THIS
IS THE LETTER FAXED TO JOEL RAMSEY REGARDING CLAIMS MADE
ABOUT
BATESON'S
RESEARCH ON THE FOUR
PERIOD DAY
THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
Faculty of Education
Department of Mathematics and Science Education
2125 Main Mall
Vancouver, B.C. Canada V6T 1Z4
August 8, 1994
Dear Mr. Ramsey,
I was very interested to talk to you last week about an article
which I published in 1990 in Volume 27, #3 of the Journal of
Research in Science Teaching entitled "Science Achievement
in Semestered and All-Year Courses." From what you
have told me, some of the education officials in your area have
received from misinformation about that article and about how I
presently stand with regard to the research and conclusions as
stated in that article.
Let me state most strongly that I stand firmly behind the
conclusions reported in that study;
Students in semestered courses in secondary science in British
Columbia do not score as well on reliable and valid, standardized
science instruments measuring academic performance derived from
course objectives.
Any reports that I may have retracted any of what I wrote in that
article are totally false, and I would appreciate your nipping in
the bud any such references.
The research described above included a very large number of
students (over 28,000!!) and the results left absolutely no doubt
based on probability of error (one has to go out to the 10th
decimal place to find anything but 0's in the probabilities!!)
While there may be many advantages to semestered timetables and
course structures, and while I personally might want to teach in
a semestered system, the academic performance of students appears
to suffer. Every other piece of research on this subject that I
am aware of is based on testimonials, and not on actual student
performance data. Based upon what I found during that study, and
from examining the data of subsequent assessments, I cannot
academically support a semestered timetable.
If you wish any further information I would be most pleased to
assist you.
Sincerely,
David J. Bateson, Ed.D.
Associate Professor
|
It was
November, 1993. The local paper reported that our school
system was considering a restructuring of our schools to
shift from six periods that last all year to four periods
each semester which would cover coursework for the entire
year. Supposedly, our new Republican governor had given
the schools such demanding requirements that it would
take a child eight courses a year to fulfill those
requirements. Another sales pitch was that the four
period day would take less time in the halls where
violence often occurred . (The schools have always taken
care that the public was pretty much in the dark about
violence in the schools because of effective PR. The
former "education reporter" for our paper is
now the PR person for the city schools, merely a change
of location. The PR did not eliminate the flight from
public schools however, the enrollment has fallen from
over 10,000 students to 9300 regardless of our (reputed)
growth in city population.)
The DOTHAN EAGLE reported that our Director of
Secondary Instruction, Susan Lockwood, had gone to
Frederick, Maryland, to observe a high school which was
using the four period day. The principals of the high
schools had flown with her. That Frederick principal was
coming to Dothan to address the parents about the four
period day. I had just fought a statewide battle against
Goals 2000. Our former governor, Jim Folsom, had promoted
the Alabama First Plan, which was the Kentucky
Education Reform Act, restyled by David Hornbeck, the
author of the Kentucky reform, for Alabama. (Hornbeck is
a member of Carnegie Foundation boards with Marc Tucker
and Hillary Clinton. The Carnegie Foundation is pushing
the New American Schools Development Corporation which
has endorsed models for new schools--all Outcomes Based.
Marc Tucker, author of Oregon's Education Reform, has an
organization which produces the tests for Performance
Based Education (OBE/Mastery Learning). Kentucky spent $1 million developing a criterion referenced test directed
at what teachers were teaching, not necessarily those
skills parents thought they were sending children to
learn.) The extended period seemed to me to fit into the
requirements for longer time in a classroom for the
teach-test, re-teach-retest cycle needed incorporating
the Peer Tutoring and Group Learning necessary for the
attitude and behavioral goals of Goals 2000.
My husband, an attorney, humored me
and called Daniel Cunningham, principal of Frederick High
School, the school in Maryland we were to emulate. He
asked where the "mother of all four period
days" was. Cunningham admitted they were in their
first year of using the method. They'd gotten it from a
school across town. Dr. Thomas Guskey had advised their
system. (A computer search at our education library
revealed that Guskey is an expert on Mastery Learning/
Outcomes Based Education.) Apparently he had not read the
research he cited to my husband when pressed for
empirical data. We called Dr. David Bateson, author of
the study, who was then on vacation on an island off the
coast of British Columbia. He sent us his study. His
conclusions? "The four period day is
detrimental to academic achievement." My husband called Cunningham back and told him what
Bateson's study said. Cunningham had said he had notes of
a conversation a colleague had with Bateson where Bateson
had repudiated his study. My husband's brother does
studies like that himself and knowing him we knew a
professor would rather repudiate his first born son. We
called Bateson back. Bateson faxed us a repudiation..of Cunningham's
ridiculous claim!!!! His study had been over 28,000
students. He is a winner of a prestigious award for the
scientific methodology used in his studies. All of this
was taken to the administration, board, and principals.
