The New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman has finally asked the question that I, along with other critics of the current teacher accountability reform movement, have been covering in this blog since its inception: How about better parents? His column, printed below in its entirety, will hopefully be the tipping point in shaping a more holistic education reform.

In recent years, we’ve been treated to reams of op-ed articles about how we need better teachers in our public schools and, if only the teachers’ unions would go away, our kids would score like Singapore’s on the big international tests. There’s no question that a great teacher can make a huge difference in a student’s achievement, and we need to recruit, train and reward more such teachers. But here’s what some new studies are also showing: We need better parents. Parents more focused on their children’s education can also make a huge difference in a student’s achievement.

How do we know? Every three years, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, or O.E.C.D., conducts exams as part of the Program for International Student Assessment, or PISA, which tests 15-year-olds in the world’s leading industrialized nations on their reading comprehension and ability to use what they’ve learned in math and science to solve real problems — the most important skills for succeeding in college and life. America’s 15-year-olds have not been distinguishing themselves in the PISA exams compared with students in Singapore, Finland and Shanghai.

To better understand why some students thrive taking the PISA tests and others do not, Andreas Schleicher, who oversees the exams for the O.E.C.D., was encouraged by the O.E.C.D. countries to look beyond the classrooms. So starting with four countries in 2006, and then adding 14 more in 2009, the PISA team went to the parents of 5,000 students and interviewed them “about how they raised their kids and then compared that with the test results” for each of those years, Schleicher explained to me. Two weeks ago, the PISA team published the three main findings of its study:

“Fifteen-year-old students whose parents often read books with them during their first year of primary school show markedly higher scores in PISA 2009 than students whose parents read with them infrequently or not at all. The performance advantage among students whose parents read to them in their early school years is evident regardless of the family’s socioeconomic background. Parents’ engagement with their 15-year-olds is strongly associated with better performance in PISA.”

Schleicher explained to me that “just asking your child how was their school day and showing genuine interest in the learning that they are doing can have the same impact as hours of private tutoring. It is something every parent can do, no matter what their education level or social background.”

For instance, the PISA study revealed that “students whose parents reported that they had read a book with their child ‘every day or almost every day’ or ‘once or twice a week’ during the first year of primary school have markedly higher scores in PISA 2009 than students whose parents reported that they had read a book with their child ‘never or almost never’ or only ‘once or twice a month.’ On average, the score difference is 25 points, the equivalent of well over half a school year.”

Yes, students from more well-to-do households are more likely to have more involved parents. “However,” the PISA team found, “even when comparing students of similar socioeconomic backgrounds, those students whose parents regularly read books to them when they were in the first year of primary school score 14 points higher, on average, than students whose parents did not.”

The kind of parental involvement matters, as well. “For example,” the PISA study noted, “on average, the score point difference in reading that is associated with parental involvement is largest when parents read a book with their child, when they talk about things they have done during the day, and when they tell stories to their children.” The score point difference is smallest when parental involvement takes the form of simply playing with their children.

These PISA findings were echoed in a recent study by the National School Boards Association’s Center for Public Education, and written up by the center’s director, Patte Barth, in the latest issue of The American School Board Journal.

The study, called “Back to School: How parent involvement affects student achievement,” found something “somewhat surprising,” wrote Barth: “Parent involvement can take many forms, but only a few of them relate to higher student performance. Of those that work, parental actions that support children’s learning at home are most likely to have an impact on academic achievement at school.

“Monitoring homework; making sure children get to school; rewarding their efforts and talking up the idea of going to college. These parent actions are linked to better attendance, grades, test scores, and preparation for college,” Barth wrote. “The study found that getting parents involved with their children’s learning at home is a more powerful driver of achievement than parents attending P.T.A. and school board meetings, volunteering in classrooms, participating in fund-raising, and showing up at back-to-school nights.”

To be sure, there is no substitute for a good teacher. There is nothing more valuable than great classroom instruction. But let’s stop putting the whole burden on teachers. We also need better parents. Better parents can make every teacher more effective.

,

With the spotlight starting to shift toward parent accountability in education, I have been asked to detail concrete ideas that would help establish good parenting foundations.

Like some educators, I have broadly advocated for a parenting education program that begins as soon as the mother is pregnant. Specifically, a universal opt-out program, meaning that any new mother is automatically enrolled in this program, as opposed to given an option up front. This prenatal period is a time fraught with both joy and anxiety as parents seek information about infant care, setting up the home, and preparing to nurture their child’s mental and physical development. Middle class parents, like teachers, can have the same insecurities as disadvantaged parents and would welcome practical information relating to child care and development. I also recommended the system of family support via parenting programs offered by David Kirp from his Kids First agenda. However, up front costs can be a huge factor in scaling up any system of programs, particularly since realized benefits are not so concrete in the short term and will be difficult to sell.

An alternative would be to reach parents through some mass communication approach that is easily accessible and requires less commitment: a national parenting network program (or Parent TV).

