VASS offers a Double Standard?

A buddy sent me a link to the reaction of the Virginia Association of School Superintendents(VASS)

to the State of Virginia's plan to move to an A-F grading scale for school divisions.  It was noteworthy for many reasons not the least of which being it is far more complicated than it seems.  Like many recent reforms it is hard to argue against such logic until you stop and think about what it means.  It is trickier than a room full of ninjas.   Everyone gets on board and until it is in place it is hard to anticipate the unexpected consequences.  VASS Executive Director Steven Staples commented “We know that the achievement gap walks in the door the first day of kindergarten...Some districts have to work harder to make up for experiences outside of school."   So the VASS opposes at least some parts of the plan claiming it unfairly holds districts accountable.  Districts?   I don't remember districts facing and interacting with students each day.   But someone does and they are now measured on a similar metric in Virginia.
 
There are all kinds of flaws with this system the VASS opposes but the public tends to support such efforts a transparency.  The formula for the grades originated with the reforms of Jeb Bush and the state of Florida.  Sound like trouble(maybe we can reform our election system to follow Florida's example too)?  It is.   Unfortunately he is a far batter lobbyist and salesman of reform than he is positive reformer and we can thank the sunshine's test heavy approach for frenzied change that no sane or rational or person can actually explain.  This gift and model planted in Florida has sprouted across much of the nation including Virgina.  These questionable measures put in place for political at best flimsy educational reasons have spilled out and infected states at an alarming rate despite a constant chorus of objections from educators.

"Must Teach Better!"

But the article is notable for what it does not mention.  As of July 1st 2012 Virginia teacher's are evaluated according to the seven criteria of the the Guidelines for Uniform Performance Standards and Evaluation Criteria.  Teachers(as well as principals and superintendents) were placed on common statewide evaluation system and given a rating of 1-4.  That didn't make the front page in most papers.  Six measures count 10% each for a total of 60% and the remaining 40% is derived from "Student Academic Progress" which is fortunately determined by multiple measures not just tests.  This system was developed with a great deal of input but time will tell whether it is an effective and a positive step.  I can say that my end of the year review this year consumes what I felt was far too much of my time and energy at the end of the school year.   Other than the self reflection it didn't really provide a mechanism for making me a better teacher.   More concerning to me is the state model Performance-Pay Incentives Initiative.  Which some might call merit pay.   Sound familiar?

Yet I was given a rating.  Not a grade per se but a number to rate my effectiveness. I along with all other teachers in the state working in divisions on board have been given this number.  Where was the VASS to cry foul on my behalf?  Seems a bit of a double standard to me.  Here is what their policy agenda had to say as the new state law for rating teachers was being developed.   On Page 14 of their Blueprint for Education Reform in Virgina it reads:

Objective 2: Improve teacher, administrator, and classified staff performance.
Strategy 2A: Recommend that Board of Education/Department of Education provide assistance during implementation of a fair and uniform evaluation system that provides for timely reporting of student achievement data and other performance indicators to be used as the basis for teacher and administrator evaluation.

The Virginia Teacher Evaluation Work Group which was loaded up with Division Superintendents provided the State Board of Education guidance as the state attempted to encapsulate what it means to be an effective or good teacher.  This statewide uniformity might be a good thing to some but it also might have produced a subjective and potentially inaccurate system.  Reformers can't or won't acknowledge that there really is no way to easily assess what constitutes good teaching.  Further they seem oblivious to the fact that good teaching does not automatically solve everything in education.  My evaluation didn't mention student motivation, parental support, poverty, absenteeism, snow days, discipline issues or other factors representing any of the things that might impact Student Academic Progress.  But the VASS is "concerned" about measuring divisions in ways that might not be fair. 

So the VASS opposes measuring districts on an A-F rating claiming that it is unfair it also  supports rating teachers(and administrators) by a 1-4 scale using somewhat similar measures?   There is no mention or accommodations for these other factors in our division's Performance Appraisal.   Some of this change will no doubt be good but when push comes to shove I am given a number on on  my ability to teach.   That to me takes the complexity and nuances of our incredibly complex profession and reduces them to a number to satisfy the thirst for reform.  I'll say it again.  Teaching is an art not a science.  Giving it a grade is an injustice.  Maybe the same could be said for doing the same to divisions?  But it appears in our state that no longer matters.

What Does it Mean to Put Students First?

Last night, a student communicated with me her dilemma over taking the AP Psychology exam in May. This student is one of my best students and would more than likely score a five on the exam.

The college she will attend next year does not accept a score lower than a five, and she has a second AP exam scheduled the same day as the AP Psychology exam. She doesn’t want to risk taking two exams on the same day and not doing her best on both, and the other exam is more relevant to her future plans.

What I’m really thinking: Please, take my exam. Even if you don’t prepare for it I’m sure you’ll get at least a four. When students like you choose to not take the exam it makes me look worse.

What I know is right: The AP program and exams should provide a benefit to students. (actually, maybe all aspects of education should). Students and parents, with the informed advice of teachers and school support can make appropriate educational decisions.

What I could do: I could insist that every student take the AP exam for my class. If I want a true measure of how well this class prepares students then it would make sense that all students take the test—high achievers, low achievers, and everyone in between.

What I’m happy about: My end-of-course test isn’t as high stakes as many “core” classes. I can look at my students test scores to inform instruction without having to worry so much about how the numbers look.

So what do I say: As I suggest to all of my students, if you were successful in this course you should expect success on the test. If you haven’t earned at least a C, your chances aren’t so good. If you haven’t earned at least a B and don’t plan to make time to prepare for the exam, your chances aren’t so good. Check the colleges you plan to attend and determine their policy on AP exams, compare it with your expectations, and if needed, talk to me and make an informed decision.

In the end, I’m driven by the value that responsibility for educational outcomes are shared by myself, the instructor, and the students taking my course. The test provides a significant tool to evaluate the extent to which each of us live up to our part of the responsibility. I am able to compare class grades to test scores. When discrepancies arise between a student’s class performance and assessment score I can look at all of the variables that might have contributed.

From year-to-year, I am able to modify instruction in response to information gleaned from previous year’s data.

This test has become a tool to inform and improve instruction. Students are not forced to take it for the primary purpose of providing evaluation of their teacher. Students are given the choice of determining whether the test will ultimately be in their best interest. The teacher is freed from the burden of teaching to the test and able to cover the curriculum in a meaningful context.

Current education reform debate too often pits teacher vs. student and falls back to the argument of “students first.” Is the practice of forcing every student to test for hours every year for the primary purpose of creating a system to evaluate teachers and schools a system that is focused on the best interest of the child, or on the teachers and schools that teach them.

Moving Past Shallow Accountability

accountable  (əˈkaʊntəb ^ə l)

-adj.

1.	responsible to someone or for some action; answerable
2.	able to be explained

Since the early 1990's (perhaps before, but I wasn't particularly concerned before then) both state and federal politicians have been calling for measures to "hold teachers more accountable." Most of their ideas have lacked creativity and instead of searching for true measures of accountability, have searched for efficient and scaleable ways to sort the good from the bad. Instead of rich, multi-dimensional measures of accountability, we get mechanized testing.

