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.

The Best Technology Tool Ever- BubbleSheet

I found this gem today in the iTunes App store. Who says technology doesn't revolutionize education?

Here's the description from the App store site:

MasteryConnect is a web-based system that allows teachers to assess and monitor student performance of the Common Core and state standards, share common assessments, and connect in an online professional learning community.  With the BubbleSheet app, teachers save time in grading student assignments and assessments as scores are automatically populated in the MasteryConnect’s scoring system.  

I came up with this:
From the makers of DigiRoll the computerized Wheel comes BubbleSheet.  Paper and Pencil is so old fashioned, why not add some critical thinking and analysis to your assessment by enhancing it with technology. Twenty-first century learning just got easier.
 

Think you can create a snarkier description than that?

 (Here's a link to the site if the screenshot quality is poor)

Reform: For Our Kids...right?

Can anyone oppose what's "good for kids?"

While perusing the Interweb the other day, wading past the funny cat videos, I stumbled onto an interesting article dealing with the word "reform".


 Reform Is Not a Dirty Word:  The real meaning of school reform by Kayla McGannon.  This commentary posted by the Interim Executive Director of Stand for Children Colorado, dealt with the the recent election of the Denver school board and its larger implications.  A year ago I'd have commended this organization for their efforts to make things better but now I am more reserved about whether what they are advocating actually makes things better.  I am also more than a little confused about the title of the article and what this organization really does or who they are. 


As a product of the pre-reform failing public schools, I dug deeper.  Constantly frustrated by special interest veils and networks of vagueness it can be tough to tell what people or groups support.   A brief peek at their Board of Directors and I started to get a more complete picture.   I digress as this post is not about that group, corporate involvement in education or seemingly anything at this point. Back to the article. 


The title seems to lead one to conclude that there are only 2 groups of people out there. "Those who support positive change or "reform" in our schools, and those who oppose such measures in favor of the status quo.  The staus quo is unacceptable by the way.  This group endorsed 3 candidates and I question what that term reformer actually means. 


Later we are introduced to the idea that there is a third group emerging.  The "posers" who claim to be reformers and use phrases like "real reform".  Huh?  In the end 2 of the 3 candidates the group supported won election.  The campaign message seemed to be "for our kids"  or "what's best for kids."   Lacking an enumerated list of what reforms this might involve it is hard to disagree.  Any effort proposed to "fix" the problems linked to the idea of what's best for kids gains traction quickly.  Maybe too quickly.  


The article later sought to bring us all together "After all, if we are all reformers, we are all accountable for the quality of our public schools." A laudable goal but one that is rarely achieved in the divisive environment of reform.  I was more than a bit disappointed in that I only found common buzz words in the campaign messages.  Likely the outgrowth of a focus group meeting to identify phrases that garner support.   I am coming to feel this approach is reshaping our educational landscape in a way that is not beneficial.   That is not rhetoric without forethought.  You can read the article for yourself but I am increasingly wary of who and what is really driving change. 

So where is momentum driving reform originating?  From the people close to the schools affected by them every day who don't use these buzz words.  It would be tough to support the idea these people in schools are not for kids.  Or is the push from someone else working for foundations that have an agenda?   Normally it is the diversity of opinion on these complex issues that eventually bear real fruit.  It is difficult to hear much diverse opinion from many powerful reformers. In fact it is alarmingly uniform.  Any concern expressed about change overshadowed by well crafted "for the kids" language.

Before you bite an Apple, know where it comes from

After searching for more information on the Stand group I came across their publications page.  Even a cursory review led me to some conclusions that seem common when finding things about education online.   There is an agenda out there and a great deal of effort to bring more and more people on board with that agenda.  Nothing wrong with that I suppose.  But there is if you disagree with that agenda and don't feel it is actually best for all kids, schools, parents, teachers, our economy, education or America as a whole.  Further if that agenda includes an effort to suppress dissent.  The online comments following the article were polemical but also very also interesting.  Here are a few samples: 


