Just wanted to follow up on an earlier post in which I jabbed the United Federation of Teacher’s report, which claimed that:
"Staffing all schools with talented educators is best accomplished by helping those who are in classrooms now be the best they can be, supporting them as they master the craft and become lifelong professionals. While that is obvious to most educators it is not obvious to a management organization like The New Teacher Project, which focuses almost exclusively on getting rid of teachers they deem to be weak and trying to recruit new ones."
I’d like to hear UFT’s response to this Illinois Education Research Council report:
(Quoted from Education Week)
Teacher Quality Found Improving in Chicago Schools
Teacher quality in disadvantaged Chicago schools has improved over this decade, largely because the district has focused on hiring inexperienced teachers with stronger academic backgrounds, a new report finds. For example, the district is hiring inexperienced teachers with higher ACT scores and from somewhat more competitive teacher-preparation programs. This "academic capital" can make up for possible negative effects of inexperience, the authors contend…
Got to this NYT article on rubber roomers a little late this week. It’s just as well, because between China, Burma, Pakistan, and the end of cheap gas, I’ve internalized so many of everyone else’s problems that I’m about to turn into my 8th grade boyfriend Eric who ate Diazepam in the alley at lunch and drank Robittussin by the bottle during class. (He explained to me that he was depressed that Kurt Cobain was so depressed.)
The article said New York taxpayers paid $81 million over 2 years to employ 30 teachers to be teachers and the remaining 641 (or so) to be substitutes or to do nothing.
The reason for the injustice? No, it’s not that these teachers are in the wrong profession. It’s that the district hasn’t forced them on schools. Complains the head of the United Federation of Teachers (Randi Weingarten), “Basically what they [DOE] say is ‘Tough luck, it’s up to you to find a job.’”
Can you believe that? It is up to the teachers to find a job? Seriously, that’s ridiculous. Everyone who’s ever spent one day in public high school knows that every single teacher is a smart, motivated professional who wakes up every day with the skill and desire to fill young minds with knowledge.
Except maybe Mr. Allen, who told our 10th grade health class that you could get pregnant by swallowing semen. Oh, and my pre-calc teacher who said nothing that sounded remotely like he was speaking in English until I came in at lunch for help and he told me I had beautiful copper skin, could he touch it?! Give me a break Randi. You’d have a lot more credibility if you didn’t bury your head in the sand.
“Staffing all schools with talented educators is best accomplished by helping those who are in classrooms now be the best they can be, supporting them as they master the craft and become lifelong professionals. While that is obvious to most educators it is not obvious to a management organization like The New Teacher Project, which focuses almost exclusively on getting rid of teachers they deem to be weak and trying to recruit new ones.”
Really? Show me the evidence that getting rid of weak teachers and getting strong ones is a worse strategy than showering existing teachers with “professional development.”
I know these are fighting words, but I have news for you, UFT:
I can’t play the violin. I know this because I tried to play from the 4th grade until high school. It was an excruciating experience for anyone who had the misfortune of hearing me play. But that’s the way the cookie crumbles. No amount of lessons was going to turn me into Itzhak Perlman. I should have been focused on studying or ski racing.
So lay off with the “support them as they master the craft” nonsense and let weak teachers find jobs they are good at.
I headed to Beaver Creek last Thursday night for the “Teachers Union Reform Network” – formed to "restructure teachers unions to help promote the kinds of reforms that will eventually lead to better learning and higher achievement for all students" – conference. My mental preparation (toward becoming a tolerant human) consisted of me, alone in my hotel room, listening to Richard Gere reading the Dali Lama on karma. I stood at the end of the bed, contorted myself in tree poses, downward dogs, dolphins, windmilled my arms around and around, pretended I was a leaping butterfly and then dove into some sort of Grand Hyatt honey ginger bubble bath. When thoughts about the district negotiations entered my mind, I let Richard Gere drown them out.
I lasted exactly 4 minutes and 27 seconds into session one: NYC union honcho Randi Weingarten on “Re-Framing Accountability” before I wanted to kick Richard Gere in the stomach.