Students corralled into auditoriums, gymnasiums, any available classroom in front of computer screens for several hours a day over a two to three week period taking mostly multiple choice tests. Schools and teachers are then judged on the results. Schools must go through great efforts to make sure that every child sits for a test. If they don't for any reason, it counts against the school. Testing coordinators must track down transfer students who've moved from out of state or who've failed tests in other Virginia districts to take the tests. If they do poorly, the school is accountable even if they haven't provided the instruction. Students only need to pass a set number of tests to graduate. If they've met this requirement, they still must take the additional tests. Their performance doesn't affect them, but again, it will count for the school.

Schools have had informal methods of accountability for decades. Whenever I give a grade to a student, or make a decision about their instruction I am accountable to a student, parents, and administrators at all levels. From A-F, my class policies are clearly defined and in print year after year. From time to time, a student or parent will ask for an explanation while a term is in progress or after a grade is received. I am answerable to them, and on more than one occasion in my career, that answer has not been acceptable. 

Then it moves up a level. Those conversations are difficult and uncomfortable, but usually lead to growth. Sometimes a parent is left dissatisfied and angry.  Sometimes the teacher is left unsupported and frustrated at having to make a change. Usually a compromise is reached, both sides having a chance to dialogue with each other, and future actions informed by the outcome.

Teachers live with accountability.

I can understand that what I described above doesn't always work so well. Some parents are not empowered to advocate so well for their child and some schools are not so inclined to responsiveness. But accountability should belong to the very individuals most influenced and invested in a given action. We're moving in the direction of making teachers accountable to the influence of corporate standard setters, test makers, and data gatherers.

We can create a better system of accountability. It's not as easy as giving a test and applying a score, but the informal systems of accountability like what is outlined above could become more formal through policy. It would also place accountability into the hands of the ones who deserve it the most.

Accountability for Some

accountable  (əˈkaʊntəb ^ə l)

-adj.

1.	responsible to someone or for some action; answerable
2.	able to be explained

 
"We must embrace a culture of innovation and accountability by adopting proven reforms"

 -Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell, January 3, 2013

The last two years in Virginia have seen calls for limiting continuing contract status for teachers (similar to tenure), changing dismissal policies to make it easier to fire teachers, and increases in accountability measures to make sure that schools and teachers are doing a good job.

Governor Bob McDonnell is a strong supporter of teacher and school accountability. Apparently not so much for leadership accountability.

The Southern Association of Colleges and Schools is one of six regional accrediting organizations recognized by the U.S. Department of Education. K-12 public schools and colleges in eleven states receive accreditation from SACS. They are a recognized and legitimate source of accountability for institutions.

This organization issued an official Warning to the University of Virginia for non-compliance with it's standards. A warning that if not addressed could lead to loss of accreditation. This warning had nothing to do with academic quality at the University. The warning applies solely with leadership of the institution, specifically, minority control of the board and decision-making. This warning is a direct result of the Board of Visitors actions last summer in dismissing President Teresa Sullivan.

How did the Governor hold the Rector of the UVA Board of Visitors accountable for leading the board down this improper path?

He reappointed her to the position.

How is the Virginia Legislature holding her accountable for her actions?

They're moving forward with approving her nomination to the Board.

Don't pretend to care about accountability if you're only interested in accountability for some.

Maybe if teachers contributed more to political campaigns we'd get better treatment?



From the University of Virginia Website:

In response to the resignation and subsequent reinstatement of President Teresa A. Sullivan, SACSCOC required that the University document compliance with three principles – Principle 1.1 (Integrity), Core Requirement 2.2 (Governing Board), and Comprehensive Standard 3.7.5 (Faculty Role in Governance). After reviewing the response from the University’s Board of Visitors, the Board of Trustees of SACSCOC found the University non-compliant with Core Requirement 2.2 and Comprehensive Standard 3.7.5. In a recent press conference after the announcement, the president of SACSCOC cited concerns related to minority control of the board (Core Requirement 2.2) and policies surrounding faculty role in governance (Comprehensive Standard 3.7.5).

Joel Klein Wants a "Bar Exam" for Teachers

Yesterday, The Atlantic posted an article by Joel Klein titled "The Case for a Teacher Bar Exam."

On one hand he argues that American teachers are not valued as professionals and we need to make greater efforts at doing so. But, he seems to imply that teachers are not treated as professionals because they aren't. One solution- give them a test to enter the profession. That seems to be the answer to everything in education today.

Personally, I'd say if taking a test will lead to higher pay, better benefits and more respect, bring it on. Tests don't bother me in the least. I made it through elementary school in the highest leveled classes because even though I didn't like to do work, every year I finished above the 90th percentile on those old "SRA" tests that we used to take. In middle school and high school, I didn't have to spend much time on homework and still stayed in honor's level classes because as long as I paid a little attention in class the tests were never that difficult. I only took the SATs once because I got a high enough score to get into the college of my choice.

At college, things were a little harder. Some classes were graded on multiple choice and short answer type tests. But others actually expected me to engage in discussion, right papers, and participate in activities. That nearly killed me academically. I actually had to work, learn, and apply knowledge instead of just convincing someone through a test that I was competent.

I took the National Teacher Exam early, before even enrolling in education school just to get it out of the way. I found a review book and studied for a few days and earned the passing score on my first try. GREs weren't much harder.

If you create a test for teachers I promise I'll finish in the top ten percent. But it won't have much to do with how well I teach my students.

Klein's error is the classic field of dreams. If you build it they will come. He looks to teachers of Finland who come from the top of their university classes, who enter a competitive profession. From my point of view I would argue that treating teachers more professionally- raising salary, providing autonomy, etc.,- would lead to greater professionalism. Klein believes that increasing professionalism- testing teachers, increasing accountability, etc.,- will make the teaching profession more respectable.

Both views are one dimensional and flawed. There must be a middle ground. There are areas in which teacher preparation and accountability must be raised, but adding requirements and restrictions is not the way to either encourage the "best and brightest" to join our ranks nor to encourage the competent teachers already in the classroom to stay.

Part of the Problem or Solution

Last week we reported on the new Virginia plan for meeting federal waiver requirements from No Child Left Behind. Pass rates were set at 82, 68, 52, and 45 percent for Asians, whites, latinos, and blacks respectively. After talking to several other educators, the state's explanation-- "if we look at where these children are starting from, we're making efforts to move them forward"-- sounds somewhat reasonable.  Maybe you remember a little of your "forms of reasoning" from philosophy. If the premise is true and the logic is sound then the conclusion is true.  For example-- all birds fly, penguins are birds, therefore penguins must fly.  We could argue all we want about how sound the reasoning is, but anyone can see that penguins don't fly.  We got something wrong.

To all of my educator friends-- if you think the logic behind this plan is sound, just look at the conclusion, something is wrong.  If not the logic, then our premise. It would do our system well if instead of defending such an egregious plan we would step back and figure out how we got here because somehow good intentioned efforts at progress just resulted in some pretty serious regress.

