You are viewing the EdNews Blog archives.
These archives contain blog posts from before June 7, 2011
Click here to view the new Voices section of EdNews

Author Archive

Teachers making a difference in implementing SB-191

Sunday, May 22nd, 2011

Mark Sass, a teacher since 1994, teaches at Legacy High School in the Adams Five Star School District.

Kudos to the Denver New Millennium Initiative (NMI) teachers for their work on the Denver Report.  The report offers ways to implement the Ensuring Quality Instruction Through Educator Effectiveness Act (EQuITEE Act), formerly known as SB 191.

The Denver New Millennium Initiative (NMI) unites an innovative, energized group of early-career teachers, diverse in experience but committed to making a difference for students. We teach in eleven districts in the Denver metro area with a variety of students in myriad grades and subject areas. We entered the profession through diverse routes, from Teach for America to a traditional undergraduate program at the University of Colorado. We share common beliefs about the future of teaching and learning, fortified through our unique perspectives, which motivate us to advocate for a new vision for transforming education in the Denver metro area, in Colorado and nationally.

It is heartening to see teachers committed to our profession and to transforming education.

Among other sensible proposals, the report emphasizes the use of teachers as peer evaluators.  The EQuITEE Act made a significant change to who can evaluate teachers.  Prior to its passage only administrators could evaluate teachers.  New language in the Act will allow teachers, after being designated by administrators and after receiving training, to evaluate their peers. The Denver Report says the following about teacher evaluations:

The long history of evaluation failure has been partially attributed to a lack of effective evaluators.  We believe that an evaluation system is only as strong as its evaluators; therefore, a rigorous selection process must be in place to ensure high-quality educators—who have proven their own effectiveness —are selected to serve in these leadership roles.

Involving teachers in this process is key to an evaluation process that is fair and accurate.  For too long teachers have sat on the sidelines while poor quality teachers practiced in their midst.  In my experience teachers would shrug their shoulders and claim it wasn’t their job to call out their colleague. Technically, they were right.  But not now.

The report explicitly explains how to implement a peer evaluation system while also recognizing the limitations of resources that will need to be dedicated to their proposal. But if we are to improve the quality of teachers in the classroom, we will need to increase AND re-prioritize resources. This will mean that some high-quality teachers will be out of the classroom for a few years. Interestingly the most vehement voices against teachers on special assignment are teachers.

Some teachers are uncomfortable with being evaluated by a colleague—it changes their relationship. I think this comes from a lack of understanding of the role of an evaluator. The second reason some teachers do not like teachers being on special assignment is because it may mean fewer teachers in the classrooms. This is especially true today with the draconian cuts to education. But I would argue that quality trumps quantity.

Overall the report is a wonderful example of teachers proactively attending to issues that impact their profession. For teachers concerned with implementation of the EQuITTEE Act I suggest you read the report and hopefully recognize that the Act moves us in the right direction especially when teachers are involved in its implementation.

Popularity: 27% [?]

Who is behind Step Up Colorado?

Sunday, May 15th, 2011

Mark Sass, a teacher since 1994, teaches at Legacy High School in the Adams Five Star School District.

Who is Step Up Colorado and why do they hate public education so much?

That’s what I would ask the person or persons behind the group Step Up Colorado.  Their commercials, running frequently on local television, paint such a bleak picture of public education that one has to wonder who they are and what they want.

We know they believe current education reforms are not adequate nor are they expedient enough.  I’d love to see their solutions but they do not mention any in their commercials nor do they offer any on their web site.  Know what else they don’t mention?  They don’t mention who they are. Not a single person is listed on their web site. Nor is any organization. Who are you?

Are you interested in having a conversation?  Or are you just interested in throwing bombs?

Popularity: 26% [?]

The real-life impacts of budget cuts

Sunday, May 8th, 2011

Hurray!  We will receive an extra $3 to $4 million dollars from the state for our school district.  Now we only have to cut $27 million, about 10 percent, from our budget.  This after cutting 7 percent last year.

Much has been made of the macro effects of the drastic cuts to education:  Increased class sizes, layoffs of both certified and classified staffs, cutting popular programs like outdoor education, and so on.  Our district was forced to layoff 12 elementary librarians—this as more and more people demand that our students become wiser consumers of electronic information.