Isn't Stand for Children a front for corporate "education reform" which is in the process of destroying America's public education system?........ Colorado "reform" is a great example of the damage Eli Broad and Bill Gates are doing and Stand for Children is an example of how their billions are being employed to take away local control.
 --------------
You're article reads like an extended propaganda piece with a transparent agenda that in no way actually benefits children. In fact, after reading your blog, I was amazed and appalled at how blithely you could recount as reforms the measures that are clearly contra most of the research. I pity the children and their teachers who work in your state.
 ------------
I agree that the word "reform" has been tainted. A word which once meant bettering education for children has now been warped into attacking teachers through faulty evaluations and then punishing and firing them in a blatant attempt to weaken their unions. It has become the worship of meaningless test scores. It is now the cold pursuit of failure in order to close neighborhood schools thus privatizing education and allowing the takeover of public institutions by corporate interests.REAL reform has to do with equity in funding and services, a well-trained and experienced teaching force, the autonomy and freedom for teachers to use progressive non test-prep practices, and the desire to address the gross inequalities and devastating effects of poverty we allow children to grow up in. Real reform addresses children and the people who work with them in humane, supportive ways.
I am sick of having to write the word "reform" in quotes. I want my language back.
Your organization stands for greed, not children. So please sit down.
-------------
As a parent with a child in a public school, and a former member and local leader of a Stand for Children chapter, I never imagined that "ed reform" would be a dirty word.
Later, when Stand for Children had begun receiving huge donations from corporate funders and foundations, and had turned away from grass roots work, reform had less and less to do with the problems I wanted to see addressed in my daughter's school (primarily lack of resources).
Now, when I hear groups like Stand for Children speak of "reform", I hear an ideologically coded message promoting privitization of public education. Here reform has little to do with evidence or feasibility, and nothing to do with my own schools' needs--Stand's reform exploits and cultivates the prevailing loss of confidence in and cynicism towards public institutions, and self-governance.
Stand's "reform" is a dirty word indeed. 
------------ 


So is all this what's best for kids?  It would be nice to be included in that conversation.  I'll close with is quote from the article:"Long into the future, no one will remember who supported which policy. What they will remember is whether those policies actually made a difference. "   I would simply point out that there are a frighteningly small number of actual educators who support these reforms.  That ought to mean something and maybe provide some insight into what is best for kids.


 Sometimes it takes someone more articulate than yourself to make a point. 
In the current national discussion about education reform, the loudest voices are not necessarily those of the people who are directly affected by what happens in our schools – the students, parents, teachers and school communities themselves.

Basic Ideas of Education...I mean democracy

Once upon a time before NCLB, I actually taught government. Then I was told I didn't.  Just that simple(in a related twist Turner was told he did).  The details of why are lost among the recesses of my mind but I was  reassigned and not because of anything I did.  It was a result of NCLB language.   As a younger teacher it takes time to build a library of resources. Thus I relied heavily on the textbook in those days.  So maybe I didn't meet the term "highly qualified" by my degree when I started but what new teacher ever does?   I thought 6 years would have earned me that label.  I was wrong.

Cleaning out the room last summer I came across some of the materials I used teaching government once upon a time.  I recalled working hard to convey to all my senior students key ideas about our great nation.    Liberty, Freedom, Opportunity and all the other cool stuff that makes us who we are as a country.  It reminded me that I struggled with the constantly changing landscape of the politics.  Elections made it hard to keep up with the faces and names.  I learned quickly to steer the focus of my students to the bigger ideas of our democracy.

One thing I constantly stressed with my kids back then was that they mattered.  Once they turned 18, and even before, they could make a difference.  Their voice, their wallet, their time and of course their vote were all ways to make an impact.  I tried very hard to instill in them a sense of political efficacy.  Beyond that I tried to convey that there is a common set of beliefs that somehow weaves us all together as Americans.   As I examined an old notebook of mine and weighed its fate, some of the materials caught me eye.

One section I had written said:
Basic ideas of Democracy
    1. Worth of the individual(respect all people, make sacrifices for group: like taxes)
    2. Equality of all persons(does not mean all have same abilities, all should have an equal chance      and same under law)
   3. Majority rule, minority rights(usually make correct decisions, must listen to minority)
   4. Need for compromise(blending of different views, important to freely express ideas)
   5. Individual Freedom(everyone given freedoms but they must be limited, complete freedom would result in anarchy, democracy balances freedom and authority)

That pretty much sums up a great deal of what this country is about.  Oh and the fact that we are awesome...that part I left out.  As I sat my mind wandered to how I would deal with today's political climate if still teaching government.  What a challenge I thought.  Or is it?  Politics certainly enters my classroom discussion from time to time.  With 9th graders you have to tread a little lighter than with 12th graders.  I'd describe the grasp of politics for most of them as knowing just enough to be confused or dangerous.  But I sense they also share a love of our nation coupled with a growing dislike of the political tensions within the government running it.  Left or Right it doesn't seem to matter. 