First, the ever present statement that "teachers are the most important factors in student achievement." Most everyone who uses this line fails to add the caveat of the most important in school factor. Many out of school factors impact student achievement. Remind policy-makers and other high-ranking ed officials of this and the reply goes something like this-- "we only have the ability to control what is in our power to control"-- leading us to complacently accept the reality that no one is addressing the issues outside of school that impact our students. So yes, students are coming into our classrooms with different abilities, many times as a result of their environment.

Second, if students are coming into our schools (their starting point according to the Virginia Superintendent of Education) at such various levels of performance, why don't we try to find the reason. When colleges find that too many incoming freshmen are in need of remedial classes, don't we first look to the high schools from which they graduated as the reason. Why satisfy ourselves with the excuse of lower starting points instead of asking why these children are already underperforming by the time we get them.

I have a feeling that race may not be the answer. If it is, what does that mean? It means that there is some inherent difference in ability based on race. We know this isn't true, so what else could be the cause? George Bush is famous for saying that we need to fight the "soft bigotry of low expectations", but I don't know who added "instead of addressing the hard bigotry of  poverty." Why are we still separating these children into categories in 2012? Won't we find the greatest correlation between school performance and economics rather than race?

In the end, consider the national narrative regarding education for the last ten years. We've increasingly focused on racial differences in performance and ignored the harsh reality that economic differences have the greatest impact. Last year, when the Teaching Underground attended the NCSS national convention, we listened to Geoffrey Canada's keynote address. He shared his heuristic on decision-making in his Harlem Kids Zone-- "when in doubt, do what the rich people do."

In this ongoing debate between so-called education reformers-- the people who want to measure everything, expand test-based accountability, evaluate teachers on growth models, get unions out of the way-- and people like us at the Teaching Underground, we're often cast as a voice for the status quo.

Come by my classroom one day and look out at the brilliant black students that are taking my AP Psychology course and explain to them why it's a good idea to have a lower pass-rate for "their people." When you put it like that, status quo doesn't sound too bad.  But then again, maybe the progress we're being sold isn't really progress at all.

When Numbers Betray Reality

Target pass rate of 82% for Asians. Target pass rate of 68% for whites.  52% for Latinos and 45% for blacks.  Those are the new performance goals for math in the state of Virginia and it's good enough for a waiver freeing us from the untenable mandates of No Child Left Behind.

No matter how reasonable the explanation sounds, the result-- 82% pass rate target for Asians, 45% pass rate target for blacks-- is absolutely unreasonable.  My psychology class is in the middle of a unit on Testing and Intelligence and we looked at group differences in I.Q. scores last class.  We discussed the 1994 book The Bell Curve and how sometimes inferences about race and ability based on testing results are seriously flawed.  A diagram from the book shows overlapping normal curves of I.Q. scores between Asians, whites, hispanics, and blacks from right to left on the curve.

I was shocked to hear news of the new Virginia targets that evening after viewing this diagram in class.  NPR's All Things Considered ran the story titled "Firestorm Erupts Over Virginia's Education Goals." The story stood out to me after hearing the percentage target rates that matched the order of I.Q. scores presented in the diagram.

We listened to the audio in class. I didn't anticipate how awkward the transition would be. "We've just listened to people talking about Asians and whites and latinos and blacks, but when you look to your left and look to your right you see people with names, your friends. And I can't look at any of you and say that I expect any less of you because of who you are."

Is it reasonable for an entire state to articulate that our expectations of performance are different depending on your race?

For over a decade now, schools, divisions, and entire states have struggled to prove their merit based on the primary metric of the standardized test. Percentages, percentiles, and pass rates have surpassed the noble goals of civic responsibility, critical thinking, responsibility, and achievement.  Never mind that some schools don't even have high enough numbers of "sub-groups" to qualify in that reporting category, we've found a way to numerically rate and therefore compare quality from one location to the next.

When schools started meeting the required pass rates of state testing, No Child Left Behind came along and labelled them as failing because not every reporting category met the benchmark pass rate.  It essentially created an all-or-nothing system.  Success didn't matter unless it was complete success.  Any partial failure became the character of the entire school.

Expectations of perfection looming in the next few years prompted the offer of waivers for NCLB. The education world has always promoted an "every child can succeed" attitude. You can't  achieve excellence in this field without that attitude. But most teachers learn within the first year of teaching that just believing that every child can succeed doesn't make every child succeed.

We hear that new state pass rates are set with the understanding that these racial groups aren't starting at the same place.  So we want to look for growth.  We hear that what's important isn't where we finish, it's how much improvement we've accomplished.

Either way, we're left with numbers. 82, 68, 52, and 45, and they define success depending on your race.

If that doesn't wake you up to the damage that our reliance on test based accountability has done to education and American society I'm not sure what will.  Welcome back to 1954 Ms. Brown.

Doing Versus Thinking

Which is the more noble task? Generating the idea or carrying it out?  Action without thought is ineffective, but thought without action is useless.  The dichotomy reminds me of James' warning in the Christian Bible's New Testament.  He reminded early Christians that "faith without works is dead." For two millennia, Christians have debated the role of faith and works, but most would agree, they are not mutually exclusive expressions.

Likewise, ideas and execution-- thinking and doing-- cannot exist in isolation.  As teachers, we plan, we do, and after it's over, we think some more and evaluate so that next time we can do it better.  At least that's how it should work.

I'll admit, there are times when I don't see that I have time to think.  I simply "do."  I taught U.S. Government the first six years of my career.  It was my only consistent prep, so every year I had to prepare for a new class in addition to teaching Government.  I didn't have time to plan or think about what to teach so I relied on the previous year's material.  After six years, even I was tired of what I had to teach.  I started throwing away materials after I used them just to prevent myself from going back to them the next year.  But too often as a teacher we get so caught in the busyness of everything that needs to be done that thinking becomes a luxury that our time can't afford.

In regards to education, some people spend more time thinking than doing.  Educational structures facilitate this.  A recent article noted that with the exception of Administration, there is little room for vertical movement of teachers.  Making the choice to move upward in the world of education usually removes one from the classroom.  Many capable teachers do not seek higher level positions because of this, but do we really want to encourage good teachers out of the classroom anyway?

Administrators, guidance counselors, tech support, etc., all have their jobs to do; "Thinkers" don't include everyone that serves our schools outside of the classroom.  But from created positions in individual schools all the way up to our Secretary of Education, too many education professionals spend their day "thinking" without very much "doing."

How do we bridge this divide of "doers" who don't think enough and "thinkers" who don't do enough?

Thinking takes time.  We put quite a bit of thought and time into the Teaching Underground.  Still, we fail to match the depth of content or frequency of posting that so many others manage to handle.  The frequency and quality of the Underground is a product of how much "real" work we have to manage as teachers.  I'm sure most bloggers feel this stretch.  I've often thought "why do I do this, there is not enough time in the day and what do I really accomplish in the end? I'm simply thinking about my profession and sharing those ideas with others."

