Is homework stupid? - Quartz

Is homework stupid? - Quartz:
Is homework stupid?

The average American high-school student spends seven hours a weekon homework. The average for students across all developed countries is about five hours (pdf).

Is it all a colossal waste of time?

Mark Barnes, a former teacher and author, says yes. He tells Quartz his experience teaching, and working with teachers, has convinced him that homework does not improve learning, it gives kids no choice or agency, and students often don’t know what they are doing. As a result, the exercise gets punted to parents and kids end up burned out.

“The biggest danger and problem is it makes kids hate learning,” Barnes says. “There is nothing worse in the education world than losing kids because we are crushing their curiosity.”

At the end of his 20-year teaching career, he banned it. The result: “My students enjoyed class and become intrinsically motivated independent learners.”

Barnes is a believer in the work of Alfie Kohn, author of The Homework Myth and a prominent education writer. Kohn argues that the negative effects of homework are well-known and the positive effects are mythical: it does not reinforce learning nor does it improve academic results, and it cuts into a child’s time with family and friends.

Kohn writes:

For younger students, in fact, there isn’t even a correlation between whether children do homework (or how much they do) and any meaningful measure of achievement. At the high school level, the correlation is weak and tends to disappear when more sophisticated statistical measures are applied.

But they should probably do it anyways, right?

There are plenty of people—and teachers—who like homework. Take Annie Murphy Paul, who is writing a book about the science of learning. She argues that testing reinforces learning, and can be used not just for assessing performance. “Every time we pull up a memory, we make it stronger and more lasting, so that testing doesn’t just measure, it changes learning,” she writes.

She suggests specific methods to make homework more effective. Those include spaced repetition, or learning in smaller bite sizes over longer periods of time, and interleaving, or mixing up concepts instead of grouping them to force kids to think about what they are doing.

The authentic homework movement, which discourages rote learning and encourages students to have more input in what they do, has gained a lot of steam. The so-called flipped classroom allows kids to watch instructional videos at home and then use class time for problem solving, where the teacher is on hand to help.

Yes, but…

John Hattie, director of the Melbourne Educational Research Institute, synthesized more than 800 meta-studies covering more than 80 million students to figure out what specific factors are linked to better learning Is homework stupid? - Quartz:

Education in America is on the cusp of a dramatic change. Will the country let it happen? - Quartz

Education in America is on the cusp of a dramatic change. Will the country let it happen? - Quartz:
Education in America is on the cusp of a dramatic change. Will the country let it happen?

Kids these days: Are they ready for the next generation of jobs? Whether there’s truly a shortage of engineers and scientists in the global workforce, either now or in the near future, is actually still amatter of debate.

In the US, that speculation is certainly being treated seriously.

Pressure has been mounting for some years now to bolster the country’s educational standards in STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) fields, and the White House is now attempting to answer the call with a $4 billion proposal to bring computer science to K-12 students all over the country. Unveiled Feb. 9 as part of the Obama administration’s2017 education budget, the program is hugely ambitious—if perhaps also a little questionable in its efficacy: As critics have pointed out, $4 billion is chump change next to the country’s overall half-trillion-dollar education budget, and the plan hinges on “continued investments” from states and districts.

More pointedly, there are few hopes that this budget, the last to be submitted by US president Barack Obama, will be embraced by the Republican-controlled Congress. But to the extent the document represents the sitting president’s vision for the nation’s educational system, it highlights an intriguing shift in American attitudes toward teaching and learning.

“We have to make sure all our kids are equipped for the jobs of the future—which means not just being able to work with computers, but developing the analytical and coding skills to power our innovation economy,” Obama said in a Jan. 30 address explaining his Computer Science for All initiative.

What the administration suggests raises an important question about the intrinsic purpose of education. Might it be reoriented, even at the elementary-school level, as more than an important intellectual pursuit—but also a tool for economic gain?

A soaring goal of—what, exactly?

There’s no shortage of research on the need for STEM workers in the US. Standouts include a Brookings report in 2014 that found STEM job vacancies take twice as long as other positions to fill, and a 2012 National Science Foundation study noting that the country’s science and engineering workforce, between 1950 and 2009, has grown 15 times faster than the country’s population. Obama’s proposal is quite obviously an attempt to address these gaps.

