The Washington Post reported on June 13, 2008, that mandated tutoring required under the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) federal legislation doesn't seem to be working: "Free tutoring that federal law prescribes to help students at struggling schools has yielded little or no positive effect on student test scores in Virginia, Maryland and several other states, according to early evaluations," reported staff writer Maria Glod.

Further, "In the 2006-07 school year, $595 million went to the fast-growing industry of for-profit and nonprofit tutoring providers…The NCLB law envisions [the extra lessons for low-income families] as a key way to narrow achievement gaps."

The complete article and comments can be found at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/12/AR2008061203681.html?sub=AR.

************************************

I know that most reporters can't spend the time necessary to understand the complexities within the world of public education today. As with most professions, what happens "inside" is most clearly understood by those who work behind the confines of any profession's walls. That's a given. The proof of a profession's good service must be determined by those who benefit from it, or, in the case of America's public education, the exponentially growing number of those who don't.

There are many of us who believe American education is run today for the benefit of adults, not children. Vendors have sweetheart deals with districts and personnel. Unions maintain adversarial relationships with administrators in order to secure their power positions—and funding—from teachers.

From the instructional side, we see decisions made by curriculum directors, district administrators and staff, state offices and school boards, with limited input from teachers who will actually have to use those materials or from parents who are expected, without questions, to support those decisions. This is proving unbelievably costly in dollars and human capital.

As the cited Washington Post story says, $595 million was allocated for one school year alone for extra tutoring and yet there is no reliable proof that positive results will be seen among students. But a lot of adults made a lot of money.

When the Texas State Board of Education voted not to approve the third grade materials from Everyday Math, there were screams of protest from some "insiders" that censorship was being practiced by the "conservative" board members. In fact, when I looked at the materials, I was dismayed to see 3,000 pages of materials packed in books and booklets that measured 8 inches high when stacked, and weighing in at 18 pounds. At best, it did not meet the 3^rd grade math standards for Texas. At worst, it was what many in math education now call "a mile wide and an inch deep" in content.

This, for a third grade teacher who is also teaching reading, writing, science, social studies, and electives such as art or "character education," can be overwhelming as he/she has about 4.5 hours per day of actual teaching time for 176 school days per year, minus all the days for mandated tests and missed classes due to assemblies, field trips, etc. In addition, that teacher will need training for up to two years to use Everyday Math according to its "fidelity of implementation." This means more money for the vendor as the district has to pay consultants for extra hours in "professional development." Meanwhile, students are supposedly not getting a complete learning of mathematics because the teacher doesn't fully understand the material for "authentic" teaching.

For a more complete report on my review, go to EdNews.org, http://www.ednews.org/authors/605/Nakonia-(Niki)-Hayes-Columnist-EdNews.org.

If there is vocal opposition to some decisions from parents (and this is happening all over our country) or teachers (which happens rarely due to fear of retribution, but they do leave the profession or choose not to enter it), the decision-makers generally ignore the protests. This is especially disheartening since NCLB specifically requires increased parent participation in their children's education.

Most news stories are thus superficial as a result of reporters not understanding the depth of the problems we are facing in American education. They listen to the "decision-makers" and accept, generally, the information that is handed to them. This makes it hard for a growing number of dissatisfied parents and teachers to get their views represented fairly. The rapidly growing industry of charter and private schools, as well as tutorial services, reflects this dissatisfaction, not just with "the education system," but with those who run it.

With all of these thoughts in mind, I offer the following commentary on the Washington Post's article about the failure of NCLB's mandated [free] tutoring to make a difference in student testscores.

Most things that are "free" aren't considered worth worrying about or taking care of. The escalating business of private tutoring paid for by the federal government is another welfare program that won't be respected by those for whom it has been created.

For the teachers, this means they will be required to help (how many different?) tutors learn about the teachers' curricula in order to help the tutors work more effectively with the children. That is, their tutoring should not "counter" what is being done by the teacher, which I have seen happen.

Conversely, I have worked as a teacher with Sylvan tutors, which takes extra time, but it was okay because I taught basic skills with traditional algorithms and Sylvan tutors (at that time)  understood and used the same methods.

However, in today's reform math programs, if the tutor is helping students learn basic skills through traditional algorithms and the teacher says that should not be done--so as not to destroy a publisher's "fidelity of implementation" (as mandated, for example, by the reformist Everyday Math)--that restriction can create some negative "cooperative" relationships between teachers and tutors.

As explained earlier, Everyday Math says about two years of teacher training is needed in order for them to support its "fidelity of implementation." How are tutors suppose to work with such reform materials that limit teaching students traditional algorithms, unless those tutors have been thoroughly trained in the reform materials?

How does a state gauge the effectiveness of tutoring companies' work with students when they haven't figured out how to gauge the effectiveness of teachers inside the schools, other than with test scores? Of course the states can track the kids who attend tutoring and if their test scores improve, that can be the sole measurement of the companies' success. Lastly, if tutoring is after or before school and students ride a bus, then the program cannot reach those students. Has that been factored into the small number of students attending the tutoring programs?

If test scores are to be the criterion, then let's just say so, rather than dancing around the topic of "success" as folks in this article did. That is, qualitative measurement is hard to justify in money terms, isn't it? "A million here, a million there, and pretty soon we're talking real money," said Sen. Everett Dirksen of Illinois back in the 1960s. Now, the education "business" is in the billions. The fuzzier we can make the judgments on accountability, the longer we can stay in business and bring in those dollars. 

For example, at "more than $10 million for 11,000 enrolled students," in Maryland, as reported in the Post's article, it must be asked how many of those 11,000 students attended the sessions at least 80% of the time and then how many passed the test subjects for which they were tutored?

According to the news story, there are success stories. Why not see what these folks are doing (Chicago, Hawaii) and REQUIRE a replication of their work? Of course we would first need to know what is meant by the generic descriptions given in the story of "outperformed their peers..."and "linked to higher...scores."

The subsequent elephant-in-the-room questions:

1)    Why is so much extra tutoring of basic skills needed today for low income students in America? Why is so much having to be spent on "supplemental materials" to do the job that the primary materials cannot do? In other words, why are taxpayers having to pay twice for the same work for so many children?

2)    Why is so much extra tutoring needed for middle and upper income students simply to help them compete in the global market for math related professions/careers? Why are taxpayers having to pay twice for their children's education with specialized tutoring or private schools?

3)    Where are our leaders? I have visions of these folks needing the sign I had over my principal's desk to remind me of my daunting task: "Where are they? Have you seen them? Which way did they go? I must find them! I AM THEIR LEADER." In other words, I had to keep up with my people at all times, in all phases, and in all places. It seems our leaders are lost, and that includes too many parents who don't have a clue about their children's real education problems.

The Post article ends with this statement by Dianne M. Piché, executive director of the Citizens' Commission on Civil Rights: "We need to push the schools and the providers to get it right."

Now those who know the "inside" of public education will understand my admonishment to decision-makers such as Ms. Piche: If you want specific outcomes, it's called "direct instruction." If you want "feel good" solutions that focus on "self-awareness" above content of the disciplines, it's called "discovery learning." Until you understand the difference, you will not comprehend nor be able to correct what has brought American education to its knees on an international scale.

Finally, until the media see how American education is now a cash cow for adults—one that allows for political power, serious money-making, and "consultant" career-building—we will continue to get what I call "sparkler" reporting, or only momentary flashes of light in the press.

Until a sustained, bright light is applied and a majority of parents is driven to rebel against the "adult economics" in public education, we will not bring real change for our children and their schooling, no matter how much tutoring is mandated by governmental entities.

Published June 17, 2008