There is no doubt that these cuts will impact student learning. But I think we need to talk about the micro-impacts of cuts to education if we are to make any headway in ensuring that education is funded adequately.

For example, in my building we now have two deans for over 2,000 students. What does this mean? It means that teachers now have to assume many of the responsibilities that once were done by deans. With over 150 students in my classes, this has a detrimental impact on my ability to help students learn. One of my students has over 15 unexcused absences so far this quarter.  Not school year, nor even so far this semester, I am talking about this quarter. In the past, deans working with counselors (we lost a counselor last year and now have four), would review attendance weekly and proactively respond to absent students. Not so this year.

We need to talk about the micro-impacts of cuts to education if we are to make any headway in ensuring that education is funded adequately.

The student’s family was going through an ugly divorce and the student was now under the care of a legal guardian. The student continued to miss class, so I wrote up a referral. I am not a big fan of writing referrals, but it is important to have a paper trail on students so future incidents can have some context. What was the consequence of the referral?  Work detail and a phone call home. As well as a student pissed off at me because I had the audacity to write the referral. Since the referral the student has missed three out of four days.

The deans are overwhelmed. There are four weeks of school left and they just want to make it to the end of the year. To start the attendance matrix process would monopolize time that needs to be spent on other discipline issues; time spent monitoring the halls since we lost three campus supervisors last year; time spent on other duties picked up after losing clerical help in the office; time spent working with seniors who are in danger of not graduating.

I get it. But I also get the fact that this freshman, who is struggling to make it through my class, will be the senior struggling to graduate in three years.

This is but one incident of what the cuts to education mean to me and my school community.  So educators, let’s see other stories. Stories that personalize and bring to life the impact that budget cuts have on our schools.

Popularity: 28% [?]

Case study: How not to cut a teacher

Thursday, April 21st, 2011

Mark Sass, a teacher since 1994, teaches at Legacy High School in the Adams Five Star School District.

Public policy reflects our values.  Embedded within the arcane and obtuse language of policy is evidence of what a society honors, admires, and respects.  This holds true for policies that impact millions of us and for policies that affect a few.

Recently, I attended an “Appendix E” meeting at my school.  Appendix E refers to the section in our master agreement dealing with layoffs in schools.  Due to budget cuts, we have to cut a teacher in our department.  The first to go are any probationary teachers.  If there are no probationary teachers, you go to Appendix E and follow a protocol that involves a series of variables involving points.  Since we have no probationary teachers, we had to use Appendix E.

A representative from human resources attends, as well as an association representative.  All of the teachers are requested to attend, but not required.  Each teacher has to fill out a “cheat sheet” that outlines the various point options for a teacher.  This is an open and transparent process.  At various points in the meeting, point totals are read aloud.  It becomes apparent after a few readings who is not in danger of being cut.  In case of a tie, Appendix E uses some tie-breaking formulas.  At the end of the process, which took us about an hour, we all knew who was going to be cut.

We have a very professional and collegial department, so the process was not as tense as I imagine it can get.  We joked about how we thought “there would be no math involved since we are all social science teachers.”  Or that there should be an attendance bonus of 50 points for teachers who showed up to the process (some colleagues had other commitments, like coaching).  I am very proud to be a member of such a thoughtful and open department.

At the end of the meeting I as well as a few colleagues I talked with, felt disappointed and ashamed at the means by which the decision was made.  Ashamed that after it was all over, you could not say that the least effective teacher was cut.  But then Appendix E isn’t about effectiveness in the classroom; as a matter of fact, there isn’t one reference in the entire process about what you do IN the classroom.

Here are the point opportunities.  See if you can find what our process values:

State Certification/Licensure and Area- 26 points for endorsement in area to be reduced and another 5 points for any additional endorsement areas.

Teaching experience-one point per semester taught for a maximum total of 24 points.  Additional points per semester for teaching experience outside of the district for a maximum total of 10 points.  Points awarded for how long you have taught in your current school as well as points for time in other schools.  The maximum total for these two areas cannot exceed 28 points.

Training-Points awarded, not to exceed 11, for training received through the district and for training outside of the district, not to exceed 11.  Advanced degrees:  4 for masters, 8 for specialist degree, and 12 for doctorate.