Just before the session, each attendee had been asked to introduce themselves with the “most exciting or noteworthy thing happening in your district.”
Slam. I was surrounded by bookies in cardigans. All but 3 people in the enormous conference room said something about their district negotiations. “7%.” “You got 7%? We got 3%.” “3%? That’s criminal.” “You think that’s criminal?” “We got .5% and were lucky for it.” “I hate to tell you but we got 11% this year.” Applause. “In San Bernadino we survived layoffs. We protected all our teachers!” Applause. There are tough wars in New York. They’ve assumed battle stations in Florida. In Rochester they are trying to “teach the superintendent how to be a good boy and play the game.”
To her great credit, Kim Ursetta, president of the Denver Classroom Teachers Association, was one of exactly three people who mentioned schools. (DCTA is applying to start a school). A woman from Boston said they were exploring discovery schools. Another mentioned alternative salaries and small learning communities.
But somewhere between cup 5 and 6 of coffee, I got it. Unions are at war with districts, and – I think – with those who would reform public education. I asked Randi about her reaction to being accused of protecting the status quo.
“It used to bother me when people said that,” she told me. “But so what if I’m an agent of the status quo?”
Reformers’ game is founded on the premise that public education, as we’ve known it for the past 100 years, is broken.
From the unions’ perspective, it is not broken. It is only the measurement tools that are broken.
“We [unions] must take the word accountability,” said Randi. “We must be part of the debate and must accept that we need some accountability.” But, she continued. “We must have accountability that doesn’t affix blame.”
And there you have it. Accountability without blame.
The union soldiers see the obstacles between the current world and a perfect world as being 1) an accountability system that affixes blame [primarily to schools] 2) a salary schedule that isn’t beefier across the board and 3) the resources to improve schools.
To be fair, I agree with much of what the union reps, including Randi, said about a variety of topics – including some of the things said about accountability.
But until there is some agreement that there is a problem with the status quo, and that the problem is not confined to money, teacher pay, a lack of collaboration, safety, etc., but rather is a systemic problem with the structure of our education system, I can imagine no cease fire. Districts that want to will be hamstrung if they try to reform themselves. Until then, the union soldiers will keep firing blindly at right wing (i.e. evil) conspirators who seek only to destroy children’s prospects of success in life through privatizing public education.
There always has to be someone who says it. I got to the bottom of the Rocky article on the Obama visit… Eureka!
While the speech – and the several questions afterward – generated applause, one area that Christina Eyre said Obama didn’t sufficiently address was vocational training.
The 39-year-old Denver resident and Obama supporter since the February caucus said it is a mistake to think every high school student is suited for college. She said more should be done to allow those teens to learn trades.
"We’re always going to need people that are auto mechanics or in other trades," she said. "When we think every kid should go and graduate from college, we set some of them up for failure."
Could we please get past this? Please? Please? There are somewhere around 800,000 auto mechanics in this country (.5% of the workforce) making about $16 an hour. That’s what? Maybe $30,000/year? To top it off, if that would-be mechanic doesn’t go to college, his or her kids are less likely to go, regardless of their intelligence. I’m not the first to regurgitate the research that parents’ education level has more effect on children’s achievement and attainment than almost anything else.
Last Thursday morning it was so nice to see so many teachers union folks in the same room as district people, sharing bagels with the foundation crew and drinking coffee next to the community organizers and so on.
At one point I was almost certain someone had laced the lox with acid and we were going in for a group hug.
Dan French, executive director of the Center for Collaborative Education in Boston had stopped by Piton to talk to 20 or so of us about Boston Pilot Schools. He walked through the what, the who, the why and the results so far. While a lot of the content wasn’t new for everyone, it was good to hear it.
“Being autonomous is like being pregnant,” he said. “You are or you aren’t.” He explained that schools jump out of the union and district nests at once, so neither feels unfairly deserted. Pilots get autonomy over staffing, budget, curriculum and assessment; governance and schedule from the District. Unions give up everything except seniority, salary and benefits.
