Principal Wanted: No Experience. No Problem.

Administrators and School Boards take plenty of beatings from teachers.   My experience with both has been mixed but I don't have any complaints beyond the norm(their experience with me might be described in much the same way).  Mostly because I understand that even though we have the same goal in mind for students, we see the day to day realities of education differently.  I am sympathetic to their plight and certainly would have much tougher time without their support.  That said there are the more and more individuals entering leadership roles I don't tend to appreciate.

Want to be Principal?  No Teaching Experience?  Not a problem.

They are usually teachers, administrators or other "educrats" who are focused on getting somewhere instead of focusing on doing the job here and now.  They seem to be serving in their position only because it serves a vehicle for self advancement.  We all know the self promoting appearance over substance type who are slicker than a barber shop shave.   The private sector is not immune from the same thing but that doesn't make me feel better.   In education they seem be more disruptive.  The movement of these individuals into administrative with little consequential experience in subordinate  roles brings a cascade of unfortunate consequences for just about everyone else.

They radically change policy to provide a feather in their cap to trumpet in advance of the next move. They forgo the measured approach for the sake of expediency and instead angle and network to ease their ascension to a "higher" job.   Their consistent lack of understanding of why a teacher makes a decision or  frequent miscommunication due to the absence of been there before wisdom becomes troubling.  Simple time proven methods are swept aside as a byproduct of the lack of experience.  The unwillingness to tackle long term chronic problems that might plague schools might be another side effect.    When they do they meet skepticism from teachers concerned about what's behind such measures.  This is only natural given teacher confront too many individuals such as this who devalue their efforts.  And then there is the inability to fully comprehend all that is involved in teaching and learning and inability to provide the necessary support for students and staff.   Instead of looking around for where to help out and make things better , these folks are looking up and where they want to go. One repercussion of this is the "bad" teacher rhetoric.  A get out of accountability card by throwing problems onto teachers.  This is less likely if individuals have taught.   It is just easier to work with someone who understands your job.  Working with people who have reached higher levels because they do a good job makes a huge difference and we ned more of them, not the opposite. 

Which is why I was puzzled the Charlottesville School Board voted to amend the division requirements for becoming a principal.  Essentially they have removed the requirement that a principal have classroom experience.   The Virginia Department of Education still requires that principals have at least 3 years experience as licensed instructional personnel.  Charlottesville's requirement now reads: "The Charlottesville City School Board, upon recommendation of the superintendent, employs principals and assistant principals who hold licenses as prescribed by the Board of Education."  The state changed the wording back in 2007(?) to allow for individuals to be principals without teaching.  Not to say these folks can't accomplish anything or do good, many do both. 

So it is perhaps a stretch to say that this will really change much.  If anything it might even allow for some outstanding guidance counselors, instructional coaches or other staff to serve as principals.  I might say that if those individuals were serious about being great principals they might entertain the idea that they need classroom experience somewhere along the way.   Even so one reality is that when someone leaves the classroom to administration or some other role their view on things instantly changes.  That's OK.  Different perspectives are helpful so long as both sides can understand where they other is coming from.  In the back of most teachers heads they think "We disagree, but this person knows what it is like."   If they haven;t taught, they might think something a little less accommodating. 

I am troubled by the prospect of working with or for someone who has never been an actual teacher at some point.  I could throw out metaphors about car salesman or pyramid schemes but that would miss the point.  Principals serve in a multitude of roles.  They are educators, role models, supervisors, organizers,  problem solvers and the list goes on.  Above all they are leaders.  In the eyes of this teacher those best able to lead in education must work with teachers and those best able to do that have been teachers themselves.  

We can spank kids in school? Really?

I felt really dumb after reading this headline the other day:

"School Violates Policy When Girl Spanked By Male Administrator"

I felt dumb because I should have known that even today, some schools allow administrators to spank children.  I had no idea that this could still happen.  The school in question violated the policy because "opposite gender" spankings are not allowed-- they're perfectly o.k. of it's done by someone of the same sex.




Apparently corporal punishment is not only o.k. in the Springtown school district of Texas, but also in nineteen other U.S. states.  Really, adults who aren't the parent of a child can spank them in nineteen of fifty United States.  Parents in their home present a whole different issue, but anyone who thinks corporal punishment in a school is still a good idea should certainly find a different line of work.  They are an embarassment to the profession and a threat to our children.

In the video above, a tenth grade high school student chose a spanking over in-school suspension because she didn't want to miss more class.  She'd been accused of cheating.  A male principal administered the spanking which according to the girls mother was excessive and in violation the the school policy calling for same sex spanking only.  The family claims to have pictures that would prove their assertion that the spanking was excessive.