However, at the meeting, with their manipulation (the
Delphi Technique), those facts were not presented, the
parents took the PR packet as the gospel when it claimed
that "research shows no change in student
performance on standardized tests." The four period
day was implemented.
About six weeks after we implemented the four period day,
a video was made which promotes block scheduling. Glossy
brochures were sent around the area with offers to do
workshops and bring experts in block scheduling to share
their methodology. The video was sold for $40. One
wonders how much more current methodology has been sold
with this type of "research" to support it.
In 1995, Susan Lockwood, the administrator who convinced
us to use the program and who tallied the votes on
whether or not to implement the program, used Dothan AP
Geometry and Algebra and students for her doctoral
dissertation from the University of Alabama, a fact I
only just discovered on THE PROBLEM WITH BLOCK SCHEDULING
web site. I found it interesting that the research that
went unrecognized in the PR presentations delivered to
the parents (research which my husband and I provided to
the administrators) was mentioned the summary of her
dissertation published in the NASSP journal in December
of 1995. (In the same publication another administrator
was tooting his own horn over our school- to- work initiatives).
Using the 1994 scores on a standardized test
and comparing them to the scores after block scheduling,
Lockwood saw scores drop six points for minority students
from 42 to 36, white student's scores dropped 2 points.
Although Lockwood drew the conclusion that this was not
statistically significant thereby enabling her to
recommend block scheduling, apparently it was significant
enough to indicate that for AP students more, rather than
less, was better. In Dothan, AP classes operate for two
semesters giving that one course two credits. Lockwood's
study of about 400 students was apparently more
scientific than the award winning study of over 28,000
students done by Dr. Bateson. She challenges his
conclusions with her ringing endorsement of block
scheduling. Compare the claims in this packet with the
research on the PROBLEM WITH BLOCK SCHEDULING Web
site. One parent sent me a copy of the packet they were
given at her school, only the credit for the research was
under their own director of instruction's name. Again,
the question "where is the mother of all four period
days"? Who has pre-packaged this program?
One must consider that AP students are the most motivated
and capable. What are the results on students who are not
as motivated and capable? Perhaps the recent graduation
results will give an indication. In 1994 at Dothan High
School 232 students graduated. There were 361 students
who entered Dothan High School as ninth graders. That is
an attrition rate of 35%. The four period day went into
effect in the fall of 1995. By 1997 there were 210
students who graduated out of the 404 who entered as
ninth graders. That is a 48% attrition rate. 35% to 48%
attrition ought to make those thinking of adopting the
four period day stop and think. At Northview the
attrition rate went from 28% in 1994 (425 entered as 9th
graders and 302 graduated) to 36% (411 entered as 9th
graders and 263 graduated) in 1997. The dog and pony show
is still on the road. I wonder if these statistics are a
part of the presentation.
It is interesting to me that those determined to defend
public education at all costs continue to protest that
these high numbers reflect students who have moved or
gone to private school. Didn't students move before block
scheduling? Is the the increase in the number of students
not graduating on time because of difficulty in acquiring
the required number of credits because of the four period
day? (Remember band, football, and cheerleading take up
one fourth of a student's academic year with block
scheduling.)
Many questions should
be asked. With Career Quest/Tech Prep being required, and
Band, Football, and Cheerleading lasting both semesters,
how does a student fit in the required courses? Could the
lower graduation rate have something to do with students
having to make up courses over the summer? Why has the
Alternative School been seeing more students if this was
to address discipline problems? With students doing their
homework in class has content been so diminished that
students are having trouble in follow up classes? With
interference and lack of reinforcement has retention been
affected? Some claim the increased attrition has to do
with transfers. Why are they transferring? Didn't
transferring happen in 1994? Does no one move into Dothan
any more? If more are dropping out and getting GEDs
shouldn't we ask why? Who taught the classes when
teachers were on the road promoting the four period day?
Could having substitute teachers account for the increase
in attrition?
In addition to these questions regarding the
effectiveness of this curriculum, society has a bigger
question to ask. When a school system hires an
administrator should that administrator use their
position to influence the adoption of an experimental,
highly controversial methodology, use PR packets to
promote its adoption with information that is erroneous,
count the votes, and then use the personal records of
those students as statistics for a doctoral dissertation?
Aren't our administrators responsible for researching for
themselves the validity of a program and providing those
who pay their salaries with the best KNOWN METHODS FOR
ENHANCING ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT?Don't they at least owe
parents who care enough to do the legwork and research
for them some respect? The FDA regulates human drug
experiments. Who regulates educators who mess with
our children's minds?
Why
was implementing block scheduling so critical?
SEE
ALSO BATESON'S NEW RESEARCH and the INTENSIVE
BLOCK SCHEDULING SITE at Drexel University
|