Think of the success of health-related shows as The Doctors, Dr. Oz, or even Dr. Phil (radio shows included Dr. Ruth, Dr. Laura, etc.), whose successes are largely driven by market demand. Health issues are extremely topical, given concerns about obesity, diabetes, and heart disease, along with the foods that contribute to them. Viewers can find out all kinds of practical information on weight management, allergies, chemicals in foods, arthritis, etc., all from a medical perspective.

Parenting TV will do the same for families. Imagine the possibilities of topics to explore:

How do we ensure kids go to school ready to learn?

All about caring for newborns

How do we get children to eat their vegetables?

10 ways to get your kids to read!

What are the best ways to discipline?

How to pick a high school for your child

Having the sex talk

How to deal with bullying

How to develop a child’s creativity

New parents (and even experienced ones) who need answers will have a dedicated forum to learn and interact in much the same way that Dr. Oz does with his audience — a virtual one-stop shop for all parenting information. This program can be funded through public-private partnerships similar to Obama’s Educate to Innovate 2010 initiative, along with an online component. Potentially, such a program could lead to a dedicated 24-hour network. Unlike the Family Channel, it would not be focused on entertainment; rather, on information and documentaries. Simple.

With education at the forefront of national needs, the timing is ripe for such an outlet. Right now the closest thing out there is the Parents Television Council, a non-profit watchdog organization that provides parents guidance on appropriate existing programming, but nothing that can provide essential parenting information. This idea is but one that can be used as support for parents, but must be in used in conjunction with a system of family support towards building social stability and a culture of education.

, , , ,

Part 1 of this 5-part series addressed the importance of four interdependent components in building a culture of education in the United States: School; Parents/Family; Government; and Community. Today, Part 2 focuses on parents and family.

Public discussion of education overwhelmingly focuses on teachers — finding and keeping the good ones, firing the bad ones, or generally making them more accountable. The problem is that this perspective neglects a more important factor, that of the role of parents and the family. This is not a new perspective, so why are all reform policies aimed squarely at schools and teachers? The broader picture is being missed.

Especially in major metropolitan areas as New York and Washington, DC, the debate has recently emphasized merit pay, where teacher salaries and bonuses are tied to student achievement. How did this come to be? In essence, substantial research had found that teacher quality was the single biggest school-based influence on student achievement, which implied that student scores would naturally go up if schools were filled with great teachers. This belief became one of the major initiatives for the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), where public schools had to work towards having 100% of their teachers certified. Though this development is admirable, the bigger elephant in the room is the one rarely addressed — the accountability of parents.

The importance of family and parent involvement in their child’s education has been documented just as extensively, but so far, solutions in the public forum are few and far between. For a child, the family is the smallest and, arguably, the most influential unit. The seminal 1966 Coleman Report, which was the largest social science study ever conducted on education and achievement, concluded that no other variable – not classroom size, nor the amount of school resources and money, nor culture — significantly impacts a student’s achievement more than family life and its processes, which include parental participation in education, creating an intellectually stimulating environment, and support. The results of that report stirred political and social controversy precisely because of the implications: that minorities, with their various social pathologies, needed to look within their own families as the source of educational deficiency — something no amount of schooling can overcome. It has always been easier to focus reform efforts on the institution of school or on teachers, as opposed to the family.

Based on the current trend, it appears that teachers will bear the brunt of the responsibility for academic improvement, but not if the powerful New York teacher’s union have anything to say about it. The United Federation of Teachers (UFT) has steadfastly refused to reveal its teachers’ grades to the public. One the one hand, shouldn’t parents be aware of the quality of their child’s teacher? Yes, but it’s not that simple. Part of this reticence stems from a bigger issue: that although teachers are accountable for student learning and achievement, parents are not put under a similar spotlight. Put differently, what would happen if parents were publicly graded? Would they be so quick to reveal their scores to the public? Understandably there is an issue of privacy, but children growth in learning and achievement is as much the province of parents as teachers, if not more. Character development, attitude, persistence, and self control are inner qualities that highly influence learning and achievement, and are mostly developed within the confines of the family. This is the fundamental problem that is ignored in public discourse, and by critics of teacher’s unions. Politicians can help to eliminate inadequate teachers and union bureaucracy as a way to strengthen quality education, but focusing on teacher accountability exclusively is not addressing the underlying problem of student deficiency.

How many teachers have had children from broken homes put into their classroom, with little support provided? How many of these teachers have had to chase after neglectful parents to come to parent-teacher conferences, because their child has not turned in one homework? How many parents simply do not provide a stable and rich environment? Unlike parents, public school teachers average more than 25 students in a class; should they have the Herculean responsibility of raising every students’ score? At best, a difficult challenge; at worst, an insuperable task, depending on the students they inherit. It’s no wonder one-third of new teachers quit after three years and almost half after five years, with even more in high poverty areas. Such high turnover, coupled with their provisional status as students are promoted year after year, do not allow for any reliable measure of improvement.

When educators, reformers, and politicians begin to realize and address the family as the root of educational pathology or success, then they will have made a difficult first step towards understanding how to improve student learning and achievement. Only when reform expands outside of schooling to include family support (as well as government and community support), can there be a culture of education in the United States.

Next Time (Part 3): Does the American Culture Support or Undermine Public Education?

 

, , , , , ,