It disturbs me that well respected and powerful adults could support this.  I can hear the comment now, "that's what's wrong with this country now, these kids ain't got no discipline in their lives."  Maybe that's true, but can that lack of discipline be replaced with the blunt side of a principal's paddle?  It's nothing more than an excuse for abuse.

District Superintendent Mike Kelly wants to change the policy.  He's leading the school board to fix this problem by, WHAT?, he wants to get rid of the restriction that forbids males from spanking females and vice versa.  Apparently, the gender distribution of male and female administrators makes it too hard to abide by this policy. (Apparently he succeeded)  This man is a district superintendent.  He's got power and influence and he's using it for this?

Someone please tell me this is a joke.  Otherwise, I might start to think that conventional wisdom is right, maybe it is time to destroy this system of public education and start all over again.

Buying The Lie

These are the stakes.  This is what we have to deal with.  The public education narrative has been high-jacked and an increasingly large proportion of the public believes the lie.  This is just a small example, but a recent report about school budget struggles in Albemarle County, Virginia provoked the following reader comment:

The U.S. spends more per child and more per capita on education than any other country. Yet we rank any where from 14th to 25th out of 75 countries in math, reading and science according to the International Student Assesment report. So, apparently throwing more money at the issue is not the answer. The money NEVER makes it to the children and the teachers who deserve it, just the beauracrats in the front office and the teachers unions.

I know this isn't NYC, D.C., or Chicago.   And the "Charlottesville Newsplex" is just a small media outfit serving a small city that could hardly claim to have a suburb.  These facts make the story even more important.  Across the nation, the public opinion is swayed by the loudest and most prominent voices that are selling the public this idea that public education is failing because of bad teachers and unions.

I don't know where the statistics quoted come from, but the "teachers unions" comment stands out the most in this geographic area.  1) Virginia is a right to work state- there is no "teachers union."  2) The supposed "teacher union" here is funded by teacher contributions, not county budget. 3) I can't speak with certainty, but it would surprise me if even half of the teachers in our county (and Virginia) even belong to the "teacher union."

Yet somehow, in little Albemarle County, an run of the mill media consumer believes that our budget shortfall is somehow tied to the problem of "teachers unions."

I don't know how familiar some of our readers are with Virginia, but growing up in southwest Virginia furniture and textile country in the 1970's and 80's, Union was a dirty word-- to employees and factory owners alike.  Unions exert little to no influence on Virginia politics, business, and society.  If that's true in the private sector, imagine what it means for the public.  I'm not taking a pro or anti union stance here, that's just how it is in Virginia.

I'm disturbed by how easily this comment reflects a public perception, colored by national media coverage, that unions are a part of the problem even when they are COMPLETELY UNRELATED to the problem at hand.  It doesn't matter which side of the reform debate is winning online.  In real life, the debate is nearly over, and America is buying the lie.

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.

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.

Is it really this complicated?

The embedded video above comes from NBC 29. It first appeared on June 7,2011. The video relates to the move from a seven to eight period academic schedule for students in Albemarle County High Schools.

Woody Guthrie once said, "Any fool can make something complicated. It takes a genius to make it simple."

To say our division (at least the students, parents, and teachers) has struggled with the implementation of recent schedules would be an understatement. Misunderstandings abound, evidenced by the rampant misuse of the terms 4x4, block scheduling, and the like. Perhaps input from others might bring some clarity and potentially momentum for improvement...even if it might not matter next year. TU would love to hear thoughts and concerns about scheduling from those affected. (Try to be constructive, leave the complaining to us)

Taking a Stand in Virginia and Texas

In the previous post on the Underground, my colleague referred to Superintendent John Kuhn of Texas testifying before the Texas legislature regarding teacher evaluation and "value-added" systems of measuring teacher effectiveness.  Across the nation, we are moving toward systems that measure the effectiveness of students, teachers, schools, and entire districts on the basis of standardized testing.  The push toward common core standards will only lead to more. (See here for a interesting post discussing merit pay and common core standards)

I am convinced that the American public agrees.  I am also convinced that our politicians, educational leaders and all of the media-endorsed experts agree that excessive standardized testing degrades our educational system.  I don't think these same leaders and "experts" understand just how much their ideas and policies that sound great in theory can do so much damage when put into practice.  Let me concede a few things:

1) The idea that every family in America can expect a consistent and quality curriculum for their students is a good idea.

2) The idea that a teacher should be evaluated based on how well they are able to move their student from one level to the next is a good idea.

