Change in Education?

Or more of the same?

I am loosing faith in “Change”. EdSec Duncan seems to be more hype than “Hope”. I had a lot of confidence that Arne Duncan would clean house and sow the seeds for some real gains in education. There is a bit of egg on my face at this point.

While Duncan and Co certainly push changes in the education system these changes are more novelties than substantial improvements. Some take issue with the business like manner Team Duncan takes on education reform. Personally this is not a problem for me. If the business world presents a solution to an education woe we should use it. That being said, business and education are not entirely the same. Teaching a student is vastly different from running an add agency or producing a product. Ideas should be kept in perspective. Business solutions can translate to more effective ways of running a school (It does concern me that, excusing the rising costs of stuff and inflation, education continually gets more and more money for the same mixed results. Money is not the solution obviously). Business solutions do not translate well to business of learning.

Why this lack of education in education reform? Team Duncan is no team of rivals.

from Change.org:

Something that stands out about Ed Sec Arne Duncan and his inner circle – Klein, Sharpton, and, lord help us, Newt Gingrich at the *cough* “progressive” Education Equality Project; Bill Gates, Eli Broad, Mayor Bloomberg, and the whole Billionaire Boys’ Club gang; Michelle Rhee, Wendy Kopp, and the “give us a rookie idealist and a five week crash course, and we’ll give you a competent, expert teacher” gang at Teach for America – and their whole “reform” discourse is how much talk and proposed action we hear about teachers, and how little about teaching.

An obvious cause is that Duncan and most of his gang have more background in management (or, lord help us, politics) than in education. And the frightening thing is, when we listen to them, there’s little evidence they’re aware of the difference between an MBA and a Ph.D. in education. It’s like the hospital comptroller thinking he should have the right to dictate surgical techniques in the O.R.

Clay Burell goes on to say that Team Duncan may actually have a deeper understanding of education, but they continually fail to show this. Burell leads in to a recent post by Diane Ravitch at Bridging Differences. Ravitch uses accountability and high stakes testing as an example of how Team Duncan are just pushing more of what doesn’t work.

from Bridging Differences:

I think our society is in dangerous territory on this subject of accountability. The so-called “reformers,” the guys (yes, guys) who call themselves the Education Equality Project, would have the world believe that accountability is the key to improving American education. They think it can be done fast, not incrementally. They think the key to improvement is punishing the bad students, the bad teachers, and the bad schools. Their latest formula, as enunciated by U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan, is to close down 5,000 schools and re-open them. I wonder where he plans to find 5,000 new principals and thousands of new teachers, or does he just intend to reshuffle the deck?

This approach rests squarely on the high-stakes use of testing. One only wishes that the proponents of this mean-spirited approach might themselves be subjected to a high-stakes test about their understanding of children and education! I predict that every one of them would fail and be severely punished.

We agree that a better approach is needed to assess how well students are learning what they are taught. We agree that current standardized tests are not adequate to the task of determining the fate—whether they should be rewarded or punished—of children, teachers, and their schools.

Some thoughts Ravitch’s post

Things in education should be done incrementally. Playing fast and loose with children’s education is unacceptable. When you rush a reform without thinking it through it can have severe detrimental consequences. I’m not saying that everything Team Duncan proposes is a ticking time bomb, but it seems they are putting little thought behind their plans. There is far too many buzz words being tossed about and far too little contemplation of what they mean.

Bad students, teachers, and schools should face some consequences. I hate using the word “bad” however. That word has such an implication to it. Bad is something I say about the outdated milk. There’s no saving it. Straight to the garbage. Let’s say failing to meet standards for lack of a better word. Consequences should be assistance to meet standards. Talk about throwing the education system under the bus. Would you punish a child who has reading difficulty rather than provide assistance to meet that goal? Recalling an earlier post by Clay they might.

I am not against testing. It is a good way to find trouble areas in curriculum and in spotting students in need of help. Students should be meeting certain standards before moving ahead. Otherwise we are just pushing students into new territory before they even have a grasp on where they were. That is an excellent way to loose a student. And of course ultimately a HS diploma must be more than a piece of paper.

But the current tests that are being pushed are ineffective. Standardized tests prove nothing except how well a student is at regurgitation. Multiple choice cannot show a true understanding of a topic. Problem solving and analysis type tests are the only way to show this.

The thrust of their “strategic plan”, which negates strategic thinking, ignores a large looming issue. They are trying to duct tape a crumbling 19th century factory. The foundation itself is shaking. They are rebuilding what doesn’t work already with band-aids. There needs to be consideration for how we teach students, what skills they need for this new century, and how to inspire life-long learning. Duncan and company has contracted assembly line sickness. I’m not sure if they will survive the disease.

The Failure of Buffet Reform

Some in the reform crowd are so eager to “race to the top” they seem like they aren’t taking a few seconds