It’s not just about autonomy, of course. For example, the schools share a common vision that is a lot more sturdy than preparing kids for the workforce or “life.” French says that “every kid gets curriculum that prepares them for college,” even if the curriculum looks different at nearly all the schools.
I’m stuck on the autonomy piece because schools seem to need it before they can get to the other pieces (curriculum, ongoing relevant assessments, faculty collaboration, etc.) French went into detail about the district role in relationship to the pilots.
And here’s the key, according to French: “The district is a service provider.”
Meaning…school leaders actually go to a website where the functions that districts usually perform are priced out. The school can opt to buy the service from the district or it can say no thanks and go get it elsewhere (or not at all). Say no thanks and you get the cash. The mechanism caught my imagination because it is so obvious and it reminded me of when airlines finally sat us down and said, look, these crappy meals we serve you cost us $50 each. Why don’t we charge you less for your ticket and you can go buy yourself a $13 tunafish sandwich?
The point about schools is that autonomy is only autonomy if you can unfix the fixed costs.
has released a "Dear Santa" wish list on behalf of his union. Among the more notable items, Duffy wants the district to cede control of the hiring and firing of school principals to teachers and parents (always a good idea to give employees the right to fire their employers) and eliminating the district’s minimal dress code for both students and teachers.
Duffys a strange guy. After supporting the Mayor initially (I trust Mayor Villaraigosa, and I trust that if he appointed someone, they would be good, solid people willing to help public education,) he has been battling the mayors and the superintendents reform plans from dawn till dusk. Central to his argument against the superintendents plan? School autonomy is key and the superintendent is taking it away. Duffy writes:
To the extent that schools are autonomous, to that extent they will likely succeed. Increasing centralized control, on the other hand, will likely not foster student improvement…
Strange, considering last year he told the USA Today that: "Decentralization is a terrible idea. that would be a disaster.
And whats his beef with the mayors plan? Among other things, he rallied his troops against the introduction of more charter schools the ultimate autonomous units — into LA.
Apparently, school autonomy is only a good thing if unionized teachers are the ones in control. In other words, autonomy is good if Duffy has it, a disaster if anyone else does.
As As Bruce Randolph School Principal Kristin Waters hurdles toward the edge of the nest, ready to make a leap for it, Im a little nervous for her. This is not a reflection on her, the staff, or the students, but the result of having just returned from visiting a charter school management organization (Envisions) in California that nails the balance between giving schools autonomy and support.
In order to create high performing schools, theyve figured out that the schools need a strong, agile support systema microcosm of a school district–that is able to respond to schools needs. The Support Teams are broken into an Operations side and an Academics side, led by a CEO and CAO. They are staffed by a cadre that might analyze test scores for each student, study teaching and learning data and pedagogy, recruit teachers and staff, fix buildings, etc. For me, this was the magic of the place.
The idea is that principals have enough on their plates just making sure students are learning. Envisions would probably say that their success (so far, so good) is due in large part to allowing principals to focus on finding ways to increase student achievement (so they dont have to spend the morning trying to fix a leaky roof).
Of course, this is traditionally the role of the school district, and its not as though Waters is leaving DPS. But, the district has 150 other schools to worry about. It might be able to fix the roof, but is it set up to remotely trouble-shoot an IT problem at a students computer in less than an hour? Set up and manage software on laptops for each student? Most principals in most districts would probably laugh. It isnt that some of the services arent part of DPS; its just that theyre clunky (and probably under-funded).
Envisions VP of Instruction explained that their operating model is dependent on not becoming large and bureaucratic. We need to keep the district small because we need a high level of personalization to make the schools work. For 12 schools, you might need two districts. No one (at least not me) is suggesting that DPS break up into 25 districts, but it is hard to ignore the attractiveness that a lean and well-equipped support team might have for principals like Waters.
Adam Honeysett over at the US Department of Education sends me an email now and then. I dont know who he is, but I like him. He always makes me feel that our country is making great strides in education. Which, of course, it probably isnt. The most recent newsletter cheered that,
the percentage of students achieving at or above the state’s proficient level rose for most student subgroups in a majority of states. Also, both National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) and state assessments results indicate that the achievement gaps between disadvantaged students and other students may be narrowing.
