Treisman began by acknowledging that his friend, Jonathan Kozol, who spoke at Amherst on Nov. 17, advocates means of reform very different from Treisman's own, but that they share the same fundamental values, namely equal opportunity and quality education for all children.
A steadfast mathematician, Treisman has researched countless trends regarding the quality of education that children receive throughout the country, and he presented many revealing statistics throughout his lecture.
The performance of minority students in elementary and middle schools has improved significantly since 1992. Massachusetts, Michigan, North Carolina and Texas consistently rank among the highest-scoring states for national standardized tests. Yet, the scores of African-American and Hispanic children in California remains below the national average.
In his own research, Treisman customarily compares the highest-performing schools with average-performing schools. He explained that he leaves the lowest-performing schools out of the statistics because it does not create a fair or like comparison. "Never compare the best schools with the worst schools," he said. "When you go to the worst schools, the diversity of pathology increases." He also said that the quality of teaching is so poor and the pressure to maximize students' scores on standardized tests is so great at lower-performing schools that comparison studies would be impossible.
Treisman pointed out that geographical factors often play a more significant role in education opportunities than racial or socio-economic factors. "The consequences of where you live are much more important than your race or income," he said. "[Too often] demography determines destiny."
He interprets this fact as evidence that adults, not children, are responsible for the poor quality of education prevalent throughout much of America. "Children never determine the outcome," he said. "Adults do."
Providing support for teachers is crucial, Treisman stated, because a teacher-proof system is unthinkable. Good teachers, Treisman continued, consider their students' successes and failures as extensions of their own successes and failures as educators. Good teachers blame themselves before they blame the students for low test scores.
The No Child Left Behind program is effective, Treisman said, in that it changes the accountability from the students to the educators. He added that, within three years, Treisman said, a school can turn around its statistics.
Treisman described the idea of accountability as a blunt tool of educational reform that delivers blows tantamount to that of a sledge-hammer. Accountability is an appropriate means of reform only if the school has the resources to respond to its demands. Such educational reform, he continued, results in the reallocation of internal resources within a school.
Treisman challenged the audience with tough questions. "The main question is: Whose kids do we choose to educate?" he asked. "Whose kids get what teachers?" For low-income, African-American children, the chances of having a brand-new teacher in the classroom are very high. Treisman advocated the strategy of reallocating the strongest teachers to teach the introductory courses.
No Child Left Behind focuses on the performance statistics of subgroups and seeks to help the lowest-performing groups. Treisman said the goal is not to close the achievement gap but rather to find out how many years' difference in education exists between the subgroups. By determining how far behind their fellow classmates minority students are, educators can better address the particular educational needs of these students.
Treisman discussed the importance of the community in education. "The organization of instruction must reflect the community's ambient values. You cannot drink your own Kool-Ade," he said. "You must minimize the distance between the classroom and the home."
As an example of the pivotal role that a school plays in its community, Treisman recalled visiting a school in Union Hill, Tx., an area infamous for its virulent race politics. Twice a day, parent volunteers and educators, both African-American and white, walked down the halls of the school, holding hands as a model for their children. Low-income African-American and Hispanic children perform well on tests in New York City, where educators emphasize stability and constancy over educational ideology.
Although K-8 education has shown significant improvement, education reformers "have built a multi-lane highway into a swamp," Treisman said. The safety net and resources available for lower-income students disappear at the high school level. The further students progress in their education, the more critical their financial situation becomes as a determinant of the quality of education they receive. In the last few years, educators have gradually begun to shift their focus to high school education reform.
Treisman concluded by encouraging students to use their education to improve the education of upcoming generations. "Amherst students who want to make a difference in the world-and I believe all of you do-you don't have to work with kids," he said. "You can work with systems and how those systems determine resource allocation and focus of attention."
Associate Dean of the Faculty Rick Griffiths commented on the striking statistics about California's education issues. "I was struck by his evidence for how quickly a system can fall apart, as California's has, and how quickly student achievement falters, even if the preceding years have been strong," he said. "He piqued my curiosity by his optimism about the potentials of standardized testing."
Professor of Biology Stephen George was struck by Treisman's logic. "He's a brilliant guy who is making a real difference in public education. I was impressed by how seemingly small policy decisions can have a big effect," he said. "For example, if you measure how well a school is doing by the average performance of the students, the school may put most of its resources into the top students because that will raise the average the most. But if you measure how well the school is doing by the lowest-performing group, the school will put more resources into helping that group. Then the differences between low-and high-performing groups gets smaller."