The case for public schools ... which doesn't quite ring true.
927976
This book presents the case for public schools against the brave new world of charters and privatized education.

The argument boils down to "It's not our fault".  Kids don't learn thanks to poverty, discrimination and other factors beyond the control of schools.  Teachers are professionals and do the best they can with the cards they are dealt.

There are many charter schools that are fraudulent and pseudo-fraudulent, and many charter schools that are honest, but that she doesn't like.  But at the same time, the author clearly hates, to the bottom of her soul, the idea that parents should be able to choose their schools.  She loves the idea of public schools, rooted in their communities, providing education through professional teachers.

I think she has many sound arguments.  For example, testing and teaching to the test have increased rigidity and removed flexibility from curricula, something that deadens the school experience and makes it painfully boring and irrelevant for students.  I absolutely agree with this.

Like most education books, we never enter the classroom, and we never meet any students.  We never get any feeling for what life is like in public schools, and why kids might or might not be learning.  Everything is just gauzy generalities, which make public schools sound great even when they are not.  If you want to learn about how education is actually conducted, you'd be better off reading "Up the Down Staircase" (written in the 1960s) than this book.  I don't know how education has changed since the 1960s.  But I know it has, and that the ability of our kids to read and write has only deteriorated since then.

The author thinks all schools should be fully funded.  She thinks we need to teach the arts, and other subjects more appealing to kids than the basics.  And yet, if we look at typical school budgets, tremendous sums go into them, surely sufficient to provide a decent education.  In fact, over the last decade or so, we have enormously increased funding, and yet school buildings are as worn out as ever, teachers are unhappy as ever, and students are frustrated and learn as little as ever.

This mystery is not addressed in this book.  All it says is that public school teachers are good, hardworking people.  I have no doubt many are.  And many are time-servers who are just hoping to get a pension eventually.  Bel Kaufman's Up the Down Staircase drew vivid portraits of both types of teacher ... and things seem to have only gotten worse today.

What I have absolutely no doubt of after reading this book:  Education reform is necessary.  Testing is not the be-all and end all, because it is uneven at best at measuring a quality education.  Kids aren't learning.  And until we go into the classroom, talk to kids, talk to teachers, and find out why they aren't learning, we're not going to understand the real problems with American education.
2580815
What McWhorter is saying is not simply anecdotal, because he looks at the SAT scores and the data out there to make his case.  His arguments have some empirical foundations.  He also looks at the fact that the majority of African Americans are middle class.  The fact of the matter is racism is out there for so many groups like Asian Americans, Arab Americans and what not, but their parents don't make excuses for them, they are still expected to excel despite the prejudice they sometimes face.  And in the year 2009, there is so little racism vis-a-vis African Americans compared to 1970.  I mean it's so common to see African American executives, politicians etc.. Also, interracial marriages are so, so, so common.  They are not unusual in so many parts of the country.  Racism is not dead, for sure, but America has more of a class problem than a racial problem, in my opinion.  I mean a white guy who has come from poverty why should he say be denied a place in a university if he has higher scores than a wealthy African American? Is it fair or just? No.  People need to compete for the American dream.  Affirmative action made sense back in the day, but not today.  I love people of all races and to have equality there has to be opportunity for people of all classes and less of a focus on race.
1646975
Too often hear criticisms about the state our education in our country but seldom do we see behind the scene to see why the problems exist.
3016657
While Deresiewicz makes a case that students at elite colleges today may be "excellent sheep," I guess I'm not the target audience because I don't feel as sympathetic as it seems he'd like me to be.  Yes, these students played the roles their parents wrote for them, parents who often "gamed the system" to get their children into elite colleges.  That they're unable to strike out for themselves once they get to college and that colleges fail to challenge them to do so is unfortunate, but my sympathy goes more towards students at schools which are not as selective.

Students at schools like Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and Williams--schools which have taken a "Financial Aid Pledge"--are able to leave their undergraduate education without a significant debt burden.  Students at most private colleges and public colleges and universities will graduate with significant debt which cannot typically be discharged.  I find it ironic that students at elite schools who actually do not have to immediately be concerned with chasing a dollar are seeking degrees they imagine will make them wealthy.

I guess my sympathy goes more with the "lambs to the slaughter" who incur significant debt to earn/buy degrees from for profit "colleges" which offer marginal degrees.  These students often have few other options, don't have helicopter parents to "guide" and "direct" them, and essentially have to buy a degree which will be their albatross.  They will not even have the option to attend small seminars, to select from a array of extracurricular options, or to network with the "elite."  Many will work their way through college to shackle themselves for life.