These thoughts of our government segway nicely to thoughts about education.  We live in a nation that sees fit to place the important choices in the hands of those farthest from the classroom, farthest from the students, farthest from the parents and farthest from the impact of those decisions.  To paraphrase JFK "the very word secrecy in a free and open society is repugnant."  This approach has come to symbolize our country’s educational management in many ways.  Small numbers of people with a great deal of influence.  Dissent is dismissed or silenced not welcomed.  The idea of questioning things and being able to ask questions and get answer is intertwined with independence is the seed that made this nation strong. Within our many of our nations school systems that idea has been stifled and confined by a desire to control or micromanage, much to the detriment of our children, our schools, our profession and our future.   Top down decision have become the norm.   Nationally there has always been concern about ceding too much control to those at the top and the practice is reserved for extreme crisis.  Existing or manufactured that seems to have been the case in education. 

There are a handful of professional endeavors as noble as to teach the young.  That is not to say teachers are in any way better than any other member of our society.  But is an acknowledgment that they perhaps best understand how to educate. Why is it then the financing, structure, and curriculum of our schools is controlled by those who no longer work in a school?  As flawed a model as there ever  was.  

Our democracy allows for each of us to find his or her own path and pursue it as we see fit.   Pity it does not allow some of these same freedoms within our schools. I guess there's good reasons for this.  But it could be argued that schools are now operated by the ill informed who do not visit, ask or experience before making decisions. Who follow the reform of the hour with no accountability as to the result.  Who make decisions without enough concern or understanding.  Subject to be  misinformed either intentionally or out of ignorance . 

Our schools are not political capital..  They are not an intellectual laboratory.  They are not static.  They are not perfect. They are not all truly failing.  And most certain of all most people in them think they are not currently being well led from the top.   Failure here lies with anyone who does not recognize the value of allowing our schools to create their own identity, community and pursue it to best serve their own kids.  

What all that venting reveals is I have a low sense of educational efficacy.   Surely I make a difference with my kids.  But it grows increasingly more difficult to do so as well as I used to. 
Whether it be new testing, curriculum, value added, compensation practices, treatment of longtime employees, resource allocation, over-reliance on technology, a disconnected leadership structure, poor evaluation systems, promotional practices, privatization of public school funds, reform policies in general, they are woeful when compared to what could and should be done. In short it just seems a lot going on here is contrary to much of what is on the list above.

The Fallacy of Average Class Size

The average person has one ovary and one testicle! 

If you think that’s ridiculous, then you’ll understand the folly of using average class size data in educational decisions. Statements that are mathematically correct can still be blantantly wrong.

Averages are attractive. In uncertain situations they provide a concrete anchor for understanding our world.

Data from the 2000 United States census indicate that the average household size in the United States is 2.59. Does that describe your family?

I didn’t think so, .59 of a person doesn’t exist.

You would call me a fool if I believed everyone has one ovary and one testicle, or even if I spent my days looking for the extra .59 person that should be living in the house next door. But somehow, when the average looks like something that supports our agenda, it becomes a valid measure of reality.  Kind of like average class size data.

Modern educators are familiar with the “power of zero” discussion. It goes like this: if a student has scores of 100, 100, 100, 100, and 0, they have an average of 80; a ‘B-’ for most, a ‘C’ for some. According to the argument, an 80 does not reflect the achievement of the student, the zero has an undue effect on the “average.” A move to standards-based grading indicates a desire to measure a child’s true achievement that can’t be measured with an average.  So averages aren't good indicators of student acheivement, but it's o.k. to use them as an indicator of how well a system is staffing.

Let’s assume that a school has ten teachers. Four of the teachers have a low class size of say twelve students. Perhaps they teach students who need more support, or they have a class that just met the minimum number for a section. The remaining six teachers each have classes of twenty-nine students. That school has an average class size of 22.2.

What if we looked at a different set of statistics? At this school with an average class size of 22.2, seventy-eight percent of the students are in classes with twenty-eight other students. Sixty percent of the teachers have classes of twenty-nine students. The average class size of 22.2 doesn’t look quite as successful.