Non-teaching Duties-Co-curricular sponsor, maximum of 4 points.  Chairperson, 6 points maximum. Coaching, maximum of 9 points.  Member of a committee, in building maximum 8 points, at district level maximum 4 points.

That’s it.  That’s how our profession decides who is to be cut: longevity, training, membership on committees, and co-curricular.  Can you imagine any other profession using only these characteristics as a representation of what they value?  Don’t get me wrong, I do believe that longevity, training, membership, and co-curricular should be factors.  But the only factors?

Our association is addressing some of the language in Appendix E.  I hope that eventually, as SB 10-191 is implemented, teacher performance can be a factor in these decisions.  Our current Appendix E language is a reflection of a time long past, a time when administrators used personal preference to make personnel decisions, a time when we put into policy values that have since changed.

Popularity: 52% [?]

Get teacher-leaders involved in big decisions

Thursday, March 17th, 2011

Mark Sass, a teacher since 1994, teaches at Legacy High School in the Adams Five Star School District.

The Center for Teaching Quality (CTQ) has just released a white paper “New Student Assessments and Advancing Teaching as a Results-Oriented Profession.” The paper is is co-authored by CTQ president Barnett Berry, director of research and policy Alesha Daughtrey, and Renee Moore, Dave Orphal, and Marsha Ratzel of the Teacher Leaders Network.  This description is from the CTQ website:

The paper raises cautions about the use of value-added models (VAMs) as “the preferred method” to estimate the effects of individual teachers on student achievement. Even highly accomplished teachers who embrace accountability, the authors say, “are skeptical of using VAMs as a central measure of their effectiveness,” citing the narrowness of what the models measure and reports from researchers of significant and high error rates.

However, the paper supports “the strategic use of value-added data, with the models’ limitations in mind” and urges the engagement of expert teachers in efforts “to sharpen those models and their underlying student assessments to improve accountability systems in ways that support more effective teaching.”

As educators are confronted with new standards and accountability measures, implementation of these new “realities” will not be successful without identifying teacher leaders and putting them to work in their schools.  As budget cuts loom, it is important to recognize the role of teacher leaders at the school and district level.  We need to be very thoughtful about removing teachers from these positions as a way to increase the number of teachers in the classroom.

CTQ has also published a new book, “Teaching 2030,” co-authored by Barnett Berry and 12 accomplished U.S. teacher leaders.  I have not read the book but I am intrigued based on a short animated clip that spotlights some of the themes of the book.  I was especially impressed by their challenge to teachers’ unions to behave more like professional guilds.

CTQ has embraced the notion that teachers can do more than react to what is being done to them and is proactively articulating what needs to be done.  Good for them.

Popularity: 19% [?]

The logical extension of vouchers?

Wednesday, March 9th, 2011

Some questions regarding the current Douglas County School Board push for vouchers:

Would it be appropriate, much less legal, for the governing board of a public library system to allow current library subscribers, if they so chose, to receive library funds to rent DVDs from Netflix, Blockbuster, or the local video store down the street (do these still exist)?

I am, of course, trying to make an analogy to the current push by Douglas County school board members to establish a “scholarship” program whereby families would receive tax money dedicated to public schools to use as tuition at private schools.  Is my analogy off the mark, or could we even apply it to other public services?  Park districts, police and fire protection, maybe even our justice system?

Are we ready to admit now that vouchers are not about improving student achievement?  They are about an ideology that values choice, regardless of effectiveness.

Does the school board of Douglas County, or any school board for that matter, have the legal authority to establish a voucher system?  Isn’t the purpose of public school boards to govern the public schools under their jurisdiction?  I realize that public schools contract out some services to private companies, including contract schools.  But the school board still “governs” those private companies ensuring that the private companies follow contractual obligations thereby ensuring the tax payer that funds are being used wisely and effectively.

Vouchers, used as tuition for private schools, are not “governed” by the school boards.

Does it matter if the funds used for vouchers come from the state or come from the local school district taxing authority?  Can the state deny the use of state education funding for vouchers?

Are we ready to admit now that vouchers are not about improving student achievement?  They are about an ideology that values choice, regardless of effectiveness?