Yes, I get it, the elite are miseducated, but the problem is not limited to the elite, and the elite have some opportunity to demand better.  Most American college students have less opportunity to demand better and are more apt to really have to consider their employment future.
1644336
Although the factors author Malcolm Gladwell puts forth as coming into play and the data he uses to support his claims about outliers, which he describes as,  (p 17), "men and women who do things that are out of the ordinary," are generally interesting, most are unsurprising. He contends that, (p 18) "there is something profoundly wrong with the way we make sense of success," and (p 19) "People don't rise from nothing...they are invariably the beneficiaries of hidden advantages and extraordinary opportunities and cultural legacies that allow them to learn and work hard and make sense of the world in ways that others cannot." One wouldn't need much more than a little common sense to conclude that a person needs more than just a high IQ to achieve success (the other required component he calls, "practical intelligence"). The same is true for such things as the fact that athletes (and students) with birth dates placing them on the elder end of the spectrum of those making up a pool of potential standouts in academics and athletics do better than their youngest peers. Having a special talent (low supply) at the right time in history (high demand) is also likely to yield benefits. That children of parents who teach them special skills; kids who place the value of hard work over that of innate intelligence; and those who spend a significant time practicing their craft (independent of their initial aptitude for it) have a higher chance of success is also no surprise.

My biggest gripe about the data, of which most of us know can often be framed with a little effort to support opposing views, is that about education. Specifically, Gladwell contends that (p 259) "[between] September and June...Schools work," in support of his claim that (p 258), "when it comes to reading skills, poor kids learn nothing when school is not in session." I agree that one of the reasons that other countries' students perform better than American kids academically is that their students' schools are in session longer, but I disagree wholeheartedly that kids from poor families do comparably well as those from middle and high income families during the school year. In my state, Washington, low-income students (those who qualify for free or reduced price lunch) overwhelmingly perform significantly worse on state tests (WASL/MSP) than those who don't by a wide margin in every tested subject and in every tested grade.

In summary, while Outliers provides food for thought (and plenty of facts and figures), Gladwell's primary contention, that several fortuitous circumstances combined trump one single significant factor when it comes to predicting a person's success, is simply sensible. Better: The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People by Steven Covey, Mountains Beyond Mountains by Tracy Kidder, and On the Ridge Between Life and Death by David Roberts.
2927555
This book provides an excellent analysis of the state of public education in our country.  In some ways this is depressing--for example, 50% of 6th through 12th graders in a study of 569 schools, found that their teachers did not meet their expectations.  Or that the teacher job satisfaction rate, which has been dropping, is down to 44%.  Dr. Muciaccia, however, also provides insights into ideas and schools that work.  The book ends on an upbeat note where Dr. Muciaccia points to programs and schools that are currently being highly successful.
2446497
Good resource - explains that principals don't often know that they should be a curriculum leader.  One of their jobs is to keep abreast on curriculum - changes, effective teaching strategies, etc.  It has been my experience as a teacher that many principals have no idea about what is being taught in the classroom.  Some have no clue on teaching strategies to help best meet the standards.
4049604
This book is a compilation and analysis of various conclusions of education finance research with the aim of explaining how varied funding streams can compromise schools efforts to meet their standards and goals, all from a school vantage-point. Roza begins by pointing out the apparent discrepancy between the considerable increase in public investment in schools and the near-negligible increases in NEAP test scores over the same period. She goes on to pose four questions to answer throughout the book: who decides how to use money, why is money used as it is and not some other way, what strategy drives spending differences and how does it relate to what the US tries to do for students, and how do costs compare across priorities, strategies and objectives? It concludes by proposing a framework for aligned, coherent finance system with clear roles and built-in mechanisms to promote improvements in spending productivity.
105296
J wish more of our educators would read this. Despite the no child left behind theory, not everyone is suited for college, not because they aren't smart enough but because they wish to do work that is meaningful to themselves. automobiles and heating systems and plumbing don't heal themselves. the people who do those types of things are worthy of our respect and appreciation instead of an education systems that denigrates or ignores them.
1218414
The methodology is exactly as it should be, controlling for a wide variety of factors associated with school performance, particularly race and poverty.  The fact that public schools outperform others is no surprise.  What was surprising is how poorly specific denominational schools performed.  The data used are among the most reliable and widely accepted.

Some reviewers assert that the data or methods are flawed, but provide no specifics and do not appear to understand statistics.  They're basically trolls.