My answer: because thinking is just as important as doing and I refuse to give up the power of ideas to drive the efforts of my work toward meaningful ends.

To the doers:  Take a break.  Think about what you're doing, why you're doing it, and what you'd like to do next. Learn about what's happening around you and figure out your appropriate place within the context you live and work. If you have to leave somethings "undone" to protect your time and energy for thought, do it.  If you're too busy to stop and think, you're too busy.  You're going to harm someone if you keep going.

To the thinkers: Get your hands dirty. Not a casual drop in or guest appearance in the classroom.  Find a regular consistent way to directly impact a teacher, student or group of students.  Don't overburden the "doers" with good ideas that you can't test out yourself.  Remember that ideas don't have a life of their own, don't treasure them so much that when the doers tell you the ideas aren't working that you don't believe them.  If you don't remember what it's like to miss your lunch or postpone a much needed bathroom break because you're occupied with students, you're not connected with the place where your ideas are carried out. If that's the case, stop thinking so much and do something.  You're going to harm someone if you keep going.

To everyone who can make a difference: Give teachers the power to think and trust them to make good decisions. Provide the space and time for their experience and practice to gel into sound theory and plans for moving forward. Don't make decisions in isolation, but build systems that give teachers the ability to engage in deliberate thought about policy and practice.  Don't provide opportunities to attend after-school forums, complete surveys, or serve on another committee and consider it teacher leadership.  Consider placing certain decision-makers in the classroom more often, and give certain teachers a break from full teaching schedules in exchange for leadership roles.

Effective education requires a proper mix of thinking and doing from everyone, not a cadre of thinkers to direct the activity of the doers. This is education after all, not a beehive.

Numerically Speaking, Who is the Best?

It is actually a stupid question.  Most say it is Michael Jordan.  But there are a number of ways to determine the best basketball player of all time.  For some it depends on which number you look at.  Where a player ranks in terms of a particular statistical category is the usual measure.  Scoring, rebounding, assists, simple wins and losses, game winning shots or even number of championship rings.  Some move past this and direct focus on who could change a game or wanted the ball in their hands at the end of the game. 

Kobe, James, Jordan, Russell, Chamberlain and many others enter the conversation at various points.  Experts weigh whether it is even fair to judge players from different eras against each other.  The game changed.  For that matter whether it is even fair to compare players who play different positions as their roles are different.  Guards, centers all perform different jobs.  If a guard leads your team in rebounding, you've probably got issues.   

Student and even teacher excuses  can be more plentiful

Personally while I love college basketball, I've never really enjoyed the NBA and get a bit more into the NFL.  With the advent of Fantasy Football these conversations have taken on a new dimension.  Fantasy teams mean players are valued not for talent, heart or value to the team... but for how they stack up on the tally sheet.   Numbers can mislead you and as you stare at charts of player data.  Participants in fantasy leagues neglect the big picture and only look at stats.   Yards, points per game, supersede all else in a data driven world.  They can make you think a player is good when they are not and vice versa.  Like many the Underground has found enjoyment in this diversion.  We have become especially fond of pointing out the ineptitude of other basement member's fantasy squads.    This is a big week as we play each other.  No worries, I've got him covered. Not sure that's true but what is for certain is that fantasy sports have changed the way we watch the game and how we find enjoyment in sports.  The argument is less about who is the best and more about who had the best fantasy day.  Let's jump from athletics to education. 

As you are likely aware there are significant efforts to place a metric on the effectiveness of teachers.  The "game" has changed.   We worry less about who can teach and instead who has the best scores.  Politicians and reforms are using the obvious impact of teachers have on student performance as a reason to try and rate them using data.   Unable to affect change with what studies say is among the biggest factor, poverty ,they then go to teacher quality by default.   Out of their mouths flow phrases like "every child deserves to have great teachers" and that turns into some bastardized form of accountability.  The next step is to make some metric the measure of whether or not a teacher is effective.   Too often this is connected to some sort of test.   Having a score or number then somehow legitimizes your ability and skill as a teacher.  It quantifies your impact.  For me and the rest of Virginia's teachers, forty percent of my evaluation as a professional is taken from student growth.  I am fortunate it is not directly tied to a statewide test score as this approach seems to be incentivized by Race to the Top Funds,.... yet.  It is that way now.  But I foresee the day when that is not something I will be able to say.   While I've been wrong before concrete numbers matter.

To date, I have created my student goals and begun to plan on how to implement them but I am still not quite certain what or how I will use this to show growth without being too subjective.  I am choosing one measure of student growth related to our lifelong learner standards and their ability to write.  But because I grade this work it is invariably subjective.  Which leads us to the more objective method.  Standardized tests.  Sparing readers the indignity of why they are flawed as a true measure and far from ideal when it comes to telling whether or not someone can teach, I'll just say they are as misleading as fantasy points.   In fantasy football a player's team can build a big lead and that could actually hurt their point total.  Teachers are the most significant in-school piece to student learning and success but they are not the only piece and there is much out of and in school that plays a role. There's the motivational of students, desire to learn, attendance, class size, social incentives, socio-economic level, and school size all of which top a list that researchers constantly study and debate.  

These guys have taught me a lot

Teachers matter.  I know they matter a lot.  But other things matter too.  To attempt to objectively measure why one teacher might be better than another has the potential to prove as fruitful as an argument about who is the best NBA or NFL player.  And conceivably more pointless.  How much authentic learning goes unappreciated or is even replaced with narrow result oriented instruction?  The end result of this effort and energy does little to help me improve as a teacher and frankly I feel less supported.   Am I more inclined to narrow my approach to serve my goal(s)?  I hope not.   But the best way to measure me as a teacher is to be in the room with me while I teach.  Not once, but a lot. Still... improving teachers and learning by measures such as this is just that, a fantasy.  Thus it does little to improve the quality of education for students.  Maybe we should instead focus our attention on working to support all teachers and devote resources in their service, not to figuring out who is the "best".

The Wisdom of Patience

Summer.  A break from teaching.  Routines and schedules cast aside.  The greatest blessing and sometimes curse for families.

There is a reason that neither myself or my wife are stay at home parents.  We wouldn’t be very good at it.  But for six or seven weeks each summer we handle it pretty well.  Usually. 

During our week of vacation my patience was tested early.  Before we even left to give an exact time.  Details aside, I’d lost my patience with my wife and my children.  I wasn’t satisfied with our plans, and the uncertainty rattled me.  That’s anxiety.  Anxiety is rooted in the future.  It’s worry about how things will turn out.  A little anxiety is a good thing.  Otherwise we’d never be motivated to do anything.

Most anxiety is misplaced.  We look to the future with a dread.  Something bad is going to happen.  Usually it’s not as bad as we imagine.  But this persistent anxiety about future events can wreak some pretty serious havoc in the present.  We act out of fear and worry instead of reasoned judgment.

