MATCH tutoring is effective, cheap

“High-dosage” tutoring has produced large achievement gains at MATCH Education‘s Boston charter schools, according to a Pioneer Institute study.  “MATCH-style tutoring is less expensive and has proven far more effective than widely accepted reforms such as reduced class size and extended school days,” said Cara Stillings Candal, author of  Match-ing Students with Excellent Tutors.

Match Education set up math tutoring in Lawrence, Massachusetts schools. “After one full year of implementation at two grade levels, those students have seen historic achievement gains,” the study finds.

The success of the Match Corps is based on the ability to get well-educated young people to dedicate a year to tutoring, fully integrating the program into the life of the school, the presence of a strong accountability system to ensure its effectiveness and strong relationships among teachers, tutors, students and their families. Every Match tutor calls the parents of the students he or she tutors at least once a week.

To make the program more appealing to elite graduates of the nation’s top colleges, Match provides housing options for its tutors and pays them a stipend ($14,300 for the 2013-2014 academic year). At its high school for example, Match turned the top floor of its building into a dormitory; having tutors on site allowed every Match student to have at least two hours of tutoring daily.

 Alan Safran, MATCH Tutors, says there’s a large pool of people interested in tutoring, despite low pay. It’s a lot easier than being a classroom teacher.

MATCH-style tutoring produced big gains for low-income, black males in Chicago, according to another study, writes Owen Phillips on EdCentral.

Disadvantaged 9th- and 10th-graders scored in the 34th percentile on city math tests at the experiment’s end; the control group was at the 19th percentile.  “The improvement was roughly equivalent to three years’ worth of math instruction,” writes Phillips.

Students spent an hour each day in two-on-one tutoring based on the MATCH model. They also “met once a week in groups to develop emotional literacy, impulse control and interpersonal problem-solving skills.”

Tutored students also had fewer absences and were more likely to be on track for graduation.

The tutors in this experiment were recent college graduates and had no formal teaching credentials or previous experience. They were paid just $17,000 a year. . . . The tutors could individualize lesson plans, and spend less time managing the classroom and more time developing relationships with the students to maximize time-on-task.

The program cost $4,400 per student. By comparison, the Tennessee Star Class Room Reduction experiment cost about $19,600 per participant, notes Phillips.

Class size does matter, especially for disadvantaged students, argues Northwestern Professor Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach in a summary of the academic literature.

Where’s the literature?

Secondary teachers should stress classic works of literature, argue Sandra Stotsky and Mark Bauerlein in a paper critical of Common Core Standards. The new standards name only a few required texts, such as foundational American documents (for example, the Declaration of Independence) and a Shakespeare play, notes Ed Week.

(The standards) say that half of what students read in elementary school—and 70 percent in high school—should be informational, arguing that mastery of such texts mirrors the demands likely to be made on them in college and job training. is.

. . .  some English/language arts educators . . .  fear that literature will lose its important place in students’ studies. The standards’ architects have argued that the opposite is true: Teachers of social studies, science and other subjects will inherit new responsibilities for teaching writing and reading in their areas, freeing English/language arts teachers to dive deeply into literary works with their students.

Stotsky, a University of Arkansas professor nd a chief architect of Massachusetts’ highly regarded academic standards, and Bauerlein, an Emory English professor, believe “the analytical and critical-thinking skills developed by a deep study of literature” will prepare students for college more effectively than reading informational texts.

Private schools and public schools in affluent suburbs will teach a literature-rich curriculum, while most public school students will suffer from a “literature deficit,”  Stotsky and Bauerlein predict. That will widen the achievement gap, they write.

Mark Twain’s Huckleberry Finn isn’t included in Massachusetts’ new Common Cored curriculum, write Charles Chieppo and Jamie Gass of the Pioneer Institute. (It’s not banned either. It’s just not mentioned.) “These new English standards include less than half as much classic literature and poetry than the Massachusetts standards they will replace.”

 

How much will Common Core cost?

States that take a “business as usual” approach will spend an extra $8.3 billion to implement Common Core Standards, concludes a new Fordham study. However, “bare bones” implementation would cost $927 million less than current spending. A “balanced approach” would cut added costs to $1.2 billion.

Going to online learning materials and teacher training would provide most of the savings, notes Ed Week.

A Pioneer Institute study estimates states would spend $16 billion over seven years to move to Common Core Standards.

“Enemies and critics of the common core want you to believe the worst: that besides being hard, it will be very pricey and likely ineffective,” Chester E, Finn Jr., Fordham’s president, wrote in a foreward to the new report. “But this report says otherwise. Implementation can be modestly priced and likely more effective if states are astute enough to (a) implement differently, (b) deploy resources that they’re already spending, and (c) take advantage of this rare opportunity to revamp their education delivery systems, too.”

Fordham’s estimate doesn’t include the cost of computers and servers needed for online assessments, counters Theodor Rebarber, author of the Pioneer Institute study.

 

Pioneer: $16 billion to adopt new standards

States will need to spend $16 billion to implement Common Core Standards, estimates a report. by the Pioneer Institute, the American Principles Project and the Pacific Research Institute of California. That includes the cost of textbooks and instructional materials, testing, professional development, and technology infrastructure. California alone will incur additional costs of $2 billion.

Pioneer’s earlier report, The Road to a National Curriculum, questions the legality of the Obama Administration’s push for national education standards and assessments.

Update: WashPost columnist Jay Mathews has hopped off the common standards bandwagon, persuaded they won’t make much of a difference.