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

On, Wisconsin!

Tuesday, February 22nd, 2011

Cross-posted from the Failing Schools blog

Some people just don’t know when to quit.

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker is one of those people.

In the wake of the state’s recent budget shortfall, Walker could have done the humble, fiscally-sound thing: admit that the tax breaks and conservative health care experiment he championed had worsened the state’s budget situation, and asked lawmakers to correct the problem. He could also have done the tough but responsible thing: negotiate fairly with public sector workers, who have expressed their willingness to pay a greater share of their pension and benefits to ease that burden on the state’s budget.

But no. Like the glutton who eats until his buttons give way, Walker and his allies have decided to keep their pet policies intact and try to grab evenmore power for themselves by trying to eliminate some public employees’ rights to collective bargaining. (I’m not sure how they plan to continue spinning the mere having of rights as too expensive for the state to afford, but I’m sure theirwealthy friendsthink tank pals, and buddies in Murdoch’s Media Misinformation Machine will continue funding and broadcasting their efforts.) While completely ignoring the self-serving actions that have caused much of the state’s financial distress, they are trying to:

  • Adopt a proposal that clearly punishes members of certain unions (teachers, nurses, social workers, etc.) and not others (police, firefighters). We’ve a number of choices regarding how to interpret this disparate treatment, but one is particularly clear: it’s a naked attempt to limit the power of unions that didn’t support Walker & Co during election season, and protect those that did.
  • Obscure the true origins of the budget shortfall, appealing to a troubling nationwide narrative thatblames public sector workers for budget problems, instead of the toxic economic mess created by greedy and under-regulated Wall Street financiers
  • Pretend there is no choice but to make cuts and restrict rights that overwhelmingly affect middle and low-income people—instead of correcting the tax structures and other policies that enrich the wealthy at everyone else’s expense
  • Cultivate and capitalize on the current fiscal situation and whatever resentment exists between privately-employed taxpayers and unionized public employees to break their unions permanently.

Threatened with the outrageous theft of hard-won workers’ rights—many won right there in Wisconsin—fourteen state senators left the state to avoid having to vote on the bill, and tens of thousands of citizens are demonstrating in the streets and the capitol building, including thousands of teachers and students.

As a result, some in the “news” media and elsewhere have whined about “self-serving” teachers staging a sick-out to protest these attacks on their rights. They’ve accused teachers of being liars for calling in they’re sick when they’re not (I guess being sick of injustice doesn’t qualify!), while completely ignoring by the self-serving, multi-million dollar lies on which this entire bill is based. Others are “concerned” about kids who are missing school. These people are completely missing the point.

One: Our public school system exists in large part to prepare students for their future roles as citizens. Students who watch and participate in peaceful demonstrations are getting an important lesson on how to exercise their First Amendment rights, and why we have such rights in the first place. And if there are any adults in Wisconsin, or anywhere in the US, who aren’t using these current events as teachable moments for the children in their care, then our democratic republic faces much larger threats than a budget crisis!

Two: Like this post, most of what’s happening in Wisconsin isn’t just, or even primarily, about teachers and schools. But it does further expose an ugly truth about national conversations over austerity measures and public policy reform: some people aren’t in these discussions to “repair budgets,” orimprove schools, or shore up Social Security, or any of that. Some people try to exploit our hysteria and ignorance to coerce us into making policy decisions that benefit themselves (or their ideologies) at our expense. These are decisions we wouldn’t otherwise make if we felt we had other options, or enough time to stop and deliberate.

Fortunately for proponents of responsible public policy, the brazen nature of Walker’s bill has awakened many to the need to think critically when political and economic elites use the words “crisis” and “reform” in close succession. However this all turns out in Wisconsin, there’s no turning back that awareness. Here’s hoping more of us greet this moment with courage: the courage to stand up for ourselves and our fellow men and women who’ve been unfairly attacked, and the courage to take an honest, fair-minded approach to solving our social and economic problems.

Popularity: 18% [?]

No laughing matter

Tuesday, February 15th, 2011

Cross-posted from the Failing Schools blog

On Jan. 23, The Denver Post published an editorial condemning a community effort to recall Northeast Denver school board member Nate Easley, Jr. After deriding the recall attempt as “a joke,” they (once again) over-simplified the conflict it represents as being one between those who “want reform” and those who seek to “thwart change.” Revealing its lack of interest in nuance, the editorial board paints everyone who disapproves of Dr. Easley’s job performance as an opponent of charter and magnet schools, but the truth is more complicated than that.

Frequent readers and folks who know me are by now familiar with the story of my separation from the district, and why I’ve become such a vocal critic of its administration. But this incident was also the first time that I became familiar with Dr. Easley, and the dysfunctional nature of Denver’s school board.

After preparing and submitting a ten-page letter about my situation (and a collection of documents to back up my claims) to each board member and Superintendent Boasberg, I made several attempts to contact Dr. Easley because he represents the section of the district where I taught. (If you’re thinking this sounds crazy, remember that there is no established process for probationary teachers to appeal an unfair non-renewal, outside of a long and expensive legal battle.)

The contents of my letter, combined with all of the teacher and community presentations to the Board on May 20, 2010, should have been enough to give the Board pause. That this many talented and committed teachers related similar stories of unexplained and/or retaliatory non-renewals by principals (a number that doesn’t include those who faced similar situations but—rightly—assumed that addressing the Board wouldn’t help their situation) points to a serious issue, where good leadership is concerned.

