School Notebook

What do you think about this, fair educators out there?

There's an Associated Press story, which I found at USA Today, about a Tuesday-released survey by think-tank Education Sector that reveals: "More than half of teachers believe it's too difficult to weed out ineffective teachers who have tenure, and nearly half say they personally know such a teacher."

It also said: "About 70% of teachers in the Education Sector survey said receiving tenure was just a formality that has little to do with teacher quality."

Have any thoughts about this? Let me know: shelly.leachman@dailybreeze.com.

Posted by Shelly Leachman at 1:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I came across a couple interesting stories this morning about math, both suggesting that commonplace teaching methods once believed to make the subject easier to understand in fact make it harder.

First up, MSNBC has a piece from Reuters about a new study in the journal Science, by a Ohio State University researcher, who found that students actually absorbed more via abstract than real-world examples.

The New York Times also posts a story with its take on the same study.

It's pretty interesting actually. What do you think, teachers?

Posted by Shelly Leachman at 11:06 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Ever on top of things, I just came across the following, fascinating story today, although it was actually published about two months ago. (Props and thanks to Alexander Russo's This Week In Education blog for alerting me.)

Appearing in New York Magazine and penned by San Francisco-based writer Po Bronson, the intriguing piece titled "Learning to Lie" examines a load of recent research into lying by kids -- when they start doing it, why they do it, what they do it for, etc. -- that suggests they're simply following in their parents' footsteps.

Here's a short sample:
"The most disturbing reason children lie is that parents teach them to. According to Talwar, they learn it from us. “We don’t explicitly tell them to lie, but they see us do it. They see us tell the telemarketer, ‘I’m just a guest here.’ They see us boast and lie to smooth social relationships.”

Disclaimer: It's a long, beefy read. Also it's pretty interesting stuff. You make the call, people.

Posted by Shelly Leachman at 1:59 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

This should interest a lot of you, teachers and parents alike:

The Associated Press has an interesting story today about a new study that found that "(d)yslexia affects different parts of children's brains depending on whether they are raised reading English or Chinese."

The study's lead author, University of Hong Kong professor of linguistics and brain and cognitive is quoted as saying, "Our finding yields neurobiological clues to the cause of dyslexia."

Results were reported online Monday by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. I found the AP piece at the Washington Post.

Posted by Shelly Leachman at 11:32 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

In answer to the headline's question: Yes, they can and they do, says a Stanford professor who's been researching how human behavior is affected by their experience with avatars (you know, those virtual characters you can create online).

Jeremy Bailenson, an assistant professor of communications at the NorCal-based Ivy League school, tells the Chronicle of Higher Education this week that "Our virtual identity is not separate from our physical identity."

The magazine's feature goes on: "As the director of Stanford's Virtual Human Interaction Lab, Mr. Bailenson has explored ways that online behavior spills over to the real world. People assume that, if anything, online activities emanate from offline lives. But Mr. Bailenson and his colleagues have shown the reverse. Their experiments demonstrate, for instance, that people who watch their avatars — cartoonlike versions of themselves — gain weight from overeating are more likely to adopt a weight-loss plan in real life."

Posted by Shelly Leachman at 5:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Let me start this entry by saying I find it highly depressing that the following study even exists and hopefully it's more a case of "you can reach whatever conclusion you want if you conduct the study just so" than it is accurate, but hey, what do I know?

Here's the dillyo:

The Every Child Matters Education Fund, a non-partisan nonprofit, today released a report that says the state a child lives in can adversely affect his or her life, so much so that kids in the state's that rank lowest according to "a wide variety of child well-being indicators" are...

* Twice as likely to die in their first year as children in the highest ranking state.
* Three times more likely to die between the ages of one-14.
* Roughly three times more likely to die between the ages of 15-19.
* Three times more likely to be born to a teenage mother.
* Five times more likely to have mothers who received late or no prenatal care.
* Three times more likely to live in poverty.
* Five times more likely to be uninsured.
* Eight times more likely to be incarcerated.
* 13 times more likely to die from abuse and neglect.

Tito, bring me a tissue. That is awful!

Among the factors used to arrive at this determination, and to rank the states accordingly, were poverty, race, educational achievement, political culture, taxes and weak federal policy on things such as health insurance, child abuse and poverty.

From the press release:
"Based on a wide cross-section of 10 major child well-being standards, the 10 bottom states identified in the Every Child Matters Education Fund report are:  Arizona (41); South Dakota (42); Nevada (43); Arkansas (44); South Carolina (45); Texas (46); Oklahoma (47); New Mexico (48); Mississippi (49); and Louisiana (50). 