What if this small model school were a high school? Each teacher has six classes. We would find six teachers at this school with a load of one-hundred seventy-four students and four teachers with a load of seventy-two student. The average teacher would have one-hundred thirty-three students, but in reality, sixty percent of the staff is teaching one-hundred and seventy-four students. Seventy-eight percent of the students at this school are 1 out of 174 to all of their teachers.

Honestly, we know better. Averages mean very little when divorced from their source, yet we continue to let them drive and/or support our positions. No amount of compiled information can substitute for looking closely at it’s individual parts and an uncritical acceptance of data is a recipe for poor decision-making.

Recently, I presented the following problem to my students:

Three truck drivers went to a hotel. The clerk told them that a room for three would cost $30. Each driver gave the clerk $10, and went to their room. After checking registrations the manager realized he had over-charged the drivers. The cost of the room should have been $25, so the manager gave the clerk $5 and told him to return the difference to the three drivers. On the way to the room, the clerk decided that since the drivers did not know they had been overcharged, he would return $1 to each of them and keep $2 for himself. Now each driver had paid $9 for the room and the clerk kept $2. 9 times three is 27 plus the 2 kept by the clerk totals 29. Where did the extra dollar go?

Just because the data are accurate and the numbers add up doesn't mean they reflect reality.  Sometimes we need to get out of the statistics and into people to find the answers.

Have you're experiences ever been misrepresented by "the average"?

Me, Us and Them

Populations are made up of individuals.  The wise teacher figures out quickly each class is full of individual kids.  Likewise schools are composed of individual teachers. When you start treating individual teachers as unimportant, then ultimately schools will become unimportant. I can't escape the reality that such an Orwellian reality has arrived when a parent goes online and looks me up deciding if I am a good teacher before meeting me or talking to anyone who has kids I've taught. Or a reformer looks at data and makes a determination without even speaking to anyone in a school.

For the unlearned out there here's a little wikipedia help: ORWELLIAN-describes the situation, idea, or societal condition that George Orwell identified as being destructive to the welfare of a free society. It connotes an attitude and a policy of control by propaganda, surveillance, misinformation, denial of truth, and manipulation of the past. I can think of a few things I deal with daily that fit that mold. The most immediate is how schools and teachers are being treated across the nation.

Essentially at their root many of the ideas I think are ill conceived seem to erode my ability to operate with autonomy. Should I have a completely free hand to do what I want? Of course not. But one concept that seems to echo with me is that those shaping teaching view it as a science that can be adjusted in such a way to produce a definite outcome. Where decisions are made by those who operate in a data first environment.  Many teaching see the world differently.  We  know teaching is an art.  Imagine a concert where all the solos were scripted.  A museum that only featured paint by number artwork.  A football team where players ran plays from a script based solely on down and distance unconcerned with score or field position.    Those things might be functional and generate predictable outcomes but they would also be very limiting.   As a teacher I need to be able to have freedom and play to my strengths on a daily basis.  One big thing impeding this is the smothering amount of demands being placed on me.

Already this year I have struggled to become quickly familiar with all my students.  I know that a positive relationship is often key to their success.  I am struggling to give and grade rigorous assignments in a timely fashion. While chalking it up to age at first I realized I have 142 kids. That alone is enough to bury me in grading if I let it. (1 essay, 5 mins each x 140 = 11 hours)   Couple it with the push to standardize curriculum and all the other adjustments I've made over the past  3 years and those I make daily and kids could start to slowly slip to just a name and number on a page and simply part of a larger whole. Sure some of that is the compulsory teacher griping.  It is also a red flag.  Nowhere am I hearing this on the news or even in discussions about our division.   These issues are veiled by clips of new computers, talks of budgets and a Newsweek ranking.

Now hard work never killed anyone.  Countless people work hard every day.  I suspect many teachers think they work too hard when they actually don't.  But too much work will in fact kill my ability to teach well.  Some of the most successful and competitive companies in the world recognize this fact and build in "free" time for their employees to innovate.  In that sense the private sector has realized the value of their workers.  I am getting to the point where I literally can't do a good job with my kids. Yet I am being held more accountable.  I am losing the ability to practice my craft...and it is not my fault.  I can cover content, collect data, assign a grade...but in no way can I maintain much of what I do that matters so much. All this stuff we've been talking about on this blog over the past months is starting to prevent me from being as good of a teacher as I am capable.

