If you're a thinker, a wonderer, or a philosopher--or if you were as a child--you need to check out this New York Times article about philosophy in elementary schools.  The article details a program in which professors and students from Mount Holyoke are working with Massachusetts elementary school students, using children's books as the basis for discussion about deep philosophical questions.  

I won't recap the whole article here, because you really should read it for yourself.  But here's an excerpt from a second grade class's environmental ethics discussion after reading The Giving Tree:

Simply put, this program sounds like pure awesomeness.  Asking deep questions, struggling with hypotheticals, and challenging and reformulating one's own notions and beliefs is what learning is all about.  And the human tendency to wonder and to think deeply starts very young.  As a second grader named Autumn said in the article: "We can say things about what we believe and stuff.  It's what we feel and what we think."

Although the program in Massachusetts is run by philosophy students and professors, it's the kind of thing that can be easily and effectively replicated at schools across the country.  The books involved--The Giving Tree, Frog & Toad Together, Morris The Moose--can all be purchased for less than $10.  The questions raised in these books--what is the nature of courage?  How can we maintain a belief in the face of contrary evidence?--are sure to spark discussion and debate among children at any age.  As an ancillary benefit, encouraging children to think deeply about a story's underlying themes will only bolster students' appreciation for reading and literature.

So, check out the full article at the New York Times.  Then, if you're so inspired, come back to The Generation Project and pledge a set of books to help spark a philosophical debate in a low-income classrooms.  It's cost-effective and meaningful.  And, because it will spark children's own ideas and beliefs, the possibilities are limitless.  

The New York Times reports today that a program offering students up to $1000 for performance on Advanced Placement (AP) tests is showing signs of success.  Students in the program take the tests more frequently, are passing the tests at a higher rate, and are availing themselves of optional Saturday tutoring sessions geared towards AP subjects.   The results only cover the 2008-2009 school year and the program is relatively small (31 mostly minority schools participate) so the sample size is obviously limited.  Still, the results are a positive sign for those who think that student achievement can be raised through tangible and/or monetary incentives.

DISCLAIMER:The cartoon below does not represent the organizational views of The Generation Project.  It just, you know, relates to the topic of this blog post.  Also we thought the beanie was funny.

Today, The New York Times published a comprehensive statistical analysis of New York City students' standardized test performance under Mayor Michael Bloomberg. The results are a mixed bag. On the one hand, city students' scores on the New York statewide tests have risen at a faster rate than the scores in New York state as a whole. On the other hand, city students' scores have not risen at all on the federal National Assessment of Educational Progress, which is generally considered a more accurate measurement of student achievement. (Under No Child Left Behind, states' federal school funding is tied to performance on state tests, so states arguably have an incentive to make those tests easier.  The federal government, presumably, has no such incentives). 

The rest of the test results present similarly a muddled picture: the gap between the percentages of black and white city students who pass the statewide tests has narrowed, but if the achievement gap is measured in raw scores, it has not narrowed as much.  Critics argue that this disparity shows that the state has simply set the  "passing" bar lower on these tests --i.e, a 60% on the statewide test in 2002 was a failure, but now that same 60% gets students a "pass."  On the SAT test, city students' scores dropped 2% between 2004 and 2008, although that drop might be attributed to a corresponding rise in the number of students who took the test.  And so forth.  For more ambiguous test results, hop on over to the New York Times website and read the article for yourself.  Accompanying the article on the Times website are 1) an awesome tool where you can track scores by subject, grade, school year, and individual school, and, 2) a less-awesome blog discussion featuring a host of critics who, surprisingly, disagree on what these test results "mean."  

The ol' talking (blogging?) heads don't have anything particulary novel to say about the New York test scores.  They more or less rehash of the same debates that have dominated education policy for years.  Defenders of testing say they're the best tool we have for measuring growth, that their scores are reliable, and that test gains correspond to real learning.  Test critics say that standardized tests ignore other important indicators of student growth, that they are almost invariably dumbed-down, and that any growth in test scores are simply a result of teachers "teaching to the test."

The "teaching to the test" criticism may be the hardest to measure--and thus, quite possibly the most difficult to rebut.  Not that defenders of testing regimes don't try: New York City schools chancellor Joel Klein, for one attempts to avoid the charge by implying that the tests are perfectly aligned with ideal educational outcomes.  As Klein says, "if...test prep is about teaching people to read and understand paragraphs, that’s what I think education is about."  

Arguments like Klein's remain unconvincing, though, for at least two reasons, both of which make me wish I knew a good link to a YouTube video of somebody beating the living crap out of a straw man:

• 1) test critics do not think that "test prep is about teaching people to read and understand paragraphs," and thus dispute Klein's premise, and,
• 2) if Klein's premise is correct and "test prep" equals 'teaching people to read and understand paragraphs," nobody's going to argue that's part of what education is about.  The issue is whether that is all education is about.

The reason that "teaching to the test" is such a potent criticism is that people intuitively gravitate towards a richer, more diverse vision of education.  Sure, education is about reading short paragraphs and dividing fractions, but, as various commentators on the Times blog point out, it's also about thinking critically, appreciating complex literature, teaching students to interact with others, and fomenting children's moral and psychological development.  Even if we do assume that tests are a 100% reliable and accurate measurement of things like "reading" and "math," I don't think many people would feel comfortable giving children an educational experience that consists entirely of preparation for those tests.  Make no mistake about it--schools' emphasis on test preparation often corresponds to schools' de-emphasis of other scholastic endeavors like, say, art.  