Implementation, unlike the idea, definitely wouldn’t be straightforward. Schools and districts would have to rework their basic curriculums, schedules, and hiring processes; though several Silicon Valley giants like Google and Facebook have pledged some form of support to these changes, the grunt work is due to occur at the local level. Just training teachers in computer science is a giant endeavor on its own.

The country will essentially “have to start from scratch—start with teachers the way we would start with children,” Barbara Stengel, a professor at Vanderbilt University’s Peabody College of Education and Human Development, tells Quartz.

But the practical barriers to putting computer science education in Education in America is on the cusp of a dramatic change. Will the country let it happen? - Quartz:

Sunday Letters: Why CTU teachers are unhappy

Sunday Letters: Why CTU teachers are unhappy:

Sunday Letters: Why CTU teachers are unhappy

A few days ago I was checking my news feed and found an ask — to me as a Big Bargaining Team member and a member of the Chicago Teachers Union. Forrest Claypool, CEO of Chicago Public Schools  asked me for shared responsibility in this financial crisis. In his Feb. 5 letter to the editor in the Sun Times, he talked about how he so badly want to “right the ship” of the district’s finances, but in order to do that, he needed the CTU’s help. His idea of help is for us to sign the proposal that he offered us last week. This offer, which he has implied as generous, would help prevent CPS from jumping off of the financial cliff that it has intentionally created over the past 10 years.  Here is a refresher course on how we have sacrificed:

CPS instability has cost us our mental health. The crisis that Claypool and his predecessors have created over the past few months — even years — has led to a climate and culture of fear in our buildings. We walk into our schools each and every day not knowing whether or not he will make true on his threats — will he impose arbitrary cuts and fire thousands of teachers? In what profession does one enter the door each and every day with the uncertainty of whether or not they will keep their job?

During the 2011-12 school year the mayor refused to honor the 4 percent contractually agreed upon raises that we, as members of the Chicago Teachers Union, were entitled to. Over the past five years, this sacrifice, on behalf of our membership, has saved the district over $500 million. When the mayor found himself unable to fund extracurricular activities and sports programs, he cut them. What did teachers do? We sacrificed our time. Even though we had a longer day and year, we still sponsored clubs and coached sports with no compensation. We know how important it is for students to have opportunities outside of the classroom. When Claypool and your unelected Board of Education fail to prioritize spending for what is important, we sacrifice to do right by students.

When the mayor implemented a longer school day and year and refused to put the adequate funding behind it, teachers, paraprofessionals, and support staff didn’t receive the a raise proportionate to the additional work time. Students did not receive the rich curriculum that the mayor promised to provide with a longer day (art, music, recess, etc). Instead, the mayor made the teachers work longer and harder without giving them the resources they need to do the job.

While CPS privatizes janitorial services under the guise of saving money, teachers, literally, have spent their time cleaning up the mess. We have found our classrooms dirtier and our bathrooms void of toilet paper. Teachers have paid out of pocket for basic necessities like Kleenex, toilet paper, paper towels, and cleaning supplies. This is happening while Aramark continues to increase the costs of its contract — $22 million over budget in the first year alone with a bill of $86 million.

While CPS is passing unbalanced budgets and continuing to privatize the array of services in the district, teachers continue to advocate for short-term and long-term revenue solutions. We have built relationships with community groups, parents, and students to fight for a fix to the financial mess that your friends created.

Lastly, we sacrifice our time. We are the educators. We are the professionals in this career. We made a decision to dedicate our lives to this profession and we will do everything we can to preserve the profession. If that means that we must spend it on the streets, spend it on a hunger strike, or spend it in jail cell, we will continue to fight for what is right for children.

Alison Eichhorn, CTU teacherSunday Letters: Why CTU teachers are unhappy:

Ebb tide for school reform in Tennessee?

Ebb tide for school reform in Tennessee?:
Ebb tide for school reform in Tennessee?

The last several weeks have been lousy ones for those who labor to reform public education in Tennessee, even as one of the most controversial reforms, school vouchers, had made it to a full vote in the state House of Representatives for the first time.

Tennessee has made significant progress on education in the last eight years, but seems to be struggling with how, or whether, to build on that success.