The 10 top states for children by the same measures are:  Maine (10); Washington (9); Minnesota (8); Iowa (7); Hawaii (6); New Hampshire (5); Rhode Island (4); Connecticut (3); Massachusetts (2); Vermont (1)."

I guess our fair Golden State falls somewhere in the middle. Do you think we're nearer the Top 10 or the bottom? And why is New England so dominant?

To learn more about the report and the Every Child Matters organization, which is calling these "life and death" differences the "forgotten campaign issue" of 2008, visit this website.

Posted by Shelly Leachman at 11:22 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

A new study indicates that there's an ongoing and alarming growth of gangs in suburban neighborhoods. Actually, the U.S. Department of Justice report says gangs are on the upswing in every socioeconomic area across the country.

Commenting on the study, a gang expert from consultancy Seraph, which bills itself as a problem-solving company for schools, government agencies and more, asserts that suburban kids are being recruited in ever-larger numbers.

What do you think, South Bay school types? Is it happening in even the tonier neighborhoods here?

Posted by Shelly Leachman at 11:03 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Two years after George W. commissioned a committee to determine why American kids essentially suck at math when compared to students in many other countries, the group's report is ready.

"In the end, they found a math instruction system that's "broken and must be fixed" if the USA is to compete with established economic powers or emerging ones such as China," reports USA Today.

Read the whole piece for all the dirty details.

Posted by Shelly Leachman at 12:01 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The spring issue of American Educator is now available online and it includes some pretty in-depth stuff on with new and seasoned teachers alike weighing in on why state standards are necessary -- and why they're mostly lacking in clarity and specificity.

The cover tag reads "There's a Gaping Hole in State Standards." See for yourself.

Posted by Shelly Leachman at 11:22 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The LA Times has a story this morning about a program that could revolutionize students' success in math. The article tells the story of a Hollywood school that has been using Singapore textbooks to teach math for the past two years and saw its test scores jump 31 points.

How did that happen?

It's a question with potentially big implications, because California recently became the first state to include the Singapore series on its list of state-approved elementary math texts. Public schools aren't required to use the books -- there are a number of other, more conventional texts on the state list -- but the state will subsidize the purchase if they do. And being on the list puts an important imprimatur on the books, because California is by far the largest, most influential textbook buyer in the country.

The decision to approve the books could place California ahead of the national curve. The National Mathematics Advisory Panel, appointed by President Bush, will issue a report Thursday that is expected to endorse K-8 math reforms that, in many ways, mirror the Singapore curriculum.

But of course, there's a problem.

Continue reading "Is Singapore math the solution?" »

Posted by Toni Sciacqua at 11:15 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

You may have by now noticed my affinity for the New York Times, so frequently do I link to their stories. Here we go again, this time from their Sunday magazine. I just came across this at 5:30 this morning (yes, 5:30 a.m. and no, I don't usually come to work this early) -- an in-depth feature on a growing movement toward single-sex publication education, which argues that separating boys and girls helps both parties be more productive.

The lede: "On an unseasonably cold day last November in Foley, Ala., Colby Royster and Michael Peterson, two students in William Bender’s fourth-grade public-school class, informed me that the class corn snake could eat a rat faster than the class boa constrictor. Bender teaches 26 fourth graders, all boys. Down the hall and around the corner, Michelle Gay teaches 26 fourth-grade girls. The boys like being on their own, they say, because girls don’t appreciate their jokes and think boys are too messy, and are also scared of snakes. The walls of the boys’ classroom are painted blue, the light bulbs emit a cool white light and the thermostat is set to 69 degrees. In the girls’ room, by contrast, the walls are yellow, the light bulbs emit a warm yellow light and the temperature is kept six degrees warmer, as per the instructions of Leonard Sax, a family physician turned author and advocate who this May will quit his medical practice to devote himself full time to promoting single-sex public education."

And further down: "Separating schoolboys from schoolgirls has long been a staple of private and parochial education. But the idea is now gaining traction in American public schools, in response to both the desire of parents to have more choice in their children’s public education and the separate education crises girls and boys have been widely reported to experience."

It's pretty interesting stuff, though I will warn you: it is LONG.

Posted by Shelly Leachman at 6:27 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

A new study by Educational Testing Service concludes that teachers entering the profession now possess higher academic qualifications than their predecessors a decade back. Citing evidence that a teacher's effectiveness with students is directly linked to their own academic prowess, the report further asserts that student learning could improve as a result.

Read the study for yourself; or check out the Education Week article for a smart synopsis.

Posted by Shelly Leachman at 9:19 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)