At least that’s how I’m justifying how much I’ve yelled at my children the last few days.  Anxiety erodes the sound practice of patience.  In raising children, patience allows us to properly guide them, and discipline them if necessary toward the behaviors and habits that benefit their growth.  Anxiety leads us to discourage and minimize the behaviors and actions that cause personal stress for the parent.

Even in dealing with our own children as parents, a posture of anxiety  is usually self-serving while the discipline of patience serves the best interest of all.

It makes sense that it would take summer break to teach a teacher the value of patience.

If there is a scarcity of any value in our society, patience is certainly one.  Our tight economy has generated a national anxiety over the future.  We need to stress over this situation if we ever want to get out of it, but we also need to keep a reasoned head and not allow anxiety to guide our decisions at the expense of reason.

Our leaders are anxious and exercise too much top-down control.  From division leaders to the secretary of Education, anxiety about funding, test scores, and the future of education in a digital age pushes the agenda for leading from the front, often at the expense of valuable input from teachers, students, and the general public.  They usually act in what they believe is the best interest of “the system” but often ignore the expressed needs of the very system they serve.

The recent dismissal of University of Virginia President Teresa Sullivan by the Board of Visitors fits this description well.  A Rector anxiety about funding and getting behind in the digital age executed a manipulative and dictatorial decision, made behind closed doors and in the presence of only a few.

Members of our business and commercial world are anxious.  They’ve managed to build successful ventures through the booms of the past two decades and economic growth has stalled.  They fear for the long-term future of their legacies, but also for the short term future of their own welfare in a stagnate economy.  Instead of focusing on the failures that lead us down this road, they look to education to solve their problems by pushing for implementation of the same business models that failed to save our economy already.

Parents and students are anxious.  They’re strapped for time more than any generation before.  They’re concerned about the rising cost of education and its comparative value in an increasingly dim job market. 

Teachers are anxious.  In unionized states, rights are being stripped away, and in states like Virginia, several years of diminishing salaries are now being hit with cuts to benefits.  They’re expected to do more with less.

Vain activity rarely calms anxiety.  It makes it worse.  Perhaps we could use a little patience.  Stop looking to an imagined future of despair and deal rationally with the current reality in which we live.  The opposite of the current wave of reactionary decision-making in education isn’t status quo, it’s reasoned and informed action. 

It is time we stop making decisions out of anxiety, with no other purpose than to alleviate our imagined fears and start patiently making reasonable decisions that will carry us successfully into the future.

"Always Learning"

The solution to America's education problem:
1) Fire all of the bad test makers
2) Give principals the authority to get rid of bad assessments or questions
3) Get rid of the self-interested corporate lobbyists

This shouldn't upset the good test companies. I'm sure all of the good test-makers out there want the bad one's out just as much as the rest of us. But until we stop yielding to the union of corporate test-makers and start making policy that benefits children first we are stuck in this status quo of subjecting children to sub-standard testing.

If anyone complains about this idea then it's probably because they're afraid of change. They've become complacent with the protection that lack of transparency has afforded. The quality test-makers will applaud this approach as healthy and necessary for the success of our children in the 21st century.

Some might argue that publishing the errors of these testers is unethical, but in a system of public education, parents have the right to know what kind of quality they're getting. We learn from mistakes, but when those mistakes interfere with the future of our children and the vitality of our economy nation, we must put the children first.

Click on the pictures below for a better look at one of the latest failures of this status-quo entrenched testing business.

Cracking the Code: How Testers Language Means Nothing

As a teacher of Ancient World History, one area I find interesting about the period of study is language.   Thousands of years separate civilizations and written language offers a window affording us a glimpse as to the way things were for people who have long since disappeared.  When a language is "lost" to time or cannot be translated, a great deal of misunderstanding exists.   Often some catastrophic event or mysterious demise brings on such a void.  Sometimes it is geographic distance which separates cultures and prevents mutual understanding.  Only about 60 miles separates my school from the decision makers in our state capital of Richmond but it might as well be a million.  The gap between us is wide indeed.  I think they might even be on another planet.

My students have taken this year's SOL test.  I tried to prepare them as best I could for this test that I have never seen.  I can''t prepare them for receiving their scores and not knowing what they missed.  Somewhere in the language of the test and the scoring there exists a disjoint which results in a process devoid of much value.   This test requires a Rosetta Stone in order to decipher what exactly is measured and how. Far worse, without having seen the test or any of the questions, it is impossible to judge its merits fairly, point out flaws, or seek clarification.  The secrets of the test are even more mysterious than the language of the ancients. 

Why do we place such a degree of legitimacy on the tests when it is clear they inherently lack legitimacy?  How can anyone be allowed to make a test like this and get away with not being more transparent to those that are judged by it?  Is the quagmire of documents, forms and numbers designed purposefully to deceive or misdirect?  One is left to speculate.

We have explored these issues in several previous posts on the TU. See Bottom, Truth, Fact, $#!%,  Flux among others.  There are so many things wrong with the tests themselves and the way they are used that for those not directly involved in today's schools it is difficult to comprehend.  Painfully evident is the reality that testing  is leading us to a place where a growing number of common sense people and countless educators know is bad. A representative in the state legislature of Indiana, Randy Truitt voiced some of this in a recent letter  to his colleagues.  

Imagine the opportunity to sit with a leader of the society like the Maya or Easter Island and simply ask..."What happened?"   If I had the same opportunity with the folks at Pearson and the state DOE I'd do my best to dig deep.  My conversation would ask among other things what exactly are you trying to accomplish? 

I'd begin with a printout of "raw" scores.  What makes it raw is how you feel when you try to figure out what these scores mean once they are scaled(I usually say chapped not raw).  This year is no exception. From VDOE website "the raw score adopted by the Board to represent pass/proficient on the standard setting form is assigned a scaled score of 400, while the raw score adopted for pass/advanced is assigned a scaled score of 500."  That makes perfect sense except when you look elsewhere on the site.

So never mind the 53/60 cut score above since my students who missed 7 questions (53/60) only received a 499.  I would bet that very few students and even fewer parents would have any idea where the 400 and 500 delineations come from.  Aliens perhaps?  Apparently that will remain a mystery.

The vagueness there is surpassed still by what the teacher responds when a kid asks, "what did I miss?"  All I can offer is the kind of imprecision usually reserved for an ancient text translation or interpretation.    "OK Johnny... it is obvious, you missed four in both Human Origins and Early Civilizations and Classical Civilizations.  The Classical Civs questions had something to do with achievements of a person, architecture, role of a key person in a religion, and a figure's accomplishments.  Not sure what ruler, where they were from or what you didn't know.  But what is important for you to remember is that although there were more questions in the HOEC category(thus in theory they each had less value), you again are mistaken because in fact, you only got a 31 scaled scores versus a 32.  You got a 394 so you failed.  Just do better.  Make sense?  No?  Good." 

After consultation with our legal department(each other) and careful inspection of the Test Security Agreement we all sign we elected not to include an actual copy or portion of the grade report.  The rationale being that we need paychecks and both have families to support.  How sad is it that teachers are scared to question the validity of a test by referencing the actual test or results from it?