Vouchers, using public funding to pay for private school tuition for some Tennessee students, are latest struggle.

The voucher bill sponsor, Rep. Bill Dunn, R-Knoxville, attempted to narrow the scope to a pilot voucher program in Memphis, but ended up having to ask for the bill to lay on the clerk’s desk. That maneuver allows him to bring the bill back this session, though that is unlikely.

“Obviously, if suddenly 50-something people came and said, 'We’re ready to take it back up,' then I would reconsider it. I think we kinda hit a high watermark today, and people are going to move on to other issues," Dunn told reporters Thursday.

Looking to next session, he said: "Next year there will still be failing schools and children on the path to failure, and I am not going to stop."

THE TENNESSEAN

Voucher bill stalls in Tennessee House

Though I don’t think that vouchers are, in and of themselves, a significant step on the path to scholastic success for Tennessee’s at-risk students, Dunn’s observation is all too true, and opponents should not be chortling about “victory.”

"Our public schools are safe for another day with the action that was taken today by the bill sponsor, but this is another failure by the governor to pass a key piece of his legislation," said Rep. John Ray Clemmons, D-Nashville, after the school voucher bill was withdrawn Thursday.

The legislature may also consider rolling back another controversial reform initiative this session, the Achievement School District. Rep. Antonio Parkinson, D-Memphis, and Sen. Frank Niceley, R-Strawberry Plains, have bills that propose a full abolishment of the ASD.

Counter ‘attack’ on reforms

Tennessee has been the standout state for education reform since Gov. Phil Bredesen assembled the bid for $500 million in “Race to the Top” federal funding, and his successor, Gov. Bill Haslam, embraced its goals.

Targeting the lowest-performing schools, teachers and students, Tennessee has poured its efforts into “failing schools and children on the path to failure.” And, unlike many other states dealing with high-poverty school districts, Tennessee has made progress.

But, in the minds of some Tennesseans, the progress is either too little, too slow and not radical enough, or it is too much, too fast and so radical that it destroys the concept of public education.Ebb tide for school reform in Tennessee?:

Is a recess appointment to the Court an option? : SCOTUSblog

Is a recess appointment to the Court an option? : SCOTUSblog:

Is a recess appointment to the Court an option?

Analysis

The Constitution not only assigns to the president the task of making nominations to the Supreme Court, setting off Senate review that may or may not result in approval, but it also gives the Chief Executive the opportunity to fill a vacancy on the Court temporarily, bypassing the Senate initially, if a nominee languishes in the Senate without final action.

Within a few hours after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, it became abundantly clear that, first, President Obama will choose a possible successor and try to get the Senate to go along, and, second, the GOP leadership of the Senate say they will try to block any such nominee from final approval.

If that does result in an impasse, President Obama may ponder the possibility of putting on the Court a new Justice of his choosing, to serve temporarily.  The problem, though, is that less than two years ago, the Supreme Court severely narrowed the flexibility of such temporary appointment power, and strengthened the Senate’s capacity to frustrate such a presidential maneuver.

It is true that one of the Justices regarded as a giant on the Court’s history, William J. Brennan, Jr., actually began his lengthy career with just such a short-term appointment.  The chances of that happening again today seem to have diminished markedly.

The presidential authority at issue in this possible scenario exists, according to Article II, when the Senate has gone into recess and the vacancy a president seeks to fill remains.  Such an appointment requires no action at all by the Senate, but the appointee can only serve until the end of the following Senate session.  The president (if still in office) can then try again during a new Senate session, by making a new nomination, and that must be reviewed by the Senate.

The Supreme Court had never clarified that power until its decision in June 2014 in National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning.

The decision was something of a compromise.  The Court expanded the concept of when the Senate would be in recess so that the president could make a temporary appointment, but it also gave the Senate more control over when it does recess and how long the recesses last.  The gesture toward the Senate’s choices was probably the more important result.

Here, specifically, is what the Court decided:

First, on the president’s side, the Court ruled that the recess appointment power applies when the Senate leaves town for a break in the middle of an annual sitting, or a break at the end of each annual session.

Second, also on the president’s side, the decision declared that the president during a recess can fill a vacancy even if the opening occurred well before the recess began.

