of accidental death, drug use, crime, and dropping out of school. Of course, critics argue that schools aren’t babysitters, and that parents should be responsible for watching children at all times, not teachers.

9. 9. Extended school days are less successful when schools start earlier.

   Extended school days may have their benefits, but those are greatly reduced when students are required to come to class earlier. Numerous studies have shown that later school start times are directly correlated with lower truancy, better student health, and decreased tardiness. Additionally, students were found to have an easier time staying awake in class and as a result got better grades than students with earlier start times. Schools hoping to extend their days would be well advised to do so in the afternoon, not the morning, as any gains from additional hours in school may be negated by a group of tired, cranky students. Additionally, student safety may be an issue to consider as well, as one study showed that students driving themselves to school had far fewer accidents when their start time was pushed back an hour.

10. 10. Many countries with shorter school years and school days also boast high test scores and grades.

    While many educational reformers point to high-performing schools around the world with extended hours as examples of what American schools should be doing, it isn’t quite that simple. Many of these schools have quite different curricula, methods, and expectations of students, not to mention differences in culture and support from public programs. What’s more, many of the best schools in the world actually have shorterschool days than the U.S., suggesting that it’s not more time that students need in the classroom but better instruction and more support from teachers. Take Finland for example, where education programs have been lauded worldwide. The average Finnish student spends only 600 hours a year in school, which is just more than half the average of 1,100 hours for U.S. students.
    
    
    Source: http://www.onlineuniversities.com/