If we had included a copy of this student's actual score report you would have seen:

(1)Reporting categories contain vague language like "idenitfy characteristics of civilizations" to describe question that the student answered incorrectly.
(2) category A had 11 questions of which the student missed 4.  Category B had 10 questions of which the student missed 4.  The student's scaled score for category A was 31, for B 32, with no explanation of why question in category A are are given greater weight.
(3) The scores, grade reports and feedback is clearly not useful to improve student or teacher performance with specifics as to where weaknesses exist.

Imagine that conversation with a student who fails and trying to help them.  We are asked to "re-mediate" which I would imagine means we target areas where the student has weaknesses.  That is a much tougher task without knowing where exactly they are weak.  I can understand not wanting us to teach to the test.  How about teach to the kid?  

I and my students are judged by a test which in no way serves as a tool to improve my teaching.  How on Earth are we to try to do better next year?   Those that devise such an approach remain as distant as any of the cultures my students are required to learn.  What's more is they manage to encrypt any relevant information in such a way to make it utterly meaningless. 

The numbers and stats derived from massive student testing across the state serve little more purpose than to send the message that policy-makers and testing Corporations like Pearson want to send.  When scores are too high, standards are raised.  When scores are too low, standards are lowered.  Neither the Department of Education nor Pearson are able to state in clear language an objective explanation of how scores are calculated and why certain cut score choices are anything less than arbitrary.

The twenty-first century process for holding American students, teachers, and schools accountable should not prove more difficult to translate than Ancient Hieroglyphics.

No Pearson..."Thank You"

How to Add Detail to Your Writing

The Virginia Department of Education has posted an excellent document of an easy and effective way to add detail to your writing.  We found this gem while searching for something to help us use results from state testing to improve our instruction in the classroom. According the the department of education website:

 "the performance level descriptors (PLD) for the Standards of Learning (SOL) tests...convey the knowledge and skills associated with each performance (achievement) level. The PLD indicates the content-area knowledge and skills that students achieving at a certain level are expected to demonstrate on the SOL...may guide educators and parents in understanding the type of student performance required for each achievement level... there is a detailed description, a brief description, or both.  The brief description is a summary of the content-area knowledge and skills that students are expected to demonstrate on the test and appears on the score reports for some courses. The detailed description provides additional explanation of the knowledge and skills that students are expected to demonstrate".

So, here's what you get.  This is what the brief description for the World History to 1500 test:

 But, suppose that's not enough and you would like a little detail.  Well the folks at the VaDOE aren't going to fail you.  They've created a "detailed" performance level descriptor for the course.  Here is the detailed descriptor:

I'll stop with the snark now.  This really isn't funny.  Someone at the DOE simply added bullets to a paragraph of text and called it "detailed" instead of "brief."  There is no difference in the text from one document to the other.  This is supposed to be information that informs parents, students, and teachers understand what a given test score means about a child's ability.  And to think the Governor of Virginia wanted to pass legislation making it easier for administrators to fire bad teachers, who is accountable for the creation of this document?

To most people this seems like over-reacting, but the people who work for the state and direct education policy for YOUR children either don't care enough to actually add detail, don't think you deserve the detail, or think this is good enough, and somehow nationally the narrative goes "if we could just get better teachers in the classroom."

In addition to the fact that the only differences in the "brief" descriptor and the "detailed" descriptor are bullets, the language itself is troubling.

1) We can actually describe a students level of performance if they fail?  They should be able to locate, identify, and match.  If they demonstrate a proficiency in these skills, congratulations they fail.  What is the label if they fail to locate, identify, and match?  "Fail Really Badly."

2) How about a little creativity?  I'm a fan of Bloom's and all, but this document just walks up the taxonomy without much thought to how it's getting there. Identify, Locate, Match/ Describe, Explain, Explain/ Compare, Organize, Interpret, Analyze.  Was there any thought about "the type of skills a student is expected to demonstrate", or does it just sound good to use the accepted language of the educational establishment to legitimize and strengthen a vague explanation?

3) Can a multiple choice test really measure whether a student is able to describe, explain, compare, interpret and/or analyze?  Try this: 
What is your interpretation of the charts above: 
a) they are an excellent attempt to inform the public of what SOL test results mean.
b) they are the product of overworked and underpaid public workers at the DOE trying to do their best.
c) they are a disingenuous attempt to mislead the public about the reality of testing.
d) they aren't perfect, but we're making progress toward a worthy goal.

Did I measure your ability to interpret?  You may never know because I'm not going to tell you whether you missed the question or not.  That's how SOL testing works silly.  If you don't agree with me you certainly won't meet the requirement of effectively interpreting.  If you do agree with me I'll give you the credit, but then it wasn't really your interpretation either, was it?  I gave it to you and all you had to do was recognize it.  I guess we just fell off of Bloom's ladder.

Look out for a more detailed post tomorrow, I didn't have time to add bullets to the text today.

The documents pictured above were taken from: http://www.doe.virginia.gov/testing/scoring/performance_level_descriptors/index.shtml on May 10, 2011.  Posted tables were found at the link for History and Social Science Performance Level Indicators, World History and Geography to 1500.

Where Are the Solutions?

I don’t believe the general public or the political systems that serve them truly understand the complex nature of school reform.  Consider the following:

For over a decade, teachers have been dissuaded from using lecture as an instructional method...

…BUT, within the last two years, a large amount of press time and funding has gone toward the Khan Academy, which essentially follows the principle of lecture and practice instruction.

For over a decade, graduation requirements have increased in quality and quantity…

…We also expect more students to meet these demands without giving them more time to do so.

For over a decade, teachers and school systems have struggled to make sure that students aren’t crushed under an overburden of homework…

…Yet the “flipped” classroom model is touted as a new form of teaching that will change education, never mind it absolutely requires significant homework or it won’t work.

For over a decade, standards and tests have grown to dominate the curriculum of many school subjects.  School, and increasingly teacher effectiveness is judged largely on the results of this testing…

…While creativity and not “teaching to the test” are celebrated in rhetoric, the ever present reality remains: a drop in pass rates on the tests will result in negative publicity and potentially punitive measures.

For over a decade, choice has been promoted as a solution to increase the effectiveness of education by adding competition...

…Still, no one has solved the problem of effectively educating an entire population, some of whom would choose “no education” over “any education” if given that freedom of choice.

For over a decade, vocational education has taken a back seat to the ideal of “college and workforce” readiness...

…And in our public education system we’ve moved so much toward “student achievement” as the sole measure of performance that creativity, interpersonal skills, work ethic, motivation, and even positive behavior (all critical for both college and workforce readiness) are no longer reinforced.

For over a decade, we have tried to move education out of the twentieth century factory model of production…

…Now incentive structures, strict hierarchies of authority, standardization of teaching and testing applied to schools and teachers directly contradict this attitude.

So the men and women who directly commit their lives to working with children daily are simply self-interested.  While the men and women who engage in conference hopping, ladder climbing, and political back-scratching are putting Students First.  And those who profit from speaking engagements, consulting gigs, and high profile media exposure are in it for the kids.