Third, on the Senate’s side, the ruling made clear that it has to last more than three days, without saying how much more time must pass without the Senate out of town and doing nothing.

Fourth, strongly on the Senate’s side, the decision left it largely up to the Senate to decide when it does take a recess, allowing it to avoid the formality of a recess by taking some legislative action, however minor or inconsequential and however few senators actually take part in some action.

Suppose President Obama goes ahead with a nomination to the open seat on the Court, and suppose that the Republican-controlled Senate chooses not to allow that nominee.  The GOP has enough seats in the Senate to control that scenario.

Suppose, then, that the Senate goes into recess to allow its members who are running for reelection to spend some more time campaigning back home.

Could President Obama make a nominee during that recess?  Only if the Senate is taking a recess lasting longer than three days, and does not come in from time to time during that recess to take some minimal legislative action.  Both of those circumstances would be entirely within the Senate’s authority.

In that circumstance, a recess appointment to the Court would not be within the terms of the Constitution, as spelled out in Article II.

The same situation would likely apply when this year’s Senate session comes to an end, and the senators take a recess before the next Congress assembles.

The bottom line is that, if President Obama is to successfully name a new Supreme Court Justice, he will have to run the gauntlet of the Republican-controlled Senate, and prevail there.  The only real chance of that: if he picks a nominee so universally admired that it would be too embarrassing for the Senate not to respond.

  Big Education Ape: What happens to this Term’s close cases? : SCOTUSblog http://bit.ly/1oetRpa

Big Education Ape: Evening round-up: Death of Justice Antonin Scalia : SCOTUSblog http://bit.ly/1SNKZyQ

Big Education Ape: Judiciary panel chair: Wait on Court until after election : SCOTUSblog http://bit.ly/1XqInpx

Big Education Ape: Supreme Court vacancies in presidential election years : SCOTUSblog http://bit.ly/243iXTA

Posted in Analysis, Featured

Recommended Citation: Lyle Denniston, Is a recess appointment to the Court an option?,SCOTUSblog (Feb. 14, 2016, 12:24 AM), http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/is-a-recess-appointment-to-the-court-an-option/

Supreme Court vacancies in presidential election years : SCOTUSblog

Supreme Court vacancies in presidential election years : SCOTUSblog:

Supreme Court vacancies in presidential election years

In the wake of the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, questions have arisen about whether there is a standard practice of not nominating and confirming Supreme Court Justices during a presidential election year.  The historical record does not reveal any instances since at least 1900 of the president failing to nominate and/or the Senate failing to confirm a nominee in a presidential election year because of the impending nomination.  In that period, there were several nominations and confirmations of Justices during presidential election years.    

The first nomination during an election year in the twentieth century came on March 13, 1912, when  President William Taft (a Republican) nominated Mahlon Pitney to succeed John Marshall Harlan, who died on October 14, 1911.  The Republican-controlled Senate confirmed Pitney on March 18, 1912, by a vote of fifty to twenty-six.

President Woodrow Wilson (a Democrat) made two nominations during 1916.  On January 28, 1916, Wilson nominated Louis Brandeis to replace Joseph Lamar Rucker, who died on January 2, 1916; the Democratic-controlled Senate confirmed Brandeis on June 1, 1916, by a vote of forty-seven to twenty-two.  Charles Evans Hughes resigned from the Court on June 10, 1916 to run (unsuccessfully) for president as a Republican.  On July 14, 1916, Wilson nominated John Clarke to replace him; Clark was confirmed unanimously ten days later.

On February 15, 1932, President Herbert Hoover (a Republican) nominated Benjamin Cardozo to succeed Oliver Wendell Holmes, who retired on January 12, 1932.  A Republican-controlled Senate confirmed Cardozo by a unanimous voice vote on February 24, 1932.

On January 4, 1940, President Franklin Roosevelt (a Democrat) nominated Frank Murphy to replace Pierce Butler, who died on November 16, 1939; Murphy was confirmed by a heavily Democratic Senate on January 16, 1940, by a voice vote.