And the fact that a child can pass a test does not mean that child is somebody we can be proud of.  Elliot Schrefer, the author of "Hack the SAT," recently showed how easily one can ace the SAT essay test with a basic knowledge of spelling, grammar and syntax.  Schrefer achieved a near-perfect score on the test by writing an essay that praised the Nazis.  Schrefer's nearly "perfect" essay included phrases like "not everybody has the right to exist at all" and only by "safeguarding racial stratification and genetic superiority can true and ambitious progress be made."

None of this is to say that accountability isn't important, or that testing regimes themselves are fatally flawed.  But the essential argument behind "teaching to the test"--that students will ultimately benefit from a richer, more diverse educational experience than they are currently being offered--should be taken seriously.  Over the past few weeks, we've seen hundreds of people design and fund gifts that are based on their own individual passions right here at The Generation Project.org.  These gifts span an incredible range of subjects--from sports to arts to literature to gardening to math to chess to photography to theatre and so on.  Many of our donors, at least, seem to believe that education is more than reading and understanding paragraphs.  Indeed, many seem to believe that expanding students' opportunities (say, by exposing them to Harry Potter, Roald Dahl, or modern poetry) will help them read and understand those paragraphs.   

I doubt "teaching to the test" is a particularly potent political issue.  Donors through The Generation Project are probably not a representative sample of the New York City polity, so Mssrs Bloomberg and Klein probably don't have too much to worry about on this front.  But to the degree that they have control over the state of public education, every one of our donors has put their money where their mouth is, so to speak, and empowered their own vision for the future of education.  So, here's the shameless plea for support (on behalf of the kids you'll help!): whether you agree or disagree with this post, why not sign up or login to The Generation Project's community site and generate your own ideas to empower education?

Despite the negative headline, I was actually pleasently surprised by today's report in the New York Times that American eighth graders display only "mediocre" art skills.  Although some of the study's findings were quite discouraging for arts-lovers--for example, only 16% of eighth graders had gone to art museums with their class--the report also noted that about half of eighth graders could identify Renaissance painting, and a little over half could identify a half-note.  This was touted as a "mediocre" achievement, but it actually seemed pretty good to me.  Not to knock any of my former eighth grade students from the Bronx--who were brilliant kids doing their best to navigate a broken education system--but I would have been shocked if even five percent could have identified either a Renaissance painting or a half-note.  Frankly, in urban schools, that kind of stuff is very rarely taught, as the focus has largely shifted to reading and math.  The study did not break out student achievement along socioeconomic lines, so I have no idea how well urban students are doing in the arts.  Still, on the balance, students' achievements in the study far exceeded what I would have predicted. 

What disturbed me more than the findings reported in the article was some Times readers' online comments.  Several readers argued that, given the worrisome state of American achievement in subjects like math, science and literacy, we should be making even further cuts to arts education to focus more attention on these "core" subjects.  One reader even went so far as to say that we should not "further distract [students] with this stuff." And such sentiments are hardly the work of isolated trolls on the Times website. In fact, as I reported in my recent article in the Michigan Law Review, a slim majority of Americans think it is a "good thing" if increased emphasis on reading and mathematics results in a de-emphasis of other scholastic subjects.

Now, to my mind, there are countless benefits to arts education in schools, starting with the fact that for millenia, humans have expressed themselves visual art, drama, and music, and I think it is the height of hubris to ignore all that because we want kids to perform better on math tests.  But let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the entire function of schools is to get kids to a certain level of proficiency in math, reading, and maybe science.  Even if we reduce schools to this simple metric, it still strikes me as extremely implausible that the best way to achieve those goals is to spend countless hours drilling home the basics of math, reading, and science with no focus whatsoever on the arts, history, or on physical education.  One of the biggest issues in struggling schools is getting kids engaged with the curriculum and with the scholastic experience in general.  And if you're a student who is struggling in math or reading, and the entirety of your scholastic experience is devoted to the subjects that are already giving you the most trouble, chances are you'll lose interest really fast.  Maybe you'll simply sit there, bored out of your mind, and coast to a high school diploma with a C- average.  Or maybe, like so many kids have done over the past decade, you'll simply drop out entirely, thinking that school just isn't for you.

On the other hand, if you're a 14-year-old kid and, for a few hours of the day, you're learning about something that a) interests you, and b) you're kind of good at, you'll be more likely to be engaged in school in general.  The point here is not that arts education is some magical placebo, it's just that when you present kids with broader, richer curriculum, they are more likely to find something in school that interests them.  It's a rare person who is able to maintain the motivation to consistently work hard and stay engaged at something that they struggle with naturally.  If you stink at the guitar, you're probably going to find another musical intrument.  If bowling's not your thing, maybe you can be President of the United States instead.  And that's all well and good when it comes to hobbies, but it is incredibly dangerous to narrow the scholastic experience down to reading and math test factories, because then we run the risk there are going to be a ton of kids out there that simply think "I am no good at school." 

So, with apologies to that Times poster, we should be "further distracting" students with art, music, theatre, history and sports.  Beyond the benefits that society can glean from a well-rounded, educated populace, we all stand to gain when young people are given every opportunity to engage their unique passions and skills inside the schoolhouse gates.