My concerns about student load and class size would be dismissed by folks who would point to data and studies about successful schools. They say it matters little in terms of affecting student success. They are wrong. Efforts to replicate the famous STAR study on class size from Tennessee are a classic example of wayward policy when people forget the importance of individuals. Probably a result of paying people to sit and analyze data far removed from the people the information represents.  This is in my opinion a useless enterprise.   That is after all what computers are for. 

Claims that changes are needed to standardize curriculum intending to give all students access to quality teaching and instruction who currently do not have it drive a disproportionate number of decisions. The basic premise is to fix the SYSTEM without regard to the impact it has on the people within it.  Thus revealing the absence of any appreciation for the individual teacher and what they accomplish every day.  Big mistake. You can't on one hand claim quality teachers are among the biggest factor in student growth and then ignore what they say and what makes each of them unique.  And yes I feel ignored. 

There are certainly bad teachers. Heck maybe I'm among them by some measures that are used.  But who in their right mind would make efforts to identify bad teachers using methods that adversely affect all those that are not. You cannot simply look at what one teacher does well and finds as effective and then ask other teachers to replicate that same thing. Certain patterns and skills may easily transfer but there are way too many variables to begin to think that it makes any sense whatsoever to just make that idea bigger.

Average Class Size affects the quality of what kids can get from me while they are in the classroom. Total Student Load affects what I the teacher can do. The greatest flaw with any research on teaching is that researchers don't seem to talk to real teachers during their research. The mountains of data keep them from seeing that all those kids I have prevent me from realizing my potential as a teacher, no matter how many methods or techniques I have access to.  The same is true for students who are increasingly being asked to take on a greater academic  load.  Sure the numbers look good from far away but get closer and you'll see what the unintended impact is on individual kids and families.  While all this unfolds the term accountability is thrown about as a buzz word like it has any meaning to anyone making decisions.    Now this is not a developing nation's classroom lacking basic necessities, but I can affect more positive change with fewer kids.  I am drowning in work.

So classes are made up of individual kids and the fact I might now be unaware that one of them was having a bad day matters a lot. The fact I didn't ask how they were doing and engage them in potentially the only real conversation they'll have all day matters.  The fact I now teach 142 separate people matters.  No Child Left Behind actually has meant more kids in my classes making it harder to identify and focus on ones that need more help.  Shame that teachers were and continue to be left out of the loop and simply treated as the group causing the problems and not potential solutions.  No doubt we might offer quite a few good ideas that would affect immediate change for the better.  Because we are plugged into what is happening.  I know these issues are present elsewhere but they never emerge from behind the newest and latest drive for innovation and reform.  Truth is I can hardly tell where we are headed by looking back at the track we are following.  That's scary and might mean all these efforts aren't really getting us anywhere.

As we prepare to tighten our belts once again as our division faces budget shortfalls I cannot help but expect that means my job will again get harder.   That affects me.  I have concerns on what changes and cuts mean to all of us in this building every day.  I can only hope that decision makers will recognize how the easy course is not always the better course and think first of us and not of them as they chart a course and navigate our course.  Be forewarned though that an unappreciative view of the significance and talents of individuals will simply contribute to more ideas not worthy of the term reform.

Best and Brightest

My colleague and I write a lot about education reform here on the TU.  It may seem like we oppose much of the current reform. We do.  Not because we are obstructionists.  In fact it is obvious that our nation's education system needs continual improvement and we welcome positive changes.  Less obvious is which if any of these reforms have merit.  The one size fits all systemic changes that are being pushed by major players will do little to affect positive change in the average classroom.  They may in fact do the opposite.  What is certain is that the focus of many of the ideas and measures is the quality of the teacher.   Many profess that an influx of the nations “Best and Brightest” to the teaching profession will do much to fix all that is wrong.
 