This is an outstanding treatment of a very important question and needs to be taken seriously by policymakers and parents.  We need more comparative analyses like this, particularly those that take into effect state influences.  In some states, these findings may vary, being exaggerated or diminished by state policy (particularly those in the South). That is an issue that needs to be explored in more detail.  This book fits well with School Choice and the Question of Accountability: The Milwaukee Experience, Finnish Lessons (few, if any, private schools there), Endangering Prosperity, and Surpassing Shanghai.

We dilly-dally at our own risk.
2148043
This is an ambitious piece of work but I think it misses one of the major issues..what is a history class supposed to teach. What needs to be brought into question is the whole nature of teaching history and its place in the schools.  There is a reason that most students find it boring and pointless and most administrations find it irrelevant or there is a reason states and cities have downgraded its value but those issues are not being adequately addressed.
4325638
This is a history of the US public school system. Showing how American perceptions of their society were often reflected in the nature of the public schools. In aspects like the amount of funding, who was eligible (or required) to attend, and what was taught.

There is a walkthrough of various educational teaching models that have been in vogue at various times. Like the Lancaster model, used in the early 19th century. Often involving copious memorisation. Though this was scarcely confined to that model. A modern reader might be struck by how often in the 19th century, memorisation was deemed an essential facet of the education. To some extent, it of course reflects the difference in technology between then and our time.

The formation of national teachers' organisations is also covered. While the South gets specific coverage. Both before and after the Civil War. Typically, even after the war, public education in the South was poorly funded. Naturally, Negro students received very little support from the state governments. But often, working class white students were only slightly better off. The South had a cultural quirk that disfavoured public education. One that persisted well into the 20th century.
165069
Why do some schools/states/nations excel at education while others lag?  What are they doing, and how can their success be replicated?  The answer is (surprise) complicated.

Ripley sends three American teens on study abroad for the inside scoop on what happens in a Finnish, Korean, and Polish schoolroom.  Their findings:  the Finns, having revamped teacher education in the 70s to make the profession highly selective, employ Grade A teachers.  Korean kids, with 14+ hour school days, routinely sleep in school, get most of their learning with their hagwon in the evenings, and truly despise their mouse-on-a-wheel education system.  The Poles mustered some political will in the late 90s, delayed herding teens into tracks and garnered eye-popping gains.

Ripley offers conclusions that diverge from current headlines.  She doesnt advocate firing teachers (Finnish teachers enjoy robust job security) or parent participation on campus, which she says doesnt correlate with learning outcomes. She doesnt blame video games or drugs, which are available everywhere.  Its teacher selectivity, training, and respect that make the grade, areas where the US is systematically failing.  Ripley berates US educators for routinely labeling students as poor or disadvantaged:  in other countries students are seen as equally capable, with no excuses for substandard work.  Expectations play a huge role:  kids will rise to the bar set for them.

Clear in all countries:  money doesnt correlate with learning, at least beyond a basic level.  Classroom computers, state-of-the-art auditoriums, and interactive technology are absent from most high-achieving classrooms outside the US.

The Smartest Kids in the World is admittedly far from a comprehensive analysis of global education, and its assertions open to debate.  It does deliver some valuable lessons from abroad, engagingly written, for improving our childrens shot at the future.
2414638
Newark, NJ has a billion dollar budget for its school system, presumably enough to provide a wonderful, even lavish education for its children. However, all sides agree that the Newark schools are uniformly terrible, and that the kids are graduating with a sub-par education (and that's not counting the children who drop out, which is inexcusable these days!)  This story is a cautionary tale about what happens when competing groups, all presumably well-meaning, try to reform a huge public school system.

I was terribly saddened for the children of Newark, especially those kids that need a bit of extra help, but aren't the two standard deviations from normal, which is what is necessary to achieve an IEP. A child with an IEP is considered special needs, and by law, must have his/her education adjusted to allow the child to work at grade level. It also means that the school system in the child's community gets a larger piece of that billion dollar budget, but a child who simply needs extra help isn't entitled to extra money. Thus, those children are often ignored.

As I read the book I began to get the strong feeling that a good many of the employees of the Newark School System looked at what they do as a job with all its attendant headaches, rather than the mission of preparing our children for the future. If you go to your school with the point of view that this is merely a way to endure the next six hours, rather than the opportunity to change the future, you're far less likely to do a good job.