My questions are not intended to be rhetorical in nature (Yes, they are biased in nature, can’t help that since I am not afraid to let my bias show).  They are intended to further provoke the discussion about vouchers and for the dissemination of information.  Please keep this in mind.

Popularity: 26% [?]

In budget crunch, don’t cut cost-efficient reforms

Wednesday, March 2nd, 2011

Adams 12 Five Star School District is facing $30 million in cuts for next year.  Unlike Gov. John Hickenlooper who portrayed the more than $340 million in cuts to education as a one year issue on ABC News this past Sunday, those of us in Adams 12 know that it won’t end next year.

We have to look at how we can be as effective as possible with limited operating expenses.

The biggest fear among some is the loss of teaching  jobs.  And as usually happens when various factors vie for limited resources there are already calls by teachers to cut the “fat” at the district offices.  And in some areas I’d agree.  But I am not so fast to protect teachers at the cost of negatively impacting teacher effectiveness.

This puts me at odds with many of my colleagues.  The claim is that you have to limit the impact of budget cuts in the classroom by cutting teacher-coaches, or cutting release time for teachers who work on leadership or reform issues in the school or at the district level before you cut classroom teachers.  But what if these reforms, led by teachers with release time, or led by district personnel, have improved the effectiveness of the teachers?  We have to look at how we can be as effective as possible with limited operating expenses.  I hope that decisions can be made with effectiveness in mind.

Many of the reform movements in schools and districts have a limited impact on expenses.  In other words these innovations don’t cost much.  But, even with that said, many innovations and reforms are first to go.  This has more to do with an emotional cost than with a monetary one.  So, kudos to the Roaring Fork School District for moving ahead with its standards-based learning model even as the district make massive cuts to its budget.  The entire district went to a standards-based grading model a few years ago and now they are implementing what they call the “Moving On” concept.

The idea is that students who are proficient with skills in reading, writing, or math can move on to the next level without putting in more seat-time waiting for the next semester or school year.  Students would also need to exhibit proficiency before they could move on.  As Re-1 assistant superintendent Brad Ray puts it:  “The schools we have now are built on the assembly line model of the 1920s, where time is fixed and learning flexible, and you move students along just because they’re a year older,” he said. “What we’re moving toward is that, now time is flexible and learning is fixed based on the standards.”

I will be the first to fight for more resources for schools.  We still operate off of the old paradigm of ranking and sorting students versus ensuring every student is academically successful.  Our funding system is based on this antiquated model.

I will also lead the charge to cut ineffective operating systems and personnel, using data that reflects their impact on academic achievement.  But as we shake off the effects of a recession and regain our priorities to our children, we need to make sure our budget decisions are sound and rational.

Even “[a]fter three years of conversation and more than 18 months of intense planning, the essential elements of Moving On are scheduled to be implemented throughout the district next school year.”  Way to stick with it Roaring Fork!

Popularity: 20% [?]

Eliminating P.E. requirement is short-sighted

Sunday, February 13th, 2011

Sometimes we can’t see the forest for the trees.  Take Aurora Public Schools for example.  Based on recent data reported in EdNews, 55 percent of Aurora’s high school graduates need remediation when they enter college.  In response to this the APS Board just voted to drop P.E. and health as required courses.  The thinking is that the district needs to increase the math, science, and language requirements to get their graduates ready for college.

This is laudable on its face.  Too long we have worked to get students eligible for college versus ready for college.  But will increasing requirements actually do the trick?

Need to Know, a PBS show, just ran a piece on how a large, suburban school district in Illinois, Naperville High School, actually uses P.E. to improve the academic performance of students.  P.E., for Naperville students, is a daily, graded requirement.  And for a group of struggling students, who take a specifically designed P.E. course directly before English, they now read a half a year ahead of students in the class who opt out of the P.E. course.  Students who take the P.E. class directly before their math class showed dramatic improvements on standardized math tests.

Watch the full episode. See more Need To Know.

What’s my point?  Educators continue to respond to challenges in education without looking at what happens in the classroom.  Instead of doing a better job with the instruction that happens in the classroom we add more time in the classroom.   It’s about effectiveness and as the video shows, we can be more effective with what we have without sacrificing important aspects of a student’s well-being–their physical and academic well-being.