A sensible organization would have seen this situation for the red flag it is, and would have made some kind of effort to understand whether the decisions that had been made were just or logical. (Notably,Andrea Mérida did, though her interventions and the occasional support of the other members of the “board minority” were unsuccessful.) Instead, the Board took the easy way out, instead of the right way. Likely recognizing that meaningfully examining the claims of teachers who may have been wrongfully non-renewed could set a precedent for doing the same in the future, the majority dismissed the countervailing evidence we presented and voted to uphold the principals’ recommendations.

Now, the Board as a whole has earned some ill-will in the community for its tendency to rubber stamp District decisions instead of examining them. But it’s especially disturbing when the Board’s presidentacts this way. Responding to the teacher non-renewal votes last spring, Easley said to the Denver Post that (emphasis mine):

The idea that the board would question the process that has gone through a principal, an instructional superintendent, human resources and the superintendent is to me dumbfounding…

I don’t necessarily need to supervise 4,000 teachers as a volunteer. … We want the principal to make difficult decisions. On the other hand, to come back and reverse that decision without having the kind of detail we need because it’s a personnel issue, I don’t think we should do that.

Both quotes reveal a misunderstanding of the function an elected school board is meant to serve. Part of the logic behind having a school board is to vest power in a group of people who are directly accountable to the public, thereby protecting the public’s interests in the event that appointed district officials do sloppy work or make bad decisions. In this case, the “process”– an inflated term for one administrator making a choice, then having his or her superiors blindly sign off on it– did not work, resulting in the loss of some very talented teachers to other districts, and to the profession as a whole.

The latter quote also points to a disturbing attitude Easley seems to hold for his position. When confronted by constituents who feel he isn’t living up to his responsibilities–by missing meetings, ignoring their calls, etc.–  his typical defense is that being a school board member is a volunteer role.

For instance, after a meeting last fall, I asked him why he never answered my letter, phone calls, or emails. In the presence of a constituent and a representative from the US Department of Education, he responded, “Well, you know this is a volunteer position, right? You’re pretty articulate; if you think you could do a better job, maybe you should run next time…” Most elected officials would at least pretend to care and apologize; that he didn’t speaks volumes to me. (Is he actually interested in continuing to serve?) And taken at face value, his statement suggests that he doesn’t care enough to be thoughtful about work he does for free– not exactly what you want to hear from someone serving in an important, but unpaid, role.

All communities deserve representatives who care enough about them and their values to listen to them and take their concerns seriously. That doesn’t mean that they will always agree– there are certainly times when leaders need to speak uncomfortable truths, and push the boundaries of what has become their community’s “conventional wisdom.” But when that’s necessary, good leaders make sure to stay connected to those they serve, to make a case for why change is necessary, and to do their best to ensure that the final decision reflects the whole community’s interests, not just those of its most powerful members, or those with whom they already agree. By contrast, Dr. Easley has allowed himself to be a mascot for a certain kind of reform, that is being done to certain communities instead of with them. He has traded his responsibility to represent his community in order to gain the favor of Denver’s social and political Establishment.

For a community that has gone without an effective, responsive representative, and the students, teachers, parents, and schools who have suffered as a result, that is no joke.

Popularity: 14% [?]

Making “choice” meaningful

Tuesday, February 1st, 2011

Cross-posted from the Failing Schools blog

Like thousands of observers around the country, I was outraged over the decision in the case of Kelley Williams-Bolar this week. Williams-Bolar is single mother from Akron, Ohio who was charged and convicted as a felon for lying about her daughters’ residency status in order to send them to the highly-regarded Copley-Fairlawn schools. As a result of the conviction, her future as a teacher is in jeopardy, and she faces possible eviction from the public housing project where she and her daughters live. Her father, whose Copley address she used to unlawfully gain access to the Copley-Fairlawn school district, also faces charges of grand theft for his role in the affair.

Though I don’t condone lying, I agree with those who believe her punishment was excessive and thatshe should be pardoned. More importantly, this woman should never have been put in the position of having to commit a felony in order to secure a decent education for her children.

It should be our goal as a nation to ensure that every school, in every neighborhood, is a high-quality school. As I’ve said before, parents should not have to “move, or pay extra money, or have to struggle to ensure that their child gets a quality education.” And they certainly shouldn’t have to risk their livelihoods, the roof over their heads, or incarceration to ensure that their children are safe and well-served at school. But as this case makes clear, as we work toward improvement in all schools, there is a pressing need for real choices for families who cannot afford to move or pay private school tuition.