Of course there are bad teachers out there and a growing number of initiatives seem focused on identifying and then purging them from the profession.  I have no problem when bad teachers leave.  I have a problem when good teachers leave.  That is happening with greater frequency.  I also have a problem with how these efforts to root out bad teachers affect what I do in the classroom.  Some cite the lack of teacher dismissals as evidence that bad teachers are protected by tenure and that it seems anyone can keep a teaching job. But they forget that many self select and quit. They also underestimate the complexity of judging quality teaching.  It is true anyone CAN teach under ideal conditions.  But there is much facing schools and done by today’s students in those classrooms to prevent such ideal conditions from materializing.  When people realize how hard it can be many there including these Best and Brightest will say in effect “I’m out”, and head for the door.  Knocking many of us regular teachers over as they rush past. But people teaching for the right reasons stick it out.  That should matter.   They find ways to improve or ask for help.  They do a lot more for kids than what happens between the bells. To me it is far more important WHO a teacher is as opposed to WHAT they are. 


As the focus shifts to those actually doing the instruction efforts are made to ensure all students have access to quality teachers.  How could anyone oppose such a thing?  But these efforts to identify bad teachers and standardize curriculum hurt me in a variety of ways.   Couple that with the promotion of common techniques from the edgurus or edupreneurs of the day and you’ve got a tangle of adverse affects. These hurt quality teachers.  Those that have control over what I do see teaching as a science.  Where a variable can be altered and it will reproduce a desired outcome. Those who teach know it is an art.  This disjoint lies at the heart of many issues and is in part a reason why we created this Teaching Underground.  Those who have survived the first few purgatory like years that weed out people in teaching for the wrong reasons or those who do not possess the necessary skills know there are no shortcuts and there are no easy years.

Those promoting B and B talk miss many key points.  Chief among them is the fact you can have all the degrees in the world and still suck.  Drop a Harvard law grad or Wall Street CEO in some of the classes I’ve taught and the kids will sniff them out and eat them for breakfast. Educational success is not a guarantee of success in life.  Especially not the life of a teacher.  I’m proof of the opposite since I am still working despite my unimpressive academic record.    A review of this might lead one to conclude I am unfit for every job. But there is no substitute for experience.  I learned much from mine.  Lessons I will not soon forget.  Lessons that I use daily.  One of those is that even smart people can be dumb and lazy.  Nothing against smart folks joining up, just cautioning that they do so for the right reasons.  That they understand there is no playbook or model for what happens every day.  They better be child-centered and not self-centered or they won’t make it.   Three years does not an expert make.  And to think they’ll remedy everything might be short sighted. 

So take for example Mr. Mortimer Zuckerman.  A bright fella who says in part “America has to rethink how to attract, employ, retain, and reward outstanding teaching talent.”   What Mr. Zuckerman forgets while he pounds away in one of his 4 houses or his 100+ ft yacht, is that teaching at Harvard and Yale and publishing magazines differs a great deal from teaching in a public school.      Teaching is a human endeavor.   What people say does in fact matter.  Calling for more Best and Brightest hurts.   A  Race to the Top and No Child Left Behind continue to have unintended consequences. Throughout, one constant is that we are not all motivated to work harder and longer solely by money.

What else he does in the article does is tougher to discern.  I’m surprised I even picked up on it given I am just a teacher.  He starts with pointing out the “Educational Crisis”…then moves on to criticize tenure and I think the overall nature of our educational workforce lowering the crosshairs directly on teachers. (Allow me to return fire)  Catch phrases like digital learning and concepts like having kids learn by watching DVDs of top teachers reveal that the view from the top is not what I see everyday.   Will it work?  Maybe with a small percentage of our kids who are self motivated.  “In fact, the new methods could reduce the longer-term need for mass teaching manpower”  Really?   Over-reliance on technology is dangerous.  It shouldn't replace teachers, it should empower them.   As good as it sounds having a kid in California watch a teacher from North Carolina using technology ain’t exactly gonna work for a lot of kids, and it doesn’t work for teachers either.  You can’t simply watch a good teacher and then repeat what they do.  Authentic assessment is what many of us do every day.   Intentional or not Zuckerman’s ideas further erode understanding of what good teaching really is and how valuable those people are.  It is not teaching to the test, it is teaching the kid.   There's no rubric for good teaching. 

This simplistic approach to educational issues reveals the divide between those that teach and those that “know” about teaching. Among the most asinine of ideas are many coming from  “reputable” educational researchers who hide behind mountains of data.  Too many of whom inexcusably fail to even talk to teachers in any of what they do.  The Best and Brightest should follow the same path to the profession as the rest of us, not get short tracked.   I frown upon alternative licensure not because I am threatened by it but because it makes a mockery of the requirements and processes in place as part of preparation to become a teacher. Not the least of which is the professional semester or student teaching.  Forgo it and you have no idea what the job is really like.    Kinda like many writing on education reform.

