This weblog entry is part of a continuing paragraph by paragraph critique of Jay Greene’s essay about myths in education.

The introduction is here.

I’m going to let Greene get a solid start on his case against certification by letting him present some of his evidence before I discuss it, so we begin with his first three paragraphs on this issue:

Jay Greene’s “Education Myths,” paragraph 37, 38 & 39
The certification myth

Receiving professional certification is generally regarded as a reliable sign of expertise, because in most occupations, credentials are given to those who have proven their worth. Few people would see a doctor who wasn’t licensed, or a lawyer who hadn’t passed the bar. Teacher quality is certainly a crucial factor in students’ academic achievement, but having an extra education degree is not linked to success.

In a review conducted for the Abell Foundation, researchers found that teachers holding a master’s in education did not produce higher student performance, and among new teachers, traditional certification made no difference in student performance. After examining every available study on the impact of teaching credentials on job performance–171 in total–Eric Hanushek found that only nine uncovered any significant positive relationship between credentials and student performance, five found a significant negative relationship between the two, and 157 showed no connection. Looking at Teach For America–a program that lets recent college graduates become teachers without obtaining traditional education credentials–three scholars at Mathematica Policy Research found that students taught by these non-credentialed instructors made significant gains in math in one year, and kept pace in reading. Current policy–which generally centers on teachers having education certificates–therefore appears to be seriously misguided.

Many researchers, politicians, and most Americans assume that more credentialing means better teachers, but the evidence suggests that it doesn’t. One of the strongest and most consistent findings in the entire body of research on teacher quality is that teaching certificates and master’s degrees in education are irrelevant to classroom performance. Yet most school systems reward certification and experience, instead of rewarding more reliable direct indicators of good teaching.

Here’s the real problem: Are the facts guiding the conclusion, or is the conclusion guiding the facts? Both sides of this argument ask this question. To separate the research from the propaganda is difficult. I will come back to the issue of certification in my next post, but I feel this is a good time to address one of the most serious problems in education today. Ideology disguised as legitimate research. continue reading…

This weblog entry is part of a continuing paragraph by paragraph critique of Jay Greene’s essay about myths in education.

The introduction is here.

If you haven’t read the last two posts, you might want to read them first as this continues the discussion on smaller class sizes and refers to some of the information in those posts.

After misrepresenting Project STAR, Greene goes on to criticize California’s Class-Size Reduction (CSR).

Jay Greene’s “Education Myths,” paragraph 34
The class size myth (continued)

In California, the state appropriated $1 billion in 1996 to reduce elementary school class sizes. When California’s test scores rose, advocates of smaller classes held up their program as a model. The reality, however, wasn’t so clear. A RAND Corporation study concluded that California students who attended larger elementary school classes improved at about the same rate as students in smaller classes. Though California’s overall educational performance went up, it did not seem to be due to smaller classes. (The state had also undertaken a number of other major education reforms at the same time it was reducing class sizes.)

Leave it to Greene to select an example that was poorly executed and criticized by small class proponents. Very few will argue that the California mandated Class-Size Reduction (CSR) was not a fiasco. It’s a great example of how not to implement smaller classes. Throwing money at a problem without careful planning is simply stupid, and that’s what happened. continue reading…

This weblog entry is part of a continuing paragraph by paragraph critique of Jay Greene’s essay about myths in education.

The introduction is here.

If you haven’t read the previous post, you might want to read it first as this continues the discussion on Project STAR, which supports smaller class sizes in the primary grades. Greene offers his arguments against STAR here, while I counter them, as well as provide other research which supports the conclusions made from STAR. First, Greene’s criticisms:

Jay Greene’s “Education Myths,” paragraph 32
The class size myth (continued)

There were a number of shortcomings in the STAR program’s implementation that raise doubts about the accuracy of its findings. Most significantly, students weren’t tested when they entered the program–so we can’t confirm that the three groups started out at the same level as the experiment began. There is no way to know if the project’s random assignment method was accurate, and thus no way to be certain that differences observed among the groups weren’t there from the beginning.

By definition, random means students were assigned to classrooms not by test scores, but by luck of the draw. Teachers were assigned to classrooms the same way. Random selection of subjects is good science. It is very possible that a few classes were stacked with higher achieving students, but highly unlikely that out of 329 classrooms in 79 schools most of the high achievers ended up in small classes and low achievers in large classes to give false results. The purpose of randomization is to protect research from bias and protect against systematic differences between all of the groups. All good researchers know this. continue reading…

This weblog entry is part of a continuing paragraph by paragraph critique of Jay Greene’s essay about myths in education.

The introduction is here.

Jay Greene’s “Education Myths,” paragraph 30
The class size myth (continued)

The centerpiece of class-size research was the STAR project, a 1980s experiment conducted by the state of Tennessee. Students were randomly assigned to one of three types of classes as they progressed from kindergarten through third grade. The first type was a regular-sized class of around 24 students with one teacher. The second option was a regular-sized class with a teacher plus a teacher’s aide. The third alternative was a small class of around 15 students with one teacher.

Here’s a bit more detail about Project STAR. It involved over 6,000 students, in 329 classrooms in 79 schools, in the first year, and almost 12,000 students overall took part in this 4 year study. Students were randomly assigned to small classes (13-17), a regular class (22-26), or a full-size class with a teacher’s aide. Of course, to some teachers, 22-26 would be great. There are school districts dealing with 30-40 elementary students per class. Project STAR was an intensive study that provided a lot of information about the benefits of class size. continue reading…

This weblog entry is part of a continuing paragraph by paragraph critique of Jay Greene’s essay about myths in education.

The introduction is here.

Jay Greene’s “Education Myths,” paragraph 29
The class size myth (continued)

Unlike other myths, this one isn’t totally baseless. Research suggests there may be some advantages to smaller classes–though if so, the benefits are modest and come at a very high price tag. And whether this research is actually correct is a matter of debate. So the strong claims for class size reduction made by political activists are not at all justified.

I have shown in previous posts that solid research contradicts Greene’s opinions, his own research techniques have been challenged by professional researchers, and his creditability has been damaged by his own statements.

Greene does not define what advantages there may be in smaller classes, and he is vague about the research itself, except to point out its accuracy is a matter of debate. I will remind readers that the tobacco companies debated the affects of cigarette smoking when they knew the truth. Just because there is a debate doesn’t mean both sides carry the same weight. Green states that gains were modest, which is not true. Educational research is almost always debated by an opposing ideology no matter how solid it is, so to say it is debatable is not an argument. Let’s hear the debate, presented with facts, to allow us to make up our mind. Greene’s evidence will be presented in the next post, and I will show that he is not only wrong, but most likely trying to purposely mislead his readers. continue reading…