The Resolution

Imagine you're in the middle of a difficult task.  You've exhausted all of your options, finally found a course of action that moves you in the right direction, and someone comes into the picture with a fresh idea.  If you haven't thought of it before you might be grateful for their insight.  But too often they simply suggest something you've already tried or thought of.

It's no problem if they shrug their shoulders and move on, but, you know the type, some people will just stand over your shoulder and criticize your efforts and tell you how they would do it until you finally break and give in.  You try it their way (again, because you already did it once), they observe how difficult the task really is, and move on.  Still, sometimes they insist that you're missing something and perhaps try to get their hands in on the task in another effort.  Finally, they give up, and you start all over, unless you give up and leave them to figure out on their own what you've already figured out... before you had to start all over.

Do I need to make the connection to everyone pushing the test-based accountability movement?

So far, I see no significant mainstream political or media push-back against the building momentum of excessive testing in public education.  The push back exists, and in large numbers, but it hasn't gained enough traction to translate into policy.  Perhaps there is hope.  Texas has generated a great deal of publicity with the 300+ school districts that have passed a resolution opposing the prominent place that high-stakes testing have taken in public education.  Now, 'Time out for Testing' has created a national resolution modeled after the Texas resolution and so far over 3000 individuals have signed on and over 150 organizations.

Read the resolution and decide whether you agree with the ideas presented.  If so, add your name to the list of signatories and encourage others to join you in adding a voice to the movement to restore sanity to public education by placing standardized testing in its proper place. 

National Resolution on High Stakes Testing

What Me Worry?

Let's get rid of the bad teachers.  It can't hurt can it?  Honestly, who can argue with a plan to recognize excellence and eliminate roadblocks for getting rid of incompetence.  After all, if you're a good teacher, you've got nothing to worry about.  Right?

Current legislation in the Virginia General Assembly (HB 576 and SB 438) seeks to enact such a law.  Here is a summary of what it will do:

1- any teacher during their probationary period may be dismissed without notice or reason; this includes any teacher, regardless of experience, in their first year in a new district.

How it's different from today- currently, probationary teachers have the right to "notice" and "hearing" if dismissed during the current school year.  It is already possible to "non-renew" a probationary teacher.

2- all teachers will work on an "annual contract" and "continuing contracts" will be eliminated.

How it's different from today- essentially, new teachers have "annual contracts."  This means that dismissal during the year requires documentation and good reason for dismissal.  "Continuing contract" teachers may be dismissed, but even a non-renewal requires "notice" and "hearing" and cannot occur without a justified reason.  On the annual contract, as long as a teacher is notified by June 15, they can be refused a contract for the following year.

3- evaluations must follow the Guidelines for Uniform Performance Standards and Evaluation. These standards are new as of 2011 and call for teacher evaluations to be tied to student growth.  Measurements for student growth are not clearly defined and differences in testing, or lack of testing in some areas make this provision very different from teacher to teacher.  All teachers must be evaluated yearly, new teachers twice a year.

How it is different from today- local school boards must create a system to address student academic progress and the instructional skills and knowledge of teachers.  Furthermore, local boards decide the frequency and type of evaluation for experienced teachers.

This is just a brief summary.  I encourage you to read the entire bill, or at least a better summary found here.

I consider myself a pretty good teacher.  Not the best, probably in the top half.  Should I worry?  I remember my first year.  An administrator (not my direct supervisor) had heard from students that students were out of control in my class.  The administrator couldn't offer any specifics, but required me to complete a discipline plan and come back for follow up in three weeks.  I never heard another thing about it, and the follow up didn't happen.  I wonder if that happened after this law passed whether this nebulous assumption that my classroom lacked discipline could have led to dismissal.

In my fourth year, a new chair was appointed to our department.  In our initial meeting, he said, "I'm sure that you're aware of the concern about your teaching, so we'll continue to work on that."  He was shocked that I was shocked at this statement.  I hadn't heard a thing.  Luckily, he was willing to observe my class and try to discover the problem.  A former department chair really had it in for me.  Apparently the administration was aware of these supposed problems, but rather than investigate, they assumed it was true.  I was able to request several evaluations to show that I was doing my job, but if that happened today, perhaps it would be easier to wait until June 15 to let me know I don't have a job in September.

Most of this proposed legislation simply ups the stakes of the system without providing the additional training or input to make it work appropriately.  To borrow from the gun lobby, we don't need new laws, we need better enforcement of the laws we have.  Bad teachers can be dismissed under current law.  It is just a matter of providing the support to schools and administrators to effectively use current systems of evaluation and applying them appropriately. 

This proposed legislation will not result in removing bad teachers and recognizing good ones.  Even if it did, will better teachers magically appear to replace them.  I spoke directly with my principal and the division assistant Superintendent about this proposal.  Both of them said that as administrators, they wouldn't likely use the law so much to get rid of teachers as much as they would use it to encourage existing teachers to step up their performance.

In the end, as a teacher, it is a demoralizing message.  It says I don't have the motivation to do my job well, so with a little incentive and threat of punishment maybe things will get better.  In reality, with proper training and oversight, the current system would function better-- without proper training and oversight, the proposed system will be worse.  It just isn't good policy.  If you agree, let someone know.

HB 576 will be heard in the House Education Subcommittee on Teachers and Administrative Action on February 2 at 5 p.m. The committee members are as follows (all phone numbers are in 804):

LeMunyon (Chair) 698-1067, DelJLeMunyon@house.virgnia.gov
Cole 698-1088, DelMCole@house.virginia.gov
Robinson 698-1027, DelRRobinson@house.virginia.gov
Yost 698-1-12, DelJYost@house.virginia.gov
Yancey 698-1094, DelDYancey@house.virginia.gov
McClellan 698-1171, DelJMcClellan@house.virginia.gov
Morrissey 698-1074, DelJMorrissey@house.virginia.gov
Keam 698-1035, DelMKeam@house.virginia.gov


SB 438 will be heard by the Education Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Education and Health. The committee members are as follows:
Blevins (Chair) 698-7514, district14@senate.virginia.gov
Howell 698-7532, district32@senate.virginia.gov
Locke 698-7502, district02@senate.virginia.gov
Black 698-7513, district13@senate.viginia.gov
Carrico 698-7540, district40@senate.virginia.gov 

*this information was copied from the VEA Daily Reports 

"They" don't listen because they don't understand.

Do educational leaders know what's happening?
"Ground control to Major Education Leader"

In recent months many of "them" (influential figures affecting education) have become very vocal about the problems with NCLB as the looming 100% pass rate timeline approaches.  Compelled to do so out of fear that their school or division will be labeled as failing.  They've snapped up Race to the Top(RTTP) funds as an alternative but have honestly done little to affect the overall direction reform is headed.   Shame on them! Shame on them for not doing something sooner.