It was so sad, and just allowing reformers to make changes without examining all the consequences isn't the answer. I wish I knew what is, but finding that answer is imperative if these children are to succeed in an increasingly competitive world.
1950505
The Education Gap: Vouchers and Urban Schools by William G. Howell, Paul E. Peterson (Brookings Institution Press, 2006) explores data collected on voucher programs and the possible implications of said data in this eight-chapter volume. The initial chapter gives an overview of the history of school choice in the United States. The second chapter breaks down the methodologies to be used in evaluating vouchers via randomized field trials (RFTs) and explains some of the common misrepresentations in data reporting and interpretation surrounding vouchers. Chapters 3-7 attempt to address some of the typical arguments surrounding voucher programs through data analysis. The final chapter gives the authors predictions and recommendations for how to proceed in further implementation and analysis of voucher programs.
While this book attempts to come at the data from a relatively balanced viewpoint, it is clearly an argument in favor of vouchers. As a public school teacher and advocate, I have personally always been against the idea of vouchers. However, I found the data analysis fairly convincing on the possible positive implications of vouchers for students in urban areas who are African-American and/or from low-income households. This subgroup benefitted most across all of the voucher programs studied on many different measures. However, beyond that limited scope, I found their arguments unconvincing. I felt that the pro-voucher bias was especially strong in the final chapter when they suddenly begin to advocate for vouchers being offered to all students in more cities. They described this as a move toward equity, as well as an ideal scenario for further study of the implications of voucher programming.
I continue to believe that widespread vouchers would be a drain on state funds, and particularly on state funds that are currently routed to public schools. Currently, many families opt to (and can afford to) pay additional tuition to send their children to private schools. State governments would be on the hook to pay for all vouchers offered to these families, who are currently not being educated via taxpayer funds. As is currently the case in the Wisconsin voucher program, new funding for private school attendees would be likely to come directly from the public school funds of each students school of residence.
Biases aside, this book is a good read for anyone who is interested in better understanding both sides of the main points of debate surrounding vouchers. I would definitely be interested in reading an updated version, as vouchers have gained significant traction since 2006, and there is likely much to be learned from the past 10 years of data. After reading this book, I look forward to delving in further.
Leanne Born, UW-Madison
4723057
I have my doubts... the author believes that kids must learn behavior on their own, and teachers must give up control.  While I agree that many teachers are too anal about control, the author goes too far in the other direction.  If we adopt the author's view, then the children should learn everything on their own, kind of like the "Lord of the Flies" Elementary School or something.  Why teach them math?  Let them figure it out on their own.  Why should we "force" our view of traffic safety on them.  Let them learn on their own, what happens if you cross the street without looking both ways.  Why teach gun safety?  Let them learn on their own.  Like most bleeding-hearts, the author wants the lunatics to run the asylum.  Is this cynical?  Maybe, but experience and statistics also show that it is reality.  I give my students plenty of leeway to learn on their own, but I also deal with the world as it is, not how I wish it were.  Like one of our founding fathers, I am "guided by the lamp of experience.  I know of no way to judge the present but by the past."  Kids must be taught, they must be guided, and yes, sometimes they must be forced.  To do otherwise is to create a menace to society.  The author needs to come out of his "happy place" and learn that reality exists in between what he criticizes and what he advocates.

On the technical side, the author tries to cover up the futility of his ideas in the usual manner common to bleeders: he uses big words and intellectual psycho-babble in attempt to lend credibility to his views.  We should all be impressed by his educational background, although it demonstrates no grounding in reality and experience.  We would be better off listening to the advice of our grandparents who actually did the work, rather than this idealist, who is locked away in his ivory tower.
2080015
This is a very interesting book. It highlights the limitations of public education when it comes to teaching history. First of all, unlike math, the sciences,  English, and foreign languages where teachers need certification that they are qualified to teach these subjects, history is many times taught by teachers who have no academic background in teaching history. He said that he has seen many times where U.S. history teachers have never had a college course in U.S. history. I don't understand how anyone can graduate from college without a U.S. history class. That was certainly a required class where I went to college. But he reported that such unqualified people as coaches and other unqualified people teach it and that's why the public is so ignorant about some of the most basic facts about this country. I know something about this at a personal level. When my daughter was in high school, she became quite irritated that the teacher considered last night's football game to be part of U.S. History.  The author is an authority history, himself, and he discusses the errors and omissions that are important in our understanding of how this country developed to this point. He also presented a strong case against much of the content presented in the textbooks. This is a book that should be read by every school administrator who is involved in hiring teachers and supervising them, and by every history teacher. In fact, if I were a history teacher, I would seriously consider requiring my students to read the book and, based upon the concepts presented by Loewen, evaluate my class. Then, I would consider evaluating the students based upon the quality of their evaluation of my teaching.