Re: [eddra] CRESST study

[aburke5054@aol.com]

The authors of the curious CRESST study emphasize that their research 
(9 schools) could not establish generalizable findings about what 
differentiates schools that get more of their kids over the bar from 
other schools, but they expend a great deal of energy in speculating 
about what those generalizable findings might be.  In any event, 
nothing in the CRESST study supports the claim that the relatively more 
successful schools bought their success by sacrificing "real learning" 
of thier students, unless one assumes that aligning curriculum and 
instruction with state standards automatically means that "real 
learning" has gone out the door.

Art

CRESST study:  http://www.cse.ucla.edu/products/reports/R713.pdf


-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Farruggio <pfarr@cal.berkeley.edu>
To: eddra@yahoogroups.com
Cc: arn-l@interversity.org; ca-resisters@interversity.org
Sent: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 6:54 pm
Subject: [eddra] CRESST study


I remember having read the CRESST paper back when it came out.  It
was in that multi-million dollar package of studies commissioned by the
CA state gov't (legislature? governor? dept of Ed?) that all went public
at one time with big fanfare.  I think it captured something
different than what Designs for Change found.  Susan just did a nice
annotated summary of the CA findings, and I'll shrink them down even
further with a bit of overstatement.  Yes, CRESST found that there
were low income schools that posted consistently higher test scores than
all  the rest.  And these didn't involve the tricks that we
uncovered in the original set of Heritage/Ed Trust "no excuses"
and "high flyers" (creaming for students, hidden extra
foundation funding, rigged test score formulae, etc)  And these
truly high scoring schools did share certain characteristics, like
dedicated teachers, a sense of mission, faculty collaboration.


But here's the drawback, and I think it's a bit too subtle for most
readers of the CRESST report.  The sense of mission in these schools
was all about one thing: raising that test score, period.  I've been
in schools like these in recent years.  Mostly inexperienced
teachers with little knowledge of pedagogy and cognition, but loaded 
with
commitment and dedication to "do the right thing" for poor
kids.  They buy into the populist rhetoric about "high
expectations" and accept that behaviorist methods with a human face
is the way to help these kids.  Therefore, they work well together
as a faculty. No dissent, no questions about the scripted lessons,
etc.  It's sort of like a well organized cult.  Efficient at
implementing the mission because nobody questions the mission.  They
get young kids to buy into it because they communicate a real sense of
caring for their students, and thus they have fewer behavior problems 
and
are able to move through scripted lessons with minimal disruptions, and
even use their own creativity to make the lessons "fun".
But it's the same anti intellectual curriculum and teaching, and the 
kids
ARE NOT LEARNING


As far as real learning, these schools are like a Potemkin village: all
facades, nothing behind them.  Ideal for quickie, "feel
good" visits by politicians and other bigshots, and for shallow news
reports, because everybody is engaged and busy and looks happy.  I
think CRESST only questioned the quality of learning at these schools,
rather than providing details and evidence (at least that was my first
impression back in April, and my disappointment).  If there is
evidence of weak learning, we need to highlight it.


Pete Farruggio





At 07:50 AM 8/27/2007, you wrote:




In its study of Chicago
elementary schools that were improving compared with those that were 
not,
Designs for Change uncovered significant differences. Those improving 
had
strong Local School Councils that worked well with the principals the
Councils hired; good collaborative leadership from principals; focus on
professional development; they did less teaching to the test; and some
other factors. The less successful schools were subject to more central
office interventions (including scripted curricula) because of being put
on probation or reconstituted, and those pressures no doubt led to more
narrow teaching to the test. The more successful schools had a slightly
less impovershed student body, but even then greater rates of poverty
than Cleveland and Baltimore. These were schools doing a lot with far 
too
little, but those experiences and the accumulated knowledge were being
ignored by CPS central office. The report is at
www.designsforchange.org. A
report FairTest co-authored that summarizes DFC and other information
about Chicago is on the FT website at

http://www.fairtest.org/ChicagoReportExecSum2007.html



Monty





----- Original Message -----




From: Susan Harman




To: ARN state ;

arn2-strategy@yahoogroups.com ;
eddra@yahoogroups.com ;
CA Resisters ;
North Dakota Study Group





Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2007 3:33 PM




Subject: [ndsgroup] CRESST study





Back in April, CRESST published a study theyd done of
"no-excuses",




"high-flying" schools. Ill try attaching my notes on it (to
save you




the trouble of reading it). I think its results are very
important.




Susan
















   __._,_.___





           Messages in this topic           (0)



           Reply           (via web post)
         |

         Start a new topic






               Messages
           |    Files
           |    Photos
           |    Links
           |    Database
           |    Polls

           |    Calendar
















     Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)

      Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | 
Switch format to Traditional



       Visit Your Group
      |

       Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use       |

       Unsubscribe
















Recent Activity






9


New Members












       Visit Your Group









Real Food Group


Share recipes


and favorite meals


w/ Real Food lovers.





Fitness Challenge


on Yahoo! Groups


Get in shape w/the


Special K Challenge.





Popular Y! Groups


Is your group one?


Check it out and


see.








.





__,_._,___











________________________________________________________________________
Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! - 
http://mail.aol.com