Shame on them for also being very vocal about bad teachers.  They seem either to not have a handle on what is occurring within schools or just don't care to listen.  Early on in my state there were countless warnings about NCLB  that went unheeded.  Many of those calls coming directly from the classroom.  Shame on them for not listening until "they" were affected.  Sure teachers are sometimes the reason a class or school is not as good as it should be.  Listening to many reformers out there it might seem bad teachers are the only reason.  RTTP funds are being used to sell out teachers and educators even more.  This "revision" might be less punitive than NCLB but it is no less harmful.

The call to strengthen and improve performance grows louder day after day.  The pressure to perform is crushing.  That is not a good thing for a learning environment.  Positive pressure is good.  An element of competition is good.  A benchmark for comparison is good.  What we are tolerating is bad.

A single indicator for success is not a sound approach.  How would parents and students respond if a teacher used the same approach to assign a grade?  Any criticism would be warranted.   It is worth remembering as leaders use accountability to justify action that schools and teachers are expected to educate every child regardless of achievement level, motivation, or behavior.   As we press for accountability the teacher and school are saddled increasingly with responsibility to make kids learn.    Lost in the shuffle of responsibility is the role students and parents must play in this partnership.  Sadly many students do not not get much if any support outside of school and do not appreciate the value of their education.  Some schools can't or don't do much to mitigate this reality.  The effects of such an environment are crippling.

Kids can grow into entirely dependent learners and too many lose desire or interest to advance themselves academically.  They just don't like school.    Gone is a love for learning that is present in young wide eyed children.  They'd rather be elsewhere.  But they may pass the test.  So tests don't help. In fact these tests likely do more harm than anyone admits.  To ignore this and place all that burden disproportionately on the education system will never remedy the issue.  Geoffrey Canada has it right in this sense and what I admire most is he actually did something about it rather than just blame people.  Blaming schools, kids, parents or anyone is akin to treating the symptoms and not the illness. 

"The Lottery" is not a great date movie.

I recently watched the film "The Lottery" which chronicles the plight of inner city kids in NYC as they seek to gain admission into one of the Harlem Success schools.  It was excruciating to watch.  Not because I dislike charters.  Because I felt for the kids.  I disliked though how charters were portrayed and how they affect those not in or working in them. Joel Klein, Michelle Rhee, Arne Duncan and other non teaching reformers portray charters, vouchers and school choice as THE answer.   Those in the know more accurately think of them as only one of many potential medicines.  They are just schools afterall.  Schools freed from some of the buckling rules regular schools are forced to weather.  Different in many ways but also treated differently.  Do they work?  Some yes, some no...and that is about as scientific a response as you can find when you Google effectiveness of charter schools.   

Until you sit, immersed in a crowded room of young people unable to get them where they need to be, you'll never really get it.  Teachers do not hold exclusive private membership to good ideas on education but most do have good common sense stemming from time in the trenches.  Lack of complete success is part of the job and forces constant professional improvement. Any given lesson on any given day can be frustrating, inspiring, frightening, demoralizing among other things.  We know this because we work with people.  What we don't need is a bunch of higher ups pounding on us and making things worse.  Their efforts to design systems that will attract and retain the best teachers most of the time make me want to pack my bags. 

The higher up you are the less you see people and the more you see data.  The more you see systems and not people.  The more you think in terms of numbers and not kids.  I'd like to believe educational leaders are well intentioned but the more I read and hear I arrive at the reality they just don't care what teachers think.  Such a frame of mind has led us to where we are.  We are led to believe schools are beyond repair and we should shudder them and start over.  The people most able to functionally affect positive change feel demoralized, ignored and are leaving the teaching profession at an alarming rate.  The time has come to guide reform from the bottom up and not top down.  Anything else will mean a continuation of policy bereft of what is most essential to success,  buy in from teachers. 

What other landscape would generate the following comment?
“I would, if I had the ability – which nobody does really – to just design a system and say, ‘ex cathedra, this is what we’re going to do,’ you would cut the number of teachers in half, but you would double the compensation of them and you would weed out all the bad ones and just have good teachers. And double the class size with a better teacher is a good deal for the students.” -Mayor Michael Bloomberg



Pistols at dawn Mr. Bloomberg?   (We haven't forgotten your Cathie Black appointment) Maybe if we both had figurative pistols(meaning teachers had any real power)  you and all the other "reformers" might listen.  I don't usually reference the UFT but when the Michael Mulgrew says "clearly the mayor has never taught," truer words were never spoken.  So I will count Bloomberg and many others among the "them" I referenced.  "They" are highly skilled at both patting us on the back with one hand and with the other saying and doing things that slap us in the face.  Until people at the top listen to educators opinions, insights and experience little will change for the better.


PS

If you know any of "them" recommend they read the TU.  Or any other frustrated educator's blog.   There are plenty out there.

Bush on NCLB- Ten Years Later

Time Magazine, January 23, 2011.  Andrew J. Rotherham gives us George W. Bush in his own words on the tenth anniversary of "No Child Left Behind."

Bush: "So I'm pleased with the progress and concerned about efforts from people in both parties to weaken it."

Rotherham: "What do you think is driving those efforts?"

Bush: "Some on the right think there is no role for the federal government in education.  Some on the left are saying it's unfair to teachers--basically, union issues.  People don't like to be held to account."

Both parts of Bush's response define a clear divide among first, left and right politics regarding education and second, the yet-to-be-labeled opposing sides in the education reform debate.

First, if we could make policy with all of our biases on the table, perhaps everyone would understand each others goals a little better.  But, I have a hard time accepting policy decisions made by those who have limiting the government role in public education as their primary goal.  What better way to pull the government out of education than to convince the American public that money spent on public education is money wasted?  If successful in this effort, any number of agendas are guaranteed (vouchers, school choice, private/public charters).  I gravitate away from conspiracy theory, but when those who wish to undo the system play a vital role in making policy for the system, bad things are likely to happen.

Second, I do like to be held accountable.  It makes me a better person.  I learned long ago that one of the best ways to avoid bad practice is through openness.  Letting others in on what's happening in the classroom.  Parents, administrators, peers, all serve to hold me accountable for what I do.  I don't like thinking that I've been doing something ineffective, but I do appreciate knowing that I've done it versus continuing to fail without ever realizing it.  This statement indicates that Bush begins with the understanding that I want to teach in the shadows, without any oversight or input into my work.  If you believe that I'm this type of person, then you probably don't respect me enough to listen to my professional opinion.

I don't think Bush or any of the corporate reformers want to be held accountable.  It's like when your zipper is down, or you've got food on your face.  I like a person with the courage to let me know so that I can avoid further embarrassment.  I suppose some people prefer to go through the evening not knowing any better.  Instead of listening to feedback (they'd prefer to call it complaining), corporate reformers prefer to demonize the source of the feedback-- teachers, who stand behind protection of their unions in order to protect themselves from having to do honest work for honest pay.

How have we devolved to this national narrative that teachers who care enough about children to spend hours of time with them for average pay are the one's who are holding our children back while profit driven reformers and corporate educational companies pushing for more testing and accountability are the great hope for our public school system?

(I recommend this great reply from John Spencer's Education Rethink to the Time article that accompanies the interview)