On November 30, 1987, President Ronald Reagan (a Republican) nominated Justice Anthony Kennedy to fill the vacancy created by the retirement of Louis Powell.  A Democratic-controlled Senate confirmed Kennedy (who followed Robert Bork and Douglas Ginsburg as nominees for that slot) on February 3, 1988, by a vote of ninety-seven to zero.

In two instances in the twentieth century, presidents were not able to nominate and confirm a successor during an election year.  But neither reflects a practice of leaving a seat open on the Supreme Court until after the election.

On September 7, 1956, Sherman Minton announced his intent to retire in a letter to President Dwight D. Eisenhower, and he served until October 15, 1956.  With the Senate already adjourned, Eisenhower made a recess appointment of William J. Brennan to the Court shortly thereafter; Brennan was formally nominated to the Court and confirmed in 1957.  The fact that Eisenhower put Brennan on the Court is inconsistent with any tradition of leaving a seat vacant.

And in 1968, President Lyndon B. Johnson nominated Abe Fortas, who was already sitting as an Associate Justice, to succeed Chief Justice Earl Warren, but Republicans filibustered the Fortas nomination – principally in reaction to the Warren Court’s liberalism and ethical questions about Fortas, although objections were certainly also made that it was inappropriate to fill the seat in an election year.  That filibuster prompted Homer Thornberry, whom Johnson nominated to succeed Fortas as an Associate Justice, to withdraw his name from consideration in October 1968, because there was no vacancy to fill. Moreover, the failure to confirm Fortas as the Chief Justice did not leave the Court short a Justice, because Chief Justice Earl Warren remained on the bench.

Tom Goldstein also contributed to this post.

Posted in Everything Else

Recommended Citation: Amy Howe, Supreme Court vacancies in presidential election years,SCOTUSblog (Feb. 13, 2016, 11:55 PM), http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/supreme-court-vacancies-in-presidential-election-years/

Coalition for Action – BATS

Coalition for Action – BATS:

Coalition for Action

July 8th – 10th

BATs will be descending upon DC once again this summer! This time we will be joined by SOS, UOO, NPE,NCEUA, NEA BAT Caucus, Opt Out Florida Network, and CELT!

We are working with these organizations to form a coalition that will grow with like-minded people to speak and march in solidarity in Washington DC on July 8-10th.

This coalition is working hard to join together a broad group of diverse people to make the statement to our government and to the citizens of our country that “This is what democracy looks like!”

We envision actions and festivities for children and adults, which foster awareness and to celebrate democracy by living it.

Details are developing for this event so please sign up to receive updates and support us!

We have a burgeoning coalition of grassroots groups, union organizations, and activists who will rally and march in support of education and social justice. The Coalition is growing, and we envision a mass gathering with bold actions and expressions of resistance for children and adults, which foster awareness and camaraderie in the movement to save our schools. Join us inWashington D.C. on July 8-10th to celebrate democracy by living it. The general schedule for the event is:

• July 8th: Rally & March (location will be announced soon)
• July 9th: National & International Summit with family and kid-friendly events
• July 10th: Coalition Congress – member organizations meet to plan next steps for the movement

An action this big requires much collaboration and support, and the Coalition has many involvement opportunities for individuals and organizations alike. Consider helping in the following ways:

1. Endorse the principles and the 2016 event
2. Provide active publicity about the 2016 event to your organizations and listserves
3. Organize in your area and assist people in attending the event
4. Provide financial support for the 2016 event and/or scholarships to deserving attendees
5. Collaborate and actively engage in the planning of the 2016 event by joining the Coalition for Action Steering Committee or one of its planning sub-committees. For more information on how to help and participate in the Coalition event, contact Bob George at (708) 692-5818.

This is an election year, and surely there can be no better time to show our government and our fellow citizens, “This is what democracy looks like!” We look forward to marching with you this summer in D.C.!

In solidarity,

The SOS Coalition for Action

 Coalition for Action – BATS:

2016 Medley #4 | Live Long and Prosper

2016 Medley #4 | Live Long and Prosper:

Politics, Charters, “Failing” Schools, Status Quo, Literacy “Experts”

POLITICS

Where do the 2016 presidential candidates stand on education?