Those who seek to break down some of these regulations and “judge” teachers objectively put all of us who care about quality teaching in peril. Would we do the same for doctors and pilots?  They often blend anti-union and anti-tenure ideas and propose annual contracts.  Remember the origins of tenure.  Without tenure I might be less likely to take risks, take on a student teacher, share ideas, be innovative or take on some of our more challenged kids.  You cannot on one hand stress the importance and impact a great teachers then totally discount everything they say.  We do not choose our “clients” and we are subject to a slow erosion of our autonomy within our workplace  But still many teachers endure.

Best and Brightest talk does much to demean those of us who labor every day to help kids learn.   I know many great teachers whose SAT scores eliminated them from the most prestigious learning institutions.  But they know their craft well and in front of kids they transform into the most brilliant professional you’ll ever see. These three simple words subtlety imply we who are teaching are not smart  Sure I was just happy to get into college and I work with some of the folks who taught me when I was in High School.    I can only imagine what they think of me and purposefully avoid asking what I was like in High School.  But I do ask them how I can do better on occasion.   I am not the best at much of anything and I am smart enough to know I am far from bright.  Still I know a good teacher when I see one.

I’ll even admit I might be counted among the bad teachers by some measures.   Some of what I say here may sound a bit "holier than thou" but it is only meant to awaken the common sense among us.  I don't give much advise on investing or campaign strategy.  But I’d advise people who don’t face 14 year olds each day listen none the less.  Let’s not get hypnotized by the sheepskin shingle on someone’s wall and instead measure WHO people are as much as WHAT they are.  Listen to the professionals in the job when they say things are bad ideas.  Absolutely look for the best teachers we can but do not exclude those who can excel at the job because they didn't end up at an Ivy League.  Let’s remember that these efforts here to identify and remove those who are not good teachers do much to impede and frustrate good teachers.   As a result I have seen too many join those exiting on their way out the door.  In part since they can no longer excel and enjoy the profession and teach the kids the as they once did.  Ultimately this Best and Brightest approach might leave us worse off than we were are now.   Making the job of those of us who are crazy enough to endure for the right reasons harder.  Whatever the case it doesn’t help us teach the kids we’ve got much.

The Greatest Post "N"ever Written

The well publicized rapture came and went on Saturday with no apparent impact.  Or maybe I and everyone I know are bad people.  But wait just a minute, Saturday was not without incident.   My most recent blog post which I sat editing on Saturday at 12:10 EST is missing.  I hit CTRL-Z to undo a recent edit and whoosh...flash of light...tingly feeling...sounds of bells...and I'm left with an empty dialogue box.  Before I could do anything helpful google slaps an autosave on me and....the post is no longer among us.  Perhaps this post was too perfect.  It did after all warrant a compliment from an award winning author after a cursory review. Sadly I cannot recall the majority of content and since I can't remember exactly what it said, it's as if it never existed. Weird Huh?

Thus I have decided to try and share the "abridged" version of my thoughts...at least the parts that are still floating around in my head:

Schools are Under Attack-When I take in all that is happening in reform efforts I am left with one conclusion.  There is a deliberate effort to undermine and even destroy our public school system.  At the least there is an effort to stop funding it, ignoring all the untold good that has been done in our nation's history as a result of free public schools.  I am not a truther or conspiracist...just a teacher who is careful with his observations.

High Stakes Testing is Bad- 10 years worth and nothing really to show for it.  Data can be misleading if interpreted for a purpose.  This testing changes the focus of schools to something that is not good(see previous post). Watching your kids take such a test makes you hate the psychometricians...yeah that's a real job and they are real people and they do a "real" job.  Not sure we need them but they exist.  
Vouchers aren't all bad, but they aren't all THAT either- It is not fair private and charter schools can turn students away.  We as public schools can't and shouldn't. No wonder they sound better compared to public schools.  Also taking PUBLIC money away from schools filled with kids that really need it is a BAD idea. It could potentially undermine one of the strongest social institutions in this nations history and much of the good they've done.