3) The idea that teachers and schools should be held accountable for what and how they teach is a good idea.

Maybe that is a little common ground that we can all agree on that might help us move toward reducing our differences.  The differences arise in the methods proposed to make these ideas reality.  Organic systems work when they are sensitive to their environment and respond properly.  In the human body, this means the brain receives information from the body and responds accordingly.  Executive functions in a healthy system arise from quality feedback.  For whatever reason, the executive functioning of education policy acts independent of quality feedback.  Perhaps the teachers and students who raise their voices in opposition to the onslaught of standardized testing are seen as too self-serving.  But the survival and maturation of our system requires that decision-makers understand the impact of their decision.

That is why Superintendent Kuhn should be applauded.  Openly testifying to the Legislature that he has considered opting his child out of the testing process and publicly naming a company like Pearson, asserting that we have placed more trust in them than in our local teachers, is not the smartest political move.  Standing out against the grain of public education policy may cost him any hopes he may have had of holding higher position at state or national levels.  Calling out a player in the "industrial-educational" machine may limit his post-education employment options.  But, perhaps for these reasons he will also be taken seriously.

Virginia now stands on the verge of facing an increasing growth in the importance of standardized testing and the resources it will require of schools for administration and reporting.  It is not a secret that the state is on the "value-added" teacher evaluation bandwagon.  The secretary of Education, Gerard Robinson, belongs to the "Chiefs for Change" coalition supported and promoted by former Florida governor Jeb Bush. The group focuses on issues such as creating "value-added" evaluations for teachers and principals, stronger standards and testing, and expanded school choice.

Allowing for the "common sense" thinking that "value-added" is a reasonable method of teacher evaluation, we should consider the serious misgivings of the approach.  Just a few criticisms of the approach can be found on the blog of Harvard Education Publishing, at the National Academy of Sciences, and the Economic Policy Institute.  Full texts of the reports and studies can be found at the links above.

Further bringing Virginia into the realm of "value-added," Governor Bob McDonnell has implemented a pilot merit pay program in the state.  Closer examination of this program reveals that teachers working in "struggling schools" who succeed in raising achievement will be eligible for up to $5000 in additional pay.  The identification of deserving schools in this case does not seem clear to all, but even more problematic is the sublime move toward a value-added model on which to base this reward.  At least 40 percent of a teacher's performance evaluation must be tied to student academic performance. This includes improvements in standardized test scores.   As a "pilot" program, this appears innocuous enough, and framing the terms (a la Race to the Top) in such a carrot and stick fashion might cause  districts to run for the money.

Educators have two choices in situations like this. 1) Take the money and run, don't rock the boat, and accept this as the future and get on board early.  2) Take a stand, speak up for what's good for education, and refuse to play a role in implementation of bad policy.

I am encouraged to hear the news that district leaders in Fairfax and Loudon County are not likely to apply for this program.  I hope they follow through.  I also hope that the school board and administrators in my own county of Albemarle will not accept the advent of value-added as inevitable and take the opportunity to stand against it by refusing to apply for the funding.  To the public, refusal of this funding may appear confusing at first, but it provides an excellent opportunity for school leaders to communicate what responsible reform should look like.  Change is needed in American education, but reform such as this is no reform at all, it is more of the same "carrot and stick" motivation driven by standardization.

We would love to hear other opinions regarding the movement toward "value-added", merit pay, and especially this new Virginia policy even if you disagree.  Click the comment link below to add your thoughts.

The Teaching Underground Grassroots Teacher Response to the State of the Union Address

So tonight we get both a Republican and a Tea-Party response to the President's State of the Union Address, so we here at the Teaching Underground have decided to throw our hats into the ring and offer the official "Teaching Underground Grassroots Teacher Response" to the State of the Union Address.  We've included relevant text from the President's speech tonight below in italics with our comments embedded.  So here we go...


Meanwhile, nations like China and India realized that with some changes of their own, they could compete in this new world. And so they started educating their children earlier and longer, with greater emphasis on math and science.
     History has shown us that America is at its greatest when we forge ahead and live up to our unique ideals of democracy and progress.  We have seen some our worst moments in times of fear spent chasing after a dream just because a perceived opponent might reach it first.  Innovation is the buzzword of today, but true American innovation is original and "organic."  The sheer size of China and India alone must lead us to conclude that in the future we will relate to them as partners on the world stage.  Perhaps it is time that we learn what our unique role in this partnership will be instead of chasing their dream and pretending that all we need to do is educate our children the same way they educate theirs.

What’s more, we are the first nation to be founded for the sake of an idea – the idea that each of us deserves the chance to shape our own destiny. That is why centuries of pioneers and immigrants have risked everything to come here.  It’s why our students don’t just memorize equations, but answer questions like “What do you think of that idea? What would you change about the world? What do you want to be when you grow up?”
     Agreed.  That first line may sum up the reason why most of us entered the teaching profession in the first place.  But in the current environment of accountability through testing, how do we standardize "what would you change about the world."  Our education systems must not lose sight of the value of teaching our students to do more than memorizing equations in it's desire to measure.

Maintaining our leadership in research and technology is crucial to America’s success. But if we want to win the future – if we want innovation to produce jobs in America and not overseas – then we also have to win the race to educate our kids.
     We spent much of the twentieth century producing a quality workforce for America.  When the corporate world found a better deal they took it.  If we want to produce jobs in America, we need to also consider that education is not a race.  A race is something you finish and either win or lose.  When I attended the University of Virginia, students referred to themselves as first, second, third, or fourth years because in the eyes of its founder, "one cannot reach seniority in learning."  We need to understand that education is about Human development, not Human resource development.

Think about it. Over the next ten years, nearly half of all new jobs will require education that goes beyond a high school degree. And yet, as many as a quarter of our students aren’t even finishing high school. The quality of our math and science education lags behind many other nations.  America has fallen to 9th in the proportion of young people with a college degree. And so the question is whether all of us – as citizens, and as parents – are willing to do what’s necessary to give every child a chance to succeed.
     Also agreed, but it is about more than just sending kids to college.  A college degree does not guarantee success anymore.  A lack of a college degree is not a death sentence.  Our students need a vision of what they can become.  Ask any number of unemployed or underemployed college graduates what they think about this comment.  Rather than pushing all students into this vague notion of college, we should make sure that our students are thinking about their future and how they hope to give back to the world.

That responsibility begins not in our classrooms, but in our homes and communities. It’s family that first instills the love of learning in a child. Only parents can make sure the TV is turned off and homework gets done.  We need to teach our kids that it’s not just the winner of the Super Bowl who deserves to be celebrated, but the winner of the science fair; that success is not a function of fame or PR, but of hard work and discipline.
     I appreciate an acknowledgment that the responsibility for the education of our children is not squarely on the shoulders of our schools.  We do need to instill a reality check that hard work and discipline are the keys to success, but also the truth that sometimes even this isn't enough.  We need to learn from personal failure and understand how to positively respond to setbacks.

Our schools share this responsibility. When a child walks into a classroom, it should be a place of high expectations and high performance. But too many schools don’t meet this test. That’s why instead of just pouring money into a system that’s not working, we launched a competition called Race to the Top.  To all fifty states, we said, “If you show us the most innovative plans to improve teacher quality and student achievement, we’ll show you the money.”
     I'm writing this tonight with an eye for the weather, wondering whether we will have school tomorrow or not.  Sometimes we risk our lives to get to school, and other times we sit home in the rain.  If schools were smart, they'd hire a meteorologist to make this decision after all, they're the professionals.  Why wouldn't we let the meteorologists make the call on school cancellations?  It seems that we're becoming more and more willing to let the economists make the call on school reform.

Race to the Top is the most meaningful reform of our public schools in a generation. For less than one percent of what we spend on education each year, it has led over 40 states to raise their standards for teaching and learning. These standards were developed, not by Washington, but by Republican and Democratic governors throughout the country.  And Race to the Top should be the approach we follow this year as we replace No Child Left Behind with a law that is more flexible and focused on what’s best for our kids.  You see, we know what’s possible for our children when reform isn’t just a top-down mandate, but the work of local teachers and principals; school boards and communities.
     Flexibility is key.  This is why education is best left in the hands of local government.  We spend so much time and resources on National and State mandates for chunks of money that usually doesn't even cover the cost of implementation.  Federal and State governments are essential in setting minimum standards and ensuring equity in education, but their efforts to prescribe policy hurt our ability to effectively and (yes I'll say it) efficiently educate our students. 

Take a school like Bruce Randolph in Denver. Three years ago, it was rated one of the worst schools in Colorado; located on turf between two rival gangs. But last May, 97% of the seniors received their diploma. Most will be the first in their family to go to college. And after the first year of the school’s transformation, the principal who made it possible wiped away tears when a student said “Thank you, Mrs. Waters, for showing… that we are smart and we can make it.”
     OK, and this example tells us what?  Not to be negative, this is a great story, but I'm not sure what it tells us about how to move forward in education. 

Let’s also remember that after parents, the biggest impact on a child’s success comes from the man or woman at the front of the classroom. In South Korea, teachers are known as “nation builders.” Here in America, it’s time we treated the people who educate our children with the same level of respect. We want to reward good teachers and stop making excuses for bad ones.  And over the next ten years, with so many Baby Boomers retiring from our classrooms, we want to prepare 100,000 new teachers in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and math.
     I do like to think of myself as a builder of people more than a nation, but thank you for the shout out.  I can't help but think this is a little bit of a back-door comment however.  We have a system too complex to simplify this good teacher/bad teacher dichotomy.  Part of the reason I'm a good teacher is that I work for a good system, with adequate support and resources.  Within that system I have some of the best students, some of whom would succeed despite my efforts if not because of them.  How do you compare that to a teacher struggling to keep student attention daily because they lack necessary resources and administrative support, and the students they teach come into the class struggling.  In ideal situations, almost anyone could be a good teacher, but on the contrary, in some systems only a few would have what it takes to be an excellent teacher.

In fact, to every young person listening tonight who’s contemplating their career choice: If you want to make a difference in the life of our nation; if you want to make a difference in the life of a child – become a teacher. Your country needs you.
     Yes we do.


These are just a few of my initial reactions, don't judge too harshly.  I used to think that national rhetoric about education was just that, harmless rhetoric.  After all, the federal government doesn't control our schools.  But in the last decade I believe the national rhetoric and the cascade of reforms that it has required greatly impacts the education systems of America.


So there you have the official "Teaching Underground Grassroots Teacher Response" to the State of the Union Address.  What are your thoughts?  Feel free to share using the comments link below.

What's My Average?

In the debate over current school budgets the "average class size" statistic has become increasingly significant. The statistic is misused and covers some disturbing trends that directly affect the quality of what I am able to do.

Admittedly most concrete data and studies indicating benefits of smaller class sizes exists at the lower grade levels but class size matters( See: http://www.heros-inc.org/star.htm or http://www.heros-inc.org/factsheet.htm ). At higher grade levels class size clearly impacts instruction and learning as well. Yes kids can learn in a big lecture style class and they can also learn in a small hands on interactive class. But as a teacher it is more difficult, sometime impossible, to operate as effectively when student loads continue to grow. Am I complaining? Yes.

It is imperative that we work to keep classes with at risk, special education and similarly challenged students small. This is as much for behavioral reasons as it is academic. That means that core classes with "typical" kids are forced to grow. Not being a math teacher that simply means I must devote less attention to each student.

In an educational landscape dominated by hard choice decisions distanced from the classroom, increasing average class size seems an enticing way to increase efficiency. Having more students jeopardizes many of the more engaging and perhaps rigorous activities. Quality feedback and interaction with the teacher declines. This is not good. Can we still teach and kids still learn, yes. But simply put, one can only grade so many essays or homework effectively. That reality somehow gets lost between the desktop and the budget.

We all agree better teaching can mean better learning. While adding students might save money the true cost can never be measured in dollars.

Teacher Voices

We hope to finish up our series on Exceptionally Effective teaching with one more post on the topic, but in the meantime I wanted to share a website from the College Board that I find interesting.  It is called Teacher Advocacy.  Their stated goal on the website is as follows:

 To support teachers by highlighting the critical importance of their work and amplifying their voices in policy debates about educational reform.

Recently I have joined several colleagues in addressing our local School Board and Central Office regarding scheduling changes that have affected our ability to effectively provide a quality education to our students.  These decision-making bodies are in a tough place and are dealing with a difficult financial situation.  We have also been placed in a tough situation, having to make decisions that affect the quality of education for our students.  We are having to choose between timely and quality feedback, breadth versus depth of content coverage, distributed versus massed practice, and unfortunately sometimes between the welfare of our families and that of our students.

I respect the difficulty of choices that the decision-makers must make, but I hope that the difficulty of the decisions that teachers are having to make are understood by the decision-makers.  So far, I'm not sure how far our voices have travelled.  We've shared our concerns with everyone who can make a difference.  I go back and forth between believing that we've been heard and believing that we're being tolerated.  Either way, I am convinced that both locally and nationally the teacher voice is perhaps the most important voice (second to only the student) in education policy and reform, but we spend too much time behind our classroom doors.  That is one reason why I've shared the link today.  It highlights the positive side of education and the individual stories of successful teachers. 

Only time will tell if our efforts have made a difference in our district.  As difficult as stepping out and raising our voices has been, our students are worth the trouble.  I hope that all of our teachers, locally and nationally, will find their voice to advocate loudly and effectively on behalf of our students.