A couple of things:
Subgroups didnt really improve on those tests more than non-subgroups. (skip to page 33) Almost everyone is getting better at state tests. Spellings knows this well, and in fact questioned in the Washpost while test scores are up, has the academic bar been raised? A disappointing NY Times article comparing national scores to state scores did not exactly validate the state exam.
The achievement gap, (using state scores in 4th grade reading and math) went from, 12.5% to 11.7%. At that rate, the achievement gap will close in I dont know 2065?
Now if thats not cause for an e-newsletter, I dont know what is.
Gov. Bill Ritter just asked the Joint Budget Committee of the state legislature for an 8% increase for higher ed and 10% increase in financial aid. Seems reasonable.
I know I was pissed beyond belief when my in-state CU Boulder tuition went up 10.1% between 2005 and 2006. (That is equivalent to 400 chai lattes; 429 if you include the 7.2% interest on federal loans). Thats something no one should have to go through (I had the shakes for weeks).
But Sen. Johnson is concerned that given the boost, students will again not see the money. He points out that while the legislature had approved a 7% increase last year, CU and CSU ended up telling in-state students to take a hike.
The cash-strapped universities are only partially at fault for this. After all, finance experts will tell you that we dont spend squat on higher education in this state, either compared to total ed spending or to other states.
But in a Forbes article last week titled Colleges arent good at getting costs under control. Why bother, when Uncle Sams checkbook is always open, the author writes that since 1983 the cost of keeping colleges running has outpaced the CPI by 48% and the prices that colleges charge have climbed even faster. The article points out that universities costs (utilities, benefits) have risen much faster than those in the commercial sector; that colleges have failed to take advantage of efficiencies using technology; and that incentives are geared toward the revenue side and not at all the expense side.
Personally, Im a little hesitant to lambaste schools for cranking up the heaters given Colorados nasty and somewhat out-of-control prison spending. Colorado now boasts 29 prisons, and spends about $131,600 per inmate (compared to about $30,000 for four years of college). Prisons are big business and a boon to local economies.
I would never suggest that education ought to trump the important role our prisons play in rehabilitating dangerous criminals into productive members of society. However, consider this. In 1987, 5% of the prisoners in the state were there for non-violent drug offenses. The number now? 22.5%.
The solution? Send the drug offenders to college. Its a lot cheaper and they will fit right in
The stack of Economists I havent yet read is stacked neatly beside the stack that I have, and didnt understand (but still have the bad taste to reference at dinner parties). Because I wont get to this weeks issue until 2011, Im glad that Eduwonk picked up on an article on education policy recommendations recently made by McKinsey.
Its worth mentioning because there seems to be a general agreement in Colorado and the U.S. (with the exception of folks like Cato, Heritage, Independence Institute) that we dont spend enough money on education and that we must reduce class size. McKinsey seems to disagree.
American [education] spending has almost doubled since 1980 and class sizes are the lowest ever, but there has been no measurable improvement in the standards of literacy and numeracy in primary schools for 50 years. The article argues that AmericaCanada, Finland, Japan, Singapore, South Korea) spend neither more money nor more time than the rest of us. Instead, they do 3 things:
get the best teachers
get the best out of teachers
step in when students lag behind.
What does the article suggest were doing wrong?
Among other things, were recruiting teachers from the bottom third of college grads (with the exception of Teach for America). And, were reducing class sizes, increasing the number of teachers paid from the same pot of money, producing lower salaries and lower professional status.
Are districts right to gripe that they cant get the best teachers because they cant pay them enough? Personally, I do think teachers are underpaid and that there is validity to districts claims, regionally.
But, McKinsey says that from a global perspective, this is not true. Germany, SpainSwitzerland pay their teachers the most, but dont get the best teachers. and In practice, the top performers pay no more than average salaries. Instead, top performers have made teacher training programs very competitive to enter and then continue to train them extensively throughout their careers. Read more.