Companies are slowly getting more influence and thus control over our schools.  This is bad since companies exist to make profits.(in that sense at least they are  not like teachers).  When faced with doing what is right with doing what they want...its about the profits.  A colleague shared this recent article which illustrates the problem....$266, 000?...that was their offer for a screw up.  Despite the absence of tenure I suspect no one at Pearson was labeled "bad" and blamed for everything.  But mistakes happen.  Get over it and move on.  Who holds the accountability machine accountable? 
http://www.edweek.org/dd/articles/2011/05/20/430371wypwsproblems_ap.html

People in charge of education reform are certain they are right.  Hey, what if they are not?  I'm pretty sure every teacher I know think they are NOT.  Makes you think huh?  A recent blog post described the nation's chief reformer as "condescending, arrogant, insulting, misleading, patronizing, egotistic, supercilious, haughty, insolent, peremptory, cavalier, imperious, conceited, contemptuous, pompous, audacious, brazen, insincere, superficial, contrived, garish, hollow, pedantic, shallow, swindling, boorish, predictable, duplicitous, pitchy, obtuse, banal, scheming, hackneyed, and quotidian."  I think he even de-friended him on facebook.


I remember linking to this cartoon in the post that was raptured:

But there was a ton more...mostly from those who support them.  And I think for misguided reasons.
http://www.google.com/search?um=1&hl=en&rls=com.microsoft%3Aen-US&rlz=1I7ADRA_en&biw=1088&bih=620&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=school+voucher+cartoon&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=

The abridged version might be like watching a movie trailer where you get the idea but not the substance.  For this I apologize.  Blame Harold Camping.

Why Data-Informed Trumps Data-Driven

Plot, characters, and setting, the three primary qualities of a story; but imagine a story with only a setting. Well, you no longer have a story, we call that a painting. Data-driven decision-making runs the risk of turning one element of effective education into the primary element and in the process, turning beautiful stories of educational success into static pictures of moments in time.

Data is the setting in our story of education. Within this setting, the characters (students, teachers, parents, etc.) create the plot in their daily interactions. To call for an end to “data-driven decision-making” is sure to raise a few eyebrows. Data is the constant, the solid ground; data takes the guesswork out of what we do. However, focusing on the data to the exclusion of all other elements of our story does not advance the cause of effective education for our students.

Data-Driven Decision-Making Kills Crickets!

“Diana Virgo, a math teacher at the Loudoun Academy of Science in Virginia, gives students a more real-world experience with functions. She brings in a bunch of chirping crickets into the classroom and poses a question:” So begins a story related in the book “Made to Stick” by Chip and Dan Heath. They applaud the teacher for providing a concrete lesson to understand the notion of a mathematical “function.”

I learned a different lesson altogether from this story. After gathering all the data relating to chirp rates and temperature, the students plug the information into a software package and--- AHA! The hotter it is, the faster crickets chirp and even better, IT’S PREDICTABLE! Now students have a concrete example of what a function is and what it does. Next comes the point where the story grabs me. The Heath brothers mention (in parenthesis no less, even calling it a side note, as if this isn’t the main point) that “Virgo also warns her students that human judgment is always indispensible.” For example, if you plug the temperature 1000 degrees into the function, you will discover that crickets chirp really fast when it is that hot.

The moral of the story is this: Data-driven decision-making kills crickets!

Unfortunately, it can also kill good instruction. Recently while attending a district-wide work-session on Professional Learning Communities, a nationally recognized consultant suggested reasons why teachers at a small middle school without colleagues in the same subject should collaborate with teachers from other schools in the same subject. He suggested that when these inter-school teams see that one teacher has better data in a given area, the others could learn what that teacher is doing to get such good results.

I’m not against this type of collaboration, but could it be possible that a teacher from one school whose student testing results (data) are not so good is still better than a teacher in a different school with excellent data? For example, might the data at school A look better than school B because students are getting better support at home. Perhaps school B spends more time making sure students are fed and clothed before concentrating on the job of instruction. What if school A has stronger leadership and teacher performance reflects teacher moral, support, or professional development?

Teachers must collaborate and share stories relating to instruction that works, but if student test-data is the only metric used to evaluate effectiveness we are essentially determining that crickets chirp very fast at 1000 degrees. There is a better choice than “data-driven.” Next week I’ll share my thoughts on this alternative and together we can strive to “save the crickets.”

Follow-up Post: Why Data-Informed Trumps Data-Driven