Popularity: 21% [?]

Using the right kind of research the right way

Wednesday, February 9th, 2011

Mark Sass, a teacher since 1994, teaches at Legacy High School in the Adams Five Star School District.

Want to know why many educators close their doors to current education debates?  See Alan’s recent post “Why I don’t trust education research.”

It is dangerous for educators to act this way, but it is certainly understandable.  Whom to believe?  What am I to do?

A better approach for educators to take with research is to look at research that is at the micro-level.  Research that impacts their everyday practice versus the big policy research that gets mangled, or not,  in subjective partisan bias.  Case in point is the research that shows that constructive feedback to students has a greater impact on student learning than do socioeconomic characteristics.

Researcher John Hattie looked at meta-analyses and evaluated the relative impact of many factors, including family structure, curriculum, teaching practices and student feedback on student achievement.  His findings challenge some prevailing notions by many educators.  The following factors influence student achievement as shown by the “effect size,” or the percentage of standard deviation (the higher the number in the parentheses equals a higher impact).

  • Preterm birth weight (.54)
  • Illness (.23)
  • Diet (.12)
  • Drug use (.33)
  • Exercise (.28)
  • Socioeconomic status (.57)
  • Family structure (.17)
  • Home environment (.57)
  • Parental involvement (.51)

As you can see, many of these factors would be considered outside the influence of the teacher (this is arguable in some areas like parent influence).  These are certainly negative influences.  But are there any other influences, ones that can be under the control of the teacher that can overcome the negative factors?  Hattie found a number of practices that are more powerful than those listed above.  For example: teacher/student relationships (.72), professional development (.62), creativity programs (.65), and feedback (.73).

Doug Reeves summarizes Hattie’s findings:

“We can say, based on the preponderance of the evidence from multiple studies in many cultural settings, that feedback is not only more important than most other instructional interventions, it is also more important  than socioeconomic status, drug use, nutrition, exercise, anxiety, family structure, and a host of other factors that many people claimed were overwhelming.”

This is why some school districts, like Aurora and Adams 12, are looking at scrapping their antiquated grading systems and replacing them with grading systems that reflect this current research.  But there is great resistance to the proposed changes.  Why is this?

Our greatest challenge is to transform what we know into action: The “knowing doing gap.”  In all my years as a teacher, I have been frustrated by many things.  But the one area that has frustrated me the most is the seeming indifference to research by educators.

Yes, other fields experience this indifference, but I would argue that it is more so in education that in any other field.  I cannot imagine anyone in the technology industry being satisfied with what they know.  They want to know more and they operate from the assumption that what they do could be better.

Look at medicine and the changes that have taken place over the years when it comes to their practice.  To educators I would ask, “What keeps us from continually challenging what we know?”  Reeves says:

“Equipped with a rich literature on the theory and practice of change, educators and school leaders should be fully capable of acknowledging error, evaluating alternatives, testing alternative hypotheses, and drawing conclusions that lead to better results.  Instead, decision making processes are more likely to be guided by personal convictions that are not only antiquated but dangerous.  We can be indignant about the physicians of the 19th Century who were willing to wash their hands, but when the subject turns to educational policies, we sometimes elevate prejudice over evidence.”

I know that school and district environments can impact innovation.  But this should not keep us from moving forward. Teaching is one of the most complicated of human activities.  It is hard.  That’s why educators need to continually challenge what they know and interrogate what they do.  This push should come from within the field of education, not from left field.

Popularity: 19% [?]

Try the ‘Backseat Budgeter’

Friday, January 28th, 2011

Mark Sass, a teacher since 1994, teaches at Legacy High School in the Adams Five Star School District.

Want to know why it is so hard to find revenue for education? Why Higher Ed usually gets the fiscal ax first?  Why our constitution needs some fixin’?

Colorado Public Radio ran a story this morning about the backseat budgeter, an interactive “game” that allows you to attempt to balance the state budget.  Listen to the story and then try your hand at balancing the budget.  Let us know what you tried to cut and what tax you tried to increase.  You will get a first hand feel for what our legislators are going through.

Popularity: 19% [?]

Colorado Health Foundation Walton Family Foundation Daniels fund Pitton Foundations Donnell-Kay Foundation