Here’s a link to a chart explaining current candidates’ education policies. The column on vouchers says it all. Every Republican listed in the chart (except for Donald Trump) either “Supports” or “Strongly Supports” vouchers. Each of the Democrats “Opposes” vouchers. Trump supports vouchers as well (see here andhere), but apparently Parents Across America missed it.

Former Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, is the only one who is specifically against using tests for teacher evaluations.

So, no surprises…

PAA does not endorse any candidate, but we are committed to educating parents and the general public about where the candidates and parties stand on education issues. The information in the following table was retrieved on Feb. 10. 2016 from www.ontheissues.org/education andwww.ballotpedia.org. We have focused on the two remaining Democratic candidates and the top 6 Republican nominees based on [February 10] national polling.

Louie Gohmert: We Got Sanders Because We Let ‘Hippies From The ’60s’ Become Teachers

Louie Gohmert (R: TX) has got to be one of the stupidest members in the US House of Representatives. Why is Bernie Sanders doing so well? Simple, thinks Gohmert, because…Hippies!

According to Gohmert, “socialism has never worked”…except Bernie Sanders is aDemocratic Socialist and that has worked is working in lots of places…just ask the folks in Denmark (happiest country in the world), France (best health care system in the world), Canada (wealthiest middle class in the world), Norway (world’s highest standard of living) and elsewhere.

…we let some of the hippies from the ‘60s who created such chaos then start teaching the teachers,” Gohmert said, “and teaching them how great socialism is and just rewriting history and keeping them from realizing socialism has never worked, it will never work in this world, in this life, because if you’re going to pay everybody the same thing then they’re going to quit working.”

The Dirtiest Election in History: The campaign of 1826

You think today’s election campaign is dirty? You think the fireworks at the Republican Debates are offensive? Historians agree that today’s campaign is nothing like the Presidential campaign of 1826.

According to the John Quincy Adams campaign, Andrew Jackson married a bigamist which meant his wife was a whore.

According to the Andrew Jackson campaign, John Quincy Adams was a pimp for 2016 Medley #4 | Live Long and Prosper:

Judiciary panel chair: Wait on Court until after election : SCOTUSblog

Judiciary panel chair: Wait on Court until after election : SCOTUSblog:

Judiciary panel chair: Wait on Court until after election

Charles Grassley, the Iowa Republican who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee, said Saturday night that the Senate should not act on any new Supreme Court Justice’s nomination until after the November presidential election.  Although the Republican leadership of the Senate presumably could overrule Grassley on the point, there will be heavy political pressure on those leaders to leave the nomination to President Obama’s successor.

Here is the key part of the chairman’s announcement: “The fact of the matter is that it’s been standard practice over the last eighty years to not confirm Supreme Court nominees during a presidential election year.  Given the huge divide in the country, and the fact that this President, above all others, has made no bones about his goal to use the courts to circumvent Congress and push through his own agenda, it only makes sense that we defer to the American people who will elect a new president to select the next Supreme Court Justice.”

It seems almost a certainty that there will be a fight in the Senate on how or whether to proceed.   The Democratic leader, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, issued a statement with this argument;

“The President can and should send the Senate a nominee right away.  With so many important issues pending before the Supreme Court. the Senate has a responsibility to fill vacancies as soon as possible.  It would be unprecedented in recent history for the Supreme Court to go a year with a vacant seat.  Failing to fill this vacancy would be a shameful abdication of one of the Senate’s most essential constitutional responsibilities.”

The dueling statements by two key Senate figures immediately reflected the coming battle over the succession question among activist groups on both ends of the political spectrum.   These are organizations that, over the years, have gained major influence on the entire issue of Senate review of judicial nominations. Members of the Judiciary Committee themselves have come to rely heavily on the lobbying efforts of these outside groups.

In early statements after the news of Justice Scalia’s death had crossed the nation’s capital, leaders of conservative activist groups argued that the Scalia seat should be kept open until a new president is in the White House.   Leaders of liberal and progressive groups argued just as strongly that the president should move ahead and work to place a new member on the Court, and do so promptly.

Posted in Featured

Recommended Citation: Lyle Denniston, Judiciary panel chair: Wait on Court until after election, SCOTUSblog (Feb. 13, 2016, 7:38 PM), http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/judiciary-panel-chair-wait-on-court-until-after-election/