The last time I wrote about school choice, I tried to clarify some disingenuous speech around the issue. Though I am a supporter of school choice, I do not support the way the idea of “choice” has been used to cover actions that actually take choices away from some families and communities. Instead, I believe a true movement toward school choice for all families should:

  • extend to greater parental input in school-based decision-making. Families’ agency in the schooling process shouldn’t begin and end with the act of choosing a school. After all, while “voting with one’s feet” should always be an option, it can’t be the only way to resolve problems. It’s disruptive to children’s educations, and it’s not always possible (especially for those who live in an area without many high-quality choices, or who live in more remote places). I’ve heard stories ofpublic and charter schools with abysmal practices regarding parental input; that needs to change.
  • be part of a movement to improve all schools, not a way to get around that responsibility. Current school choice schemes in low-income communities essentially give a few kids the chance to escape under-funded, low-performing schools, without improving the overall system to which the remaining children are still consigned. Given that private schools aren’t required to accept anyone, and that charter schools aren’t reliably better than traditional neighborhoods, choice alone will never create great schooling experiences for all children. (And it’s cruel to continually repeat that “public schools should compete for their students” without giving them the resources they need to do so. That’s not an improvement strategy; that’s a cop-out.) But choice, combined with efforts to ensure an equitable distribution of resources among all schools, can, by allowing students and families to choose (or have input into creating) schools that suit their learning needs and desires.
  • be multi-dimensional. When we discuss public school choice, especially for parents in low-income communities or communities of color, the conversation focuses primarily on just two elements of school quality: achievement (primarily performance on state tests) and safety. More affluent families get to decide among schools with different philosophies and foci (“Montessori, Reggio Emilia, integrated/theme-based, or traditional?”). Meanwhile, in less affluent communities, it’s often the case that “choice” for these families is between a traditional school that feels like a prison, or a charter school that feels like boot camp. (And in both kinds of schools, instruction is often too focused on test preparation.) Parents in all communities deserve to have more information than just dry statistics, and they deserve more choices than this. Why not create school reporting systems that highlight different schools’ strengths and specialties, instead of just ranking them based on their scores? A holistic appraisal of schools would not only be more helpful to schools trying to improve their performance, but the information could also be used to allow families to make a truly informed choice about which school is best for their kids.

Rather than criminalizing parents who use the only means they can to access quality schooling options, we should be thinking about why someone would find it necessary to take such a drastic action in the first place– and taking action to make it unnecessary. We should also be working to make sure that all families can choose for positive reasons, among different positive options– “Will this school help my budding artist? Will they sustain and nurture her creativity?”– instead of seeing school choice as an escape valve.

Popularity: 16% [?]

Dictators are bold, all right…

Thursday, December 9th, 2010

Cross-posted from the Failing Schools blog.

Yesterday, Van Schoales of Education Reform Now published a piece in EdNews Colorado imploring local candidates for mayor to consider “bold” ideas like mayoral control of DPS.

Mayoral control is particularly challenging for Denver because of the Colorado constitution but it seems worth more of a public discussion given the increasing dysfunction of the Denver school board, which is likely to get worse, and the ever-increasing need for more quality public education in Denver…

One possible step for the next Denver mayor to consider, short of controlling DPS, might be to charter schools in collaboration with the Charter School Institute, a local university, or doing it independently.  Obviously this would take legislative action but it is worth considering given the dire state of education in Denver.

Now, I agree that there are problems on Denver’s school board. Some school board members seem not to understand their role vis-à-vis the school district, and rather than listening to all of their constituents, considering all of the facts at hand before making momentous decisions, or performing any meaningful oversight of district activities, they’ve decided it’s their job to help district officials push their specific “reform” agenda.

But the solution to this is more democracy, not less. I applaud efforts to increase school board member accountability through the electoral process, as well as other signs that the people most affected by their decisions are beginning to mobilize. If too few people vote in school board elections or pay attention to what they do, then we need to engage and energize the electorate– not silence them further!

Anyway, I see two main problems with mayoral control. First, there’s no strong evidence (repeated assertions, yes, but little evidence) that it has been successful. In some of the highest-profile experiments, it’s actually been quite problematic. For instance, in New York City, the much-hyped test score increases used to justify Bloomberg and Klein’s contentious approach to leadership were mostly the result ofsteadily declining standards for what constituted proficiency. Once the bar was raised again, proficiency rates plummeted. The city’s performance on the NAEP hasn’t changed at all– and none of that even considers broader questions about students’ growth as critical thinkers or citizens, or the impact of constant school turmoil on the social and emotional health of the students, teachers, and parents subjected to this punitive style of “reform.” Similar statements can also be made about Chicago, where test score increases coincided with lowered standards and turnarounds merely shuffled kids around different schools instead of meaningfully improving their prospects or the schools themselves. (Others who’d like to pile on examples for other cities, please be my guest. Where my DCfolks at?)

The second problem is much larger. Even if there were an unequivocally strong track record of successful school turnarounds under mayoral control, legally eliminating checks and balances is a dangerous thing to do. Just as mayoral control might make it easier to make positive changes in the system, mayoral control would also make it easier to make negative changes in the system. Are we truly silly enough to believe that each and every politician who comes to office is virtuous enough to deserve such absolute control over schools? Do we seriously believe that any single person and their small group of advisors are so perfect, and so knowledgeable of every single issue that affects their constituents, that they should be empowered to make sweeping unilateral decisions? We know politicians can be swayed by powerful, well-financed people and organizations whose interests don’t align with the public good. (Financial deregulation and Wall Street fraud, anyone?) Why make it even harder for everyday citizens to overcome that influence?

Yes, it might be bold to radically increase executive power, but that doesn’t make it a good idea. No individual or group is perfect. We need to constantly engage with each other, and disagree, and be willing to see where we might be wrong or right in order to generate good, sustainable plans for progress.

Here’s my message to those considering mayoral control in Denver or anywhere else: If your ideas cannot bear the weight of fair, open, and vigorous discussion amongst all stakeholders, they have no business becoming policy.

And if you cannot listen, consider, question, reason, and collaborate with the people charged with carrying out important policies, you have no business being in charge of anything.

