The Single Solution to All Problems in Education (part 1 of 2)

And not only that, we can do it in one word.

Attention


For all the new innovations, regulations, tests, consultants (guilty as charged) and others, there is really only one thing that works for students that struggle, and it’s actually giving them some one-on-one attention.  Think about the obvious reasons students may struggle:

• The student doesn’t know the material.  Clearly attention will help this.  Parents help with homework, kids stay after class to work with their teachers, and tutors are hired to help make up for deficiencies.
• A physical or intellectual ability interferes with learning.  Again, attention will help…the person working closely with their kids may see them squint, transpose letters, or some other indication of a broader problem. 
• The student is bright, but he/she is just not trying.  They don’t think education is important. The attention of adults is direct evidence of the contrary.
• The student is suffering from socioemotional problems, perhaps due to their outside-of-school environment.  Attention from a caring adult will help that student in a number of ways, such as showing that the child is valued, support can be provided as needed.

Where is all this attention supposed to come from?  Well, without beating some of my earlier pieces to death, I’d start with the foundation that love and attention comes from home first.  Any teacher has seen it: often it’s the parents of the most successful students that come to conferences, while the parent we really need to talk to is not there.  And this is not accident.  In order to sit in desks for years and learn things that are not currently or perhaps ever relevant to them, students need a great deal of acculturation and coaching.  The students that come from supportive environments, read: where somebody cares and pays attention to them and their education, are far more likely to do well, even if their parents aren’t experts at providing tutoring, counseling or whatever else the student is in need of.

We see study after study that talk about the importance of effort, motivation, and grit.  In schools, we talk often about the problem we face with our students being principally rooted in their disengagement.  So imagine for a moment the ideal: every student gets 1-1 education or pretty close to it.  Would we have the time to give them everything they need?  And of course, it’s not a surprise to anybody who has even 2-3 kids that when we give a teacher 30 students she simply can’t give the same attention she’d give if she had only 1.  That’s the premise of the system’s correct function—if the kids get enough love and attention outside of school, the amount the teacher needs to supply to keep the student moving is not as great.

Sometimes, perhaps regularly in some schools, students arrive without having gotten all the loving attention they need, and we see this when they fail chronically.  What can be done if the staff is overwhelmed by the needs of its students?  What if there’s just too in need many for the adults in the building to reach?

(part 2 next week)

College Ready or Credit Worthy?

In a previous article I brought up some of the issues with judging schools based on standardized exam scores.  The obvious question is why we use them still.  College readiness (highly suspect) and public accountability are the two reasons most often given.  The public wants their money’s worth, which is totally appropriate, but individuals, seeing/hearing about the problems of the national standardized testing movement/culture typically get that it’s a bad idea.  Yet we continue.

When I was teaching economics, one of the basic principles instructed was that “people respond to incentives.”  In other words, there are reasons (people) that things are the way they are.  I am reminded of a photo I saw once.  In it was Sal Kahn (creator of Khan Academy), a high school leader, a Citibank executive, and a high ranking exec from the College Board.  So Kahn Academy, the College Board, Citibank, and High Schools….which of these doesn’t fit?  It’s Citibank, correct?  Three educational institutions and a bank….we’ll come back to this.

Not long ago I saw a College Board presentation about the redesigned the SAT. The logic was that they were concerned that too many students, particularly minorities, were not "college ready.  This made them re-examine the exam and realize the test wasn’t aligned with what kids need to know in college.  Nice they finally figured that out, but it’s sad they put it on minority students, not the inappropriate use of these exams—which they’ve peddled, pushed, and lobbied.

Thus, they redesigned it, “taking out words like ‘loquacious’ and replacing them with words like ‘dedicated.’” They also formed a partnership with Khan Academy. Any student that takes the SAT is now automatically set up with a Khan account that's customized with videos and practice where they need it.  This sounds well and good, especially if you believe that high SAT scores = college readiness (they don’t). 

Enter Citibank, a major underwriter of federal and private student loans.  The more kids go to college, the more loans they make. Most important: student loans survive a bankruptcy, so this is a largely risk-free market for them. They set it up like that because 18 year old college bound kids don't exactly have the credit profile that banks like to see...no history, no job.

SAT/ACT scores are therefore credit ratings as much they are college readiness indicators.  This system will get kids further into student loan debt.  And worse, since the College Board has been quick to point out that they're specifically hoping to help minorities, one should conclude that this increased student loan debt will be disproportionately borne by students from those groups. It's unavoidable: Any plan to increase "credit" is a plan to increase debt. This also will to debt with no degree in many cases.  If student scores increase, but are void of real learning and a host of soft skills, we’ll merely be pushing marginal students into postsecondary institutions where they will not matriculate.

This is obviously cynical and not the intent.  Sal Khan, whose goal is to make education accessible, is not in Citi's board room scheming.  And of course, borrowing money to further an education is often wise.   That said, the above are completely likely outcomes and are even expected by the proponents: They want more low SES kids to go to college, but by definition, they don't have the money and must borrow.     

All the more reason we need to emphasize the importance of understanding the relationship between the cost of college and their likely future earnings. In my experience teaching personal finance, students' are in a disadvantaged position when it comes to making decisions about massive loan debt, etc., even if the law permits.  Surely, all of the advice we here about investing young making all the difference applies in reverse to starting out with debt young.  The gains foregone are invisible, but they’re forgone nonetheless.