Teaching Underground's 2012-2013 Report Card

The NSA
Much has been made of the activities of the NSA and their monitoring of cell phones. No doubt it is better not to know some things but the Constitution still means something around here. At least it is supposed to.  The events of the past decade have changed our standing in the world community, our military strategy and our views on domestic security as well.  We'll spare the you the 1984 references and simply say 3 things.  Torture should be illegal.  The U.S. is the good guy. 
Grade= (They know their grade already)

Pearson Education
Well your stock prices went up but we still disapprove of you.  You control the SOL tests, the question approval process, our grading software, curriculum , remediation programs and just about all aspects of the online process.  But you don't own us. 
Grade= F

Education Leaders
Just because.  
Grade= F

New England Patriots
How do you keep a guy like Hernandez and trade Wes Welker? That turned out well.
Grade= F

Teachers of America
Do more, and be more aware and informed of the changes that are affecting our profession.  
Grade= B+

A-Rod and Ryan Braun
"On my honor I have neither given nor received any unauthorized aid on this assignment"
Your word is your bond fellas.  Barry, Lance, and how many more athletes seem to put results in front of integrity.  Sad they get so much time on ESPN
Grade= F

Chris Dumler
Not sure everyone knows the whole story of the County Supervisor or if they or we even want to.  But dude was an elected official.  Apparently that means nothing to some self-centered hacks that are too often filling elected Offices.
Grade= F.  But no opportunity to retake the class.

Anthony Weiner
Sticking with the crappy politicians theme, this guy is a bum. This former teacher says something.  Too bad Weiner can't listen.  Bum.
Grade= F and he is expelled

The New County TPA
In addition to having new cover sheets and thousands of other things designed to effectively measure teacher quality, they have a way of making the end of the year oh so pleasant.   Step in the right direction?  Time will tell.  As teachers we now have a number assigned to us.  A metric of performance, maybe they can give us an A-F grade.
Grade= 3 Applies (I think that equals a C)

The Mayans
Turns out they were wrong. Or maybe we were measuring the wrong thing.
Grade= F

Miss Utah
 Look Lady  know you are attractive but let's not pin everyone woe on Education.  


2013-2014 School Year

Welcome back to school. The best thing about August is that everything starts over again. Clean slate. We're excited to see all of our new student faces and look forward to a great year of teaching and another frustrating year of edu-policy.
Grade (in progress)= A+

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.  

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.

Teacher Preparation Report- UVa Rated Poorly, but Why?

The National Council on Teacher Quality released a report this week on the quality of teacher preparation around the nation.  That certainly would grabbed people's attention but maybe that was the point.  Less than 10% of the programs were rated received 3 stars or higher.  UVa received 1.5 out of 4 stars in Secondary Education.  So what does that mean?  A question with no easy answer.  A better question is should that rating matter?  Yes but only a little.  Most media will report on this with some attention grabbing headline making UVa  or other schools look bad then move on.  What's more important is to recognize the purpose, scope and use of the report and then give it some context.

Providing Context
UVa is an outstanding institution and attracts some of this state's and nation's top scholars.  One must assume that the pool of teachers it produces are also of outstanding quality.  Having worked closely with many of these individuals and observing them both as student teachers and later once they joined the workforce, I have found they are well prepared for the job.  Some are as not quite as good as others but it cannot be an accident they enter our school ready to roll and versed in what to expect.  I believe that one can never really be "ready" for the first time you are on your own teaching your won students and all that means but if I had to choose who to hire, knowing they are a UVa Curry School graduate would provide a great deal of confidence.  

But this report indicates something different.  So context is important.  A closer look finds that this report doesn't really evaluate the process or results of these programs.   I give them credit for being thorough.  Maybe overly so.  Somewhere lost among the graphs and endless charts and fingerpointingmight  even be something of worth.   There was this tidbit from the exective summary:

 "Through an exhaustive and unprecedented examination of how these schools operate, the Review finds they have become an industry of mediocrity, churning out first-year teachers with classroom management skills and content knowledge inadequate to thrive in classrooms with ever-increasing ethnic and socioeconomic student diversity."    
So what you are saying is they stink?

The stated purpose for this report is "providing information that aspiring teachers and school leaders need to become strategic consumers and that institutions and states need in order to rapidly improve how tomorrow’s teachers are trained."   The authors of this report have what seems a laudable goal but a funny way of achieving it.  It proceeds to beat up just about every institution and would seem to do more to undermine confidence in these programs rather than to foster improvement.  Maybe that is the intent?  It focuses in on how programs hold up to a narrow list of predetermined criteria.  Many of which might indicate the NCTQ has an agenda for certain reforms and wishes to push schools in that direction.  What's less apparent is whether or not that agenda mirrors that of other corporate style measures often linked to such critical reports.  The TUs executive summary of the report would read something like this:  "Eh."

 Linda Darling-Hammond had a bit more to say and called the whole thing "nonsense"   She is not alone and there is also no shortage of other critics of the NCTQ or this study.  When word broke that U.S. News was planning to rate teacher preparation programs and would rely on the NCTQ to produce those ratings,  35 chief academic officers from the education schools of the Association of American Universities signed a letter adressed to the magazine's editor expressing concerns about the methods being used. 
That ought to say something about context.

OK, so  clear the NCTQ thinks all but 4 are bad.

If I were brutally honest I'd say that this is one of those reports from some group of think tankers who seem to exist solely for producing such reports.  A lot of time and energy went into this and it is not totally baseless, probably even has some merit as a tool for improvement.  But as a teacher I don't have much use for people who don't truly understand what we do and like to spend time explaining what we need to change.  They seem either disinterested or too busy examing education on paper to bother getting boots on the ground and engaging with teachers and people in schools.  Maybe that is too dismissive but it is a position built on long experience with reports and reformers.  I'd point out that they didn't visit the schools they rated, didn't look at how teachers produced by schools were performing in their job and didn't really do much in terms of providing real world substance to back up their low ratings.    But they probably sold some magazines and generated some web traffic.


Is UVa Doing a God Job?
Yes.  I've cooperated with 3 student teachers and 5 or 6 practicum students from UVa over the years.  Without exception they were enthusiastic, hard working and willing to learn.  Professionally they were about as well prepared as one could be in terms of methods and pedagogy.   That together with UVa's solid content programs meant they were they were much farther along than I was in my own career at that point.  UVa has a an strong reputation in our community and is known for turning out some of the best educators around. 

The Curry School students I encounter are as ready as they can be.  It is true some are better than others and some will not choose to remain or even stick with teaching.   Even people at Curry would ackowledge the school has flaws and room for improvement.  But students there are given every opportunity to succeed and that is thanks to the knowledge, skills and experience afforded to them through proven methods.  Curry is proactive and innovative but stays grounded where the rubber meets the road.  So to place stock in a rating of 1.5 out of 4 is kind of silly.

So why the lackluster rating?  The report doesn't really assess performance.  It instead looked at a slate of criteria centered around the Curriculum, Syllabi and Admissions process of these institutions.  The report stated "we are setting in place market forces that will spur underachieving programs to recognize their shortcomings and adopt methods used by the high scorers".  This is a very telling statement and reveals that the report is an effort to spur action.   The NCTQ seems to suggest things be done a certain way.  And the only way to improve is to cater to the criteria being rated.  


The goal of any teacher prep program is to prepare new teachers for rapidly changing reform oriented professional world they will ener.  There's simply is no way to standardize how to effectiveley do this. Nor should there be.  Schools should constantly assess what they teach, how they teach it and ways to improve.  But undermining their support doesn't and won't aid them in that process.  Any report worth a hoot would connect what it measures to program quality. 

What is Being Rated
 A whole bunch of things but they are hidden under and avalanche of data and useless findings. Sometimes the larger something is the less productive it is.   The main things measured all fall under four main headings. These are provided here in abridged form  and only the ones that apply to secondary appear below.  I've omitted the ones applying only to elementary or special education.

The talent teachers need
    Selection Criteria- The program screens for academic caliber in selecting teacher candidates.


What teachers should know
    Common Core High School Content- The program ensures that teacher candidates have the content preparation

    necessary to successfully teach to the Common Core State Standards.

What teachers should be able to do

    Classroom Management- The program trains teacher candidates to successfully manage classrooms.

    Lesson Planning- The program trains teacher candidates how to plan lessons.

    Assessment and Data- The program trains teacher candidates how to assess learning and use student performance 

    data to inform instruction.

    Equity-The program ensures that teacher candidates experience schools that are successful serving students who 

    have been traditionally underserved.

    Student Teaching- The program ensures that teacher candidates have a strong student teaching experience. 

    Secondary Methods- The program requires teacher candidates to practice instructional techniques specific to their 

    content area.

Outcomes

    Outcomes- The program and institution collect and monitor data on their graduates.

    Evidence of Effectiveness- The program's graduates have a positive impact on student learning. 

That stuff is important.  A quick review of the list makes clear that these things are great in principle but there is a disconnect to the list and whether or not the program produces people who can teach.  Sure raising the bar in terms of candidates and asking more from them iare tough to oppose but this is not a scientific process.   Schools and classrooms are dynamic environments and you need a great deal more than content and pedagogy to be successful and effective.   In our data oriented world I trust my eyes and my mind when I see someone work with students.   While studies and efforts intended to help better prepare future teachers are welcomed, the way it is currently being done, as is the case with the NCTQ, are not and do little to help prepare educators.

Who is the NCTQ?
Who they are is really a matter of what they are.  So what exactly is the NCTQ?  Well that is not the easiest question in the world to answer.  As a starting point I looked at their own words:

The National Council on Teacher Quality advocates for reforms in a broad range of teacher policies at the federal, state and local levels in order to increase the number of effective teachers. In particular, we recognize the absence of much of the evidence necessary to make a compelling case for change and seek to fill that void with a research agenda that has direct and practical implications for policy. We are committed to lending transparency and increasing public awareness about the four sets of institutions that have the greatest impact on teacher quality: states, teacher preparation programs, school districts and teacher unions. 

Several years reading and researching reform movements have heightened my senses.  This report and many similar headline grabbing reports from the NCTQ emit echoes of corporate, profit driven, top heavy national policy reform that has done little to advance education over the past decade.  What is has done is likely the same as what this report will.  Undermine the very people doing all they can to help students.

The NCTQ even recommend capping the number of licenses issued in each state.  Yep they want to reward stronger teacher prep programs by allotting them more licenses. "Programs would not be prohibited from admitting as many candidates as they choose, but they would not be able to assure candidates that a license and job in the state will be waiting for them."  Teaching is collaboration not competition.  The NCTQ doesn't get that.  Efforts to train highly effective teachers and promote teacher quality shouldn't do the opposite.    Teacher training matters.  But I don't think this study does. 

Becoming a great teacher
My advice to those seeking to pursue a career in education and doing so at one of these instittuions is don't pay too much attention to all this white noise.  Instead put your back, mind and heart into the hard work of getting ready to be a teacher.   Because it doesn't get any easier once you start.  Al these schools are not created equal.  But if you find the right one for you and focus on making the most of your time there, you'll be just fine.  And if enough people like you continue to do just that, then the nation will be fine too.