Popularity: 4% [?]

Waiting for Mark Twain

Wednesday, November 17th, 2010

Cross-posted from the Failing Schools blog

Some days, I really wish Mark Twain were still around. In a time when schooling is increasingly the biggest thing interfering with children’s educations, he’d have a field day quipping about the hot mess that is “education” reform debate. I’d have a blast watching him.

He might be moved to update his thoughts on school boards. Perhaps he could do so with a little Churchillian twist: “School boards are the worst form of district governance…except for mayoral control.” (I’m close to burned out on school board politics, so I won’t say much more, except that a change in mindset is in order. Please remember, it’s not your job to represent the district’s interests to the public. It’s your job to represent the public’s interests to the district. You do that by listening to constituents’ concerns, being well informed about the issues, and ensuring that district officials are making sound, just decisions in accordance with district policy and the law. You’re not players, you’re referees. Please, stop trying to score.)

If Twain got to see how education policy decisions are made, and the kind of people who have recently been allowed to make careers influencing them, he’d be ever more convinced that “all you need in this life is ignorance and confidence, and then success is sure.” (All the more sure if you’re powerful enough to surround yourself with others whose success is similarly guaranteed. That makes it far easier to maintain the ignorance that sustains some kinds of confidence. And on and on.) Perhaps Mr. Twain would have an easier time popping those ignorance bubbles than the rest of us have. I wish.

‘Cause there are so many things a lot of self-appointed reformers “know that just ain’t so.”  They know that some schools are failing, and they know why (tenured teachers who don’t try, unions that protect them, a lack of competition…). All of this “knowledge,” completely undisturbed by any understanding of psychometrics, or education theory and practice, or the students themselves…or direct, contemporary experience in the schools that’s informed by such understandings. Anyone who points out the flaws in their simplistic arguments, or presents facts that don’t support them, can be handily dismissed (and just as disrespectfully). “You must be a bad teacher.” “You’re with the union.” “You must care more about adults than children.”

“Facts are stubborn, but statistics are more pliable, ” Twain reminds us. Maybe a sage voice from the past could remind them that facts—things that are indisputably true—have value (as do the people bearing them, regardless of their associations). Facts like the amount of money we spend on “lies, damned lies, and statistics” while our schools lack basic things like books, or empowered teachers, or stable, effective leadership. Facts like how hard it is to concentrate when you’re angry, or hungry. Facts like how profoundly non-school factors affect their precious Data…and how many kids fill in bubbles at random so they can finish the silly tests and rest, or read the books they actually enjoy once they’ve handed in their test booklets. Would they listen? Or would they scoff? (Who needs facts, when you’ve got reams of Data on which to base your decisions?)

In other fields, this kind of behavior would be considered problematic. The last time you were semi- or seriously ill, did your doctor design a treatment protocol for you based solely on the vitals taken by the nurse, without taking the time to observe you directly and ask you about your symptoms or examining your medical history? I certainly hope not! Yet, in education today, it’s supposedly OK to completely upend whole schools, in bunches at a time, because they’re “orange,” or “red,” or “failing,” without first trying to figure out why that might be the case. Shameful.

But I don’t think he’s coming back, so no use waiting around. For my part, I’ll continue working to defeat the test-and-punish nonsense that has taken over our public schools. What value is there in any practice that drains most of the meaningful, valuable things from the education process, and makes students hate learning?

“A person who won’t read has no advantage over one who can’t read.”

Popularity: 3% [?]

What does “school choice” mean?

Monday, October 25th, 2010

Sabrina Stevens Shupe is an education advocate and former Denver teacher. This is cross-posted from her Failing Schools blog.

What does “school choice” mean?

In my head, school choice is about providing parents with options, so they can choose the school community that best serves their children’s needs and interests. It’s about families getting a fair, accurate assessment of the local schools (that includes in-depth information about what kinds of programs each school offers and how they approach the task of educating children, not just opaque school ranking information) and then choosing the best fit for their children. For those who don’t have the money to choose private alternatives or move to a place with “better” public schools, public school choice efforts can create greater flexibility for families to choose schools that work for them.

Yet in too many places, especially low-income communities and/or communities of color, “choice” isn’t actually a choice. Rather than being able to develop a strong local ecosystem of high-quality choices, these communities are being forced to accept schools they don’t want, at the expense of supporting and improving the existing schools. Student displacement and disrupted learning has become common.

I applaud those who, with pure intentions and an abundance of heart, wish to expand high-quality learning opportunities for all children. (Likewise, I vehemently object to those who are merely looking for tax breaks, are attempting to exorcise their White/upper class guilt by “saving” the poor and the marginalized, are out to make money off of public schools, and/or use their power and influence to impose their ideological will on other people.)

However– and it’s really sad that such an obvious statement bears repeating– “choice” is not a choice if you don’t choose it!

It is inaccurate to label a scheme a “school choice plan” if:

  • the “school of choice” invades or replaces an existing school over the express wishes of the affected community. If families who want to choose their current school cannot do so, then they’ve not been given a true choice.
  • not everyone can access the different choices. If transportation isn’t provided for community members who can’t drive kids to out-of-neighborhood schools, or if they’re required to spend more than they can afford to pay out-of-pocket for public transportation, then they do not really have a choice. Same goes for schools that don’t meet the needs of English language learners or special education students. There should be more than one option for these families, too.
  • community members have not been meaningfully involved in the process of developing the choice plan.

We need to remember something that has been all-too-frequently forgotten: all people and all communities (not just wealthier and/or Whiter ones) have the right to determine how they wish to educate their children, as long as they do so with respect for the law. Schools do not belong to the district or the state, they belong to the communities they’re meant to serve. Their desires need to be honored, and where they disagree, an honest effort should be made to satisfy everyone’s needs.

Popularity: 14% [?]

Humanize schools

Monday, October 11th, 2010

Sabrina Stevens Shupe is an education advocate and former Denver teacher. This is cross-posted from her Failing Schools blog.

One main reason I stopped believing in the dominant narrative about school reform is because I experienced firsthand how top-down policy churn impacts teachers’ ability to focus on our actual work. When people who are too far removed from the classroom attempt to control what’s happening there, problems arise. Standardization becomes virtually irresistible, because it makes it so much easier to perform “quality control” (which then ends up being more about conformity than actual quality). And of course, there has to be some way of tracking what’s going on, so documenting and reporting on your work becomes an urgent responsibility. This documentation has to be friendly to the non-educators who increasingly run schools, too, which means it will most likely be reductive in nature.

That, of course, has the unfortunate consequence of turning principals and district personnel into paper pushers, teachers into paper generators, and students into numbers (the flip-side of what politicians call “accountability”). For example, there were several days last year where virtually all of the teachers in our school had to hire substitutes to cover our classes while we worked elsewhere in the building, administering tests and finishing forms in order to meet district and state reporting deadlines. While there are some great substitutes out there, for the most part, sub days are days lost to instruction. It’s simply not the same to have a stranger step in and attempt to pick up where you left off with your students. (And it doesn’t help the substitutes any when bored, stressed out, over-tested kids look at them and think “PLAYTIME!”)

It’s bad enough that teachers often have to take this kind of work home in order to have time to complete it and plan good lessons– that depletes our energy, which makes us less alert and able to respond to children’s learning needs during the school day. But when these requirements (along with the time lost to testing) literally steal instructional time, it becomes all the more important for us to stop and examine if what has been sacrificed is worth what’s been gained.

Apparently, what has been gained is very little (for the kids, anyway– if you make tests or data tracking systems, you’ve gained quite a bit!). All of these attempts to track and verify what is going on in classrooms have not delivered meaningful improvements in learning. The first 30+ years of this experiment with increasingly centralized control and oversight has been a period of increased dropout rates and high remediation rates for new college students. Twelfth-grade scores on our most well-reputed test (the NAEP) have moved just one point in reading and two points in math. As someone who was personally told to spend time on worthless assessments that generate graphs at the expense of meaningful ones that diagnose reading difficulties, I’m not surprised.

This is counterproductive. How can we hope to improve schools if teachers and principals are forced divert serious attention away from their mission (educating students) and toward satisfying the demands of powerful adults? (And am I the only one pained by the irony of sucking up instructional time in an attempt to make teachers prove they’ve improved instruction?)

Instead of devoting ever more resources to propping up these false accountability systems, why not invest in people? Start with building up schools of education and raising professional standards for teachers (rather than trying to skimp at the front end and then compensate for it with external rewards and punishments later)**. The best school systems have highly trained, highly respected educators who are then given the freedom to use their expertise to create powerful learning experiences (aligned to a set of lean but important standards). The leaders of those school systems are themselves career educators*, who understand the nature of teachers’ work and can offer meaningful support  and guidance. There is absolutely no reason why we couldn’t build that here, but it would require us to stop looking for shortcuts (replacing teachers with cheaper interns, scripting curriculum, etc.) and give educators the respect and trust we deserve.

*I also find it ironic that the “let’s make schools like business” crowd has ignored the work of Jim Collins. His book, Good to Great is especially instructive in this area. He finds that companies that are able to make the transition from goodness to sustained greatness almost always (90% of the time) grow their leadership from within, and they give employees the flexibility to be creative as long as they adhere to the company’s mission. Micromanagers are bad managers.

**ETA: Most who know me have already inferred as much, but I’m not at all suggesting that there are serious deficiencies in teacher training programs to begin with. One huge trend many teachers will note is the extent to which they’re prevented from doing the great things they learned in ed school because of the nonsense they have to do for their school and district leaders. However, there are certainly some programs which are better than others. I feel we need to make sure all programs offer comprehensive training (balancing content and pedagogy, for example) and are thoughtfully planned, rather than trying to marginalize the entire group of them and promoting “shortcut” programs at their expense.

Popularity: 6% [?]

Reinventing the wheel (at a Goodyear plant)

Thursday, October 7th, 2010

Cross-posted from the Failing Schools blog

Yesterday, Amy Slowthower shared her well-earned frustrations about the expensive, tiresome process of developing a new teacher evaluation system for DPS. I feel her pain; there’s nary an aspect of school reform where there aren’t people taking forever and a day to come up with some new plan, and squandering millions of dollars as they dither.

What I don’t understand is why we feel it’s necessary for DPS to come up with a new teacher evaluation system in the first place.

When I first learned about Denver’s teacher evaluation system, I was actually very impressed. The current system identifies five performance standards on which teachers are assessed (instruction, assessment, curriculum & planning, learning environment, and professional responsibilities). Each standard has between three and five expectations to be met, suggested indicators for each expectation, and a rubric to gauge whether teachers are not meeting, developing, meeting, or exceeding expectations for each standard. There is a space for teachers to enter self-comments, and their reflections on how they address each professional standard.

There is also a summary of evidence journal administrators are supposed to gather and complete to justify the ratings they give in each area. Before the final evaluation is submitted, teachers and administrators are expected to meet to discuss any discrepancies in their respective perceptions of the teacher’s performance. The meeting also provides teachers an opportunity to offer more evidence (artifacts, student work, input from peers or parents) of what’s going on in their classroom, and receive feedback they can use to immediately improve their practice.

The system isn’t perfect, of course, though as I look over the forms and standards themselves, the only improvement that immediately comes to mind is to differentiate the Comprehensive Performance Rating at the end. Currently, the only options are “satisfactory” and ‘unsatisfactory,” though the information culled from the rest of the evaluation could easily support an overall rating of “not meeting,” “developing,” “meeting,” or “exceeding”, or whatever terms one likes.

The problem isn’t with the system itself, but the people using it.

For instance, on my most recent evaluation, I was meeting or exceeding expectations in all but one indicator under one standard. Yet the evaluator comments are overwhelmingly negative and demonstrably false. In one area where my performance exceeded expectations (assessment), the evaluator comments are similarly inaccurate, and easily disproven with even the quickest glance at my students’ data (yes, that data, that I try not to focus on, and everyone else claims to value so highly!).

Several friends of mine have described similar situations at that and other DPS schools. One DPS teacher even told me he was never observed, but the principal just wrote that he “deemed him to be a competent teacher” and didn’t bother to fill out the rest of the document. That evaluation was enough to grant this third-year teacher non-probationary (“tenured”) status. Some principals don’t bother to have the final meeting, others don’t give teachers their documents in enough time to respond…it’s a mess.

Why does this happen? Because overworked (and/or underhanded) principals know they can put just about anything on those forms and it won’t matter– no one is checking up on them. There is no meaningful oversight in this area– no close reading by the instructional superintendent to check for glaring omissions or inaccuracies, no timely investigation of teachers’ claims of misuse, no central office audits of the accuracy of what has been entered into the record, no nothing. Everything gets signed and kicked to the next location until it eventually lands in a file that’s rarely–if ever– opened. Whatever new system comes out of this current work won’t be any more effective if it suffers the same fate.

The higher-ups at DPS are probably as overwhelmed as the rank-and-file educators they’re supposed to support. But the path to advancement in such a place requires you to be more concerned about keeping up with the latest trendy school reform than stopping to seriously examine and address what’s going on out in the schools. (And why bother with that, anyway? There’s more money to be won from reinventing the wheel than fixing and using the tires you’ve got.)

So they’ve spent ten months, and a few million dollars, working on this. Spend ten years, and a billion dollars if you want. Or don’t. Who cares? Until the “look-busy-and-talk-smooth” culture at 900 Grant changes, it won’t make a whit of difference.

Popularity: 6% [?]

What you didn’t hear on Oprah yesterday (Part I)

Tuesday, September 21st, 2010

I am sincerely disappointed in the one-sided coverage presented on the Oprah show yesterday. It’s really sad when trusted media personalities like her advance a one-sided narrative on an issue as complex (and important to her core audience) as education. It appears she’s doing a follow-up show on the issue in which people can participate. Though framed in a really problematic way, perhaps the focus will shift if enough people send in better ideas, or point out why the logic is flawed.

Anyway, in the interest of offering some important information that went unmentioned yesterday…

California teacher leader Anthony Cody takes issue with some of the big arguments that went unchallenged on yesterday’s show (emphasis added):

And why are these schools so hopeless? Because they have bad teachers that are impossible to fire, that’s why. Michele Rhee describes teacher tenure as “a job for life.” Oprah says “After two years you have a job for life and you can’t be fired! Who does that?”

Davis Guggenheim, the movie’s producer, intones “Everybody gets it. It’s automatic. You show up for two years, you got tenure.”

That is a flat-out lie. In my district, which is known for a strong union, teachers do not get tenure unless their principal wants them to. Many teachers are released at the end of their first or second year. Tenure is by no means automatic. And there are indeed ways to get rid of tenured teachers, who do not have “jobs for life,” but rather have rights to due process. In fact, a few moments earlier, we were told “Michelle Rhee has fired a thousand teachers and principals,” many of whom had tenure. We do need to improve our evaluation systems, and I have written some suggestions here. But this is a lie, and it should not have been presented without a challenge.

Oprah tries to reassure those of us who might be having a reaction to this.

Everybody knows I love good teachers, and there are so many thousands of you great ones in this country, so we’re not talking about you, if you are a good teacher. Okay? So save your time gettin’ upset. And what I know is that you who are the good and great teachers out there, you also want good and great teachers, because you really care about the kids.

Here is the problem, Oprah. We do not trust the ways that are being cooked up to sort the good teachers from the bad. Especially the methods that rely primarily on test scores, which is what Ms. Rhee relied on to make her determination. As Linda Darling Hammond pointed out this week,

Unfortunately, as useful as new value-added assessments are for large-scale research, studies repeatedly show that these measures are highly unstable for individual teachers. Among teachers who rank lowest in one year, fewer than a third remain at the bottom the next year, while just as many move to the top half.

It is not that we “good teachers” want to protect supposedly “bad teachers.” It is that we fear a witchhunt based on test scores will have disastrous consequences for ourselves, our peers, and the students we care about.

Teacher Stephanie Sandifer’s open letter, “Dear Ms. Winfrey” offers a wonderfully balanced response to the one-sided nature of the discussion surrounding Waiting for Superman and Michelle Rhee’s brand of school reform.

The problem is much bigger than it was presented on your show or in the film Waiting for Superman.  The problem does not lend itself to easy solutions like just firing ineffective teachers or opening more charter schools.  In fact, many of the current solutions being put forth by our policy makers (more high-stakes testing, teacher accountability tied to single test scores, etc.) will not solve the problems.  The problem is much more systemic and involves the broader community – it is not confined only to the four walls of the classroom.

Teacher Magazine blogger Susan Graham’s post “A Star is Born – But Who Gets Burned?” points out the hypocrisy in the attempts to paint Rhee as a savior of children or public education, and highlights some particularly disturbing stories from Rhee’s short stint as a teacher. (You can listen to Rhee telling this story herself here. She actually laughs as she describes children bleeding and crying as they peel off the tape she put over their mouths to stop them from talking in the hallway.)

…someone has to protect children. Michelle told Oprah

The reality is that we have some ineffective teachers, some bad teachers, who are in classrooms every day who are doing a disservice to our children. The data shows if [children] have three highly effective teachers in a row versus three ineffective teachers in a row, it can literally change their life trajectory.

In a recent address to new DC teachers, Rhee related some horrific examples of the kind of criminal ineptitude that cannot be tolerated. She told of a teacher who put masking tape on the mouths of 35 children to keep them quiet on the way to the lunchroom – and how their lips bled when the tape was ripped off. This same teacher took children on a field trip without collecting parent contact information. When one of them didn’t know her address at the end of the day, this teacher eventually dropped the little girl off with someone in the neighborhood who recognized her.

It is outrageous that this teacher, who had spent only a few weeks in training to develop instructional skills, was not fired on the spot. Yet she continued to teach in a Baltimore school for three years. What is worse, the DC Public Schools hired her for an administrative position.

That incompetent teacher is Michelle Rhee. She shared these personal first-year “war stories” with her new teachers a few days before they went into the classroom for the very first time.

And do you know what they did?
They laughed.

A D.C. teacher wrote to Oprah prior to the show, also expressing his concern about the stark contrast between Rhee’s public persona and the reality in D.C.’s schools:

All this [is] a platform for educational reform – or at least the kind of reform that Rhee claims to make.  I hope you will ask Ms. Rhee a few harder questions about her “accomplishments” before you give her such a huge stage on which to tout herself.

Even better, you might come down to the district and record some observations by the people most affected by her “miracles”.  You could start with the teachers.  How about asking us what it feels like in our buildings, the level of stress, the resentment that is growing in our buildings from IMPACT and the way it is used, the lack of real support that we are not getting, the false claims that Rhee makes about scores and what she has done while she fires too many of our worthy colleagues (meanwhile leaving the very type of teacher she claimed she wanted the system rid of still in place).

Talk to the students in our various schools.  Talk to the students at Eastern and Anacostia High Schools, talk to the students at Hardy, talk to students in many of the schools where Rhee has left anger and frustration because she ignored the community of that school and did what she wanted.  Ask her why she has put educators in prominent administrative positions at Hardy Middle School who lack the proper credentials to be in our schools.  Ask her why she focused on already successful schools, removing their principals on the shallowest of reasons and ensuring the failure of those schools by her actions.

When she talks about the “tremendous gains” we have made you need to ask her where exactly those gains are since over 34 of our schools did not make AYP on the last testing cycle and many of those schools had never failed to do so in the history of those schools. Ask her how that is progress.  You should also maybe talk to Chris Bergfalk.  He is a teacher here in DC who can show you the real statistics that Rhee does not want to admit to. Statistics that show that our gains were made merely by shedding our system (either by attrition or by keeping them off the test) of our lowest performing African American students.  This is like saying you lost weight when you took off your clothes.  Ask Chris, and then ask Ms. Rhee, about the fact that the gap between white students and students of color has WIDENED under Rhee.  The very students we should be helping the most are not being helped. Exactly how is this covered under “tremendous gains”?

Other important myth-busting posts include:

  • These dissections of key Rhee-era reforms, and other critiques of her leadership by retired D.C. teacher G.F. Brandenburg
  • Did Michelle Rhee lie about her record as a teacher?” a 2008 post at D2 route asks important questions about the lack of evidence for her story about turning around her students’ low test scores in Baltimore
  • A 2008 series in the Daily Howler dissects a number of issues related to the media coverage of school reform and the framing of certain issues related to then President-elect Obama’s choice of education secretaries. They also highlight the verbal sleight of hand associated with Rhee’s teaching record, noting instances where the story has changed in different media outlets.
  • Say what? As we have repeatedly noted, Rhee has always made a much more grandiose claim about her success in the classroom. Indeed, when Rhee was tapped to head DC’s schools, the Washington Post quoted the claim from her professional resume: “Over a two-year period, moved students scoring on average at the 13th percentile on national standardized tests to 90 percent of students scoring at the 90th percentile or higher” (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 7/2/07).

    That’s what Rhee had always claimed—and this highly implausible claim was ballyhooed by the hacks and the marks who love happy-talk about low-income schools. But in Time, Rhee’s claim has been ratcheted way, way down. As of June 2007, ninety percent of Rhee’s students had scored at the 90th percentile—or higher. Now, Ripley cites a vastly different claim. The majority of Rhee’s kids were at grade level, this new account modestly says. The down-sized claim is still taken as a sign of Rhee’s genius, of course.

More to come…

Popularity: 8% [?]

On branding, and failure

Monday, August 23rd, 2010

Cross-posted from the ‘Failing Schools’ blog

This statement probably won’t surprise anyone who knows me, but I think about words a lot. Given the kind of work I do, and the places where I do it, I think about the word “failure” all the time.

I hate it.

As a lifelong perfectionist and overachiever, I’ve spent more than my fair share of time trying to avoid it. But when I decided to become a teacher, and especially once I decided to work with kids in poor communities, that became impossible. There’s the constant discussion of failure by people outside of the community: “Oh, those schools are awful. They always fail the state tests.” “Someone should really do something about those failing schools.” There’s the labeling of teachers and students: “Oh, it’s no wonder those students are failing. Look at the teachers they have!” There’s the labeling of public schools in general: “There’s a crisis in America’s public schools! The schools are failing our children!”

And of course, there are the feelings of failure: “I’m never going to get [any of a laundry list of tasks] done.” “I hate the way I handled that. I need to apologize.” “I wish I could have…”

But the one place I never actually see any failure is in the children. Sure, I’ve met plenty of kids who don’t test well, or have any of a number of “issues” some adult or another would love to wring out of them. But of the 200+ students I’ve tutored, taught, or mentored, I’ve never met a single one I’d consider a failure. I’ve never met a child I thought was stupid or deficient in any way. When you see children every day, and get to know them as whole people, there is always evidence that they’re capable of more than we assume at first glance.

The child who flunks all of the math tests may be a phenomenal cashier during a fundraiser, easily making change, multiplying and dividing with decimals in his head. The child who can’t write might be able to express her ideas very clearly if she’s allowed to draw or speak out loud. The child who might not have the quickest oral reading fluency scores may be making rich and meaningful connections to written text, if I’m willing to respect his slightly slower pace. Seeing that, I started to question whether it’s really possible that students as young as mine could fail. At least, I wondered if it was possible that they could fail all on their own, given how many other people have an influence on what they do.

If I give a math test, and 70% of my students fail, did they fail, or did I? I’m thinking it’s the latter. I may not have modeled or explained the concepts well enough, or given enough independent practice time. Maybe the test I gave didn’t test what I thought it did. Maybe some students needed to show what they could do in a different format. Maybe others needed an extra day of review.

Then I started thinking, “Well, what about me? If I work for 12 hours, sometimes more, five or six days a week, and never actually get done, am I a failure? Or is something else going on here?” I started to question how I’d been thinking of myself, and some of my colleagues. Is that teacher bad or lazy because she leaves earlier than I do? Sure, she’s not doing all the glitzy things I am, but she’s got her own children and a husband to whom she’s responsible. Is there something wrong with us, lowly teachers in a failing school, because we struggle to keep up with everything that’s required of us?

Take last year as an example. On any given day, I could be called upon to attend a faculty meeting, and a grade level meeting, and a data team meeting, and a parent conference, as well as provide food for a hungry child, help resolve a conflict, provide a safe space for children who are frightened or angry, break up a fight, report suspicions of child abuse or neglect, investigate petty crimes (stealing is huge), avail my classroom to people investigating less-than-petty crimes (Drugs? Weapons? In 5th grade? Yup!), respond to–ahem– inappropriate behavior at recess, tend to injuries (a full-time school nurse is apparently a luxury these days), dry tears, boost sagging self-esteem, maintain bodies of evidence for myself and my students, prepare lessons, prepare materials for the lessons, buy materials for those lessons, grade assignments, administer assessments, attend professional development sessions, give a presentation for others’ professional development…and, you know, teach. Fully differentiated instruction, in several different subjects, for 32 students, whose Data tell me that their performance levels span from kindergarten to 8th grade.

And I’m happy to do it all (provided I don’t have to fight crummy leadership at the same time…). Like Maria, I made a conscious choice to align my work with my values, which means serving these children. I don’t do this because there’s nothing else I can do (not to brag, but I’m a talented lady!), but because I feel it’s one of the best things I can do.

But it takes a village to raise a child. If I’m simultaneously doing my own job, and picking up the slack of five or six other villagers (nurse, social worker, role model, valet, therapist, nanny…), is it really fair to label me a failure if I can’t do all of those jobs exceptionally well?

In light of that, I started to think about this “failing schools” jive differently. Failure is still an uncomfortable concept, but if we’re going to brandish the term so frequently, then I think we ought to really dig into it. Get up close, and examine it. Think about all of its implications, not just the convenient news-hour sound-bytes.

Thus, our clunky, branding-disaster of a title. Yeah, we know. But we take it on anyway, and hope you will too. “What is a ‘failing’ school?” “What does it mean to fail?” “Who’s failing?” “Are schools failing, or are we failing schools?” It’s uncomfortable at times (though there are so many things going right in our ‘failing schools’, and we will share those, too!). But we want to provoke you to think, and question, and empathize, and get angry, and celebrate, and work for something better.

‘Cause that’s what good teachers do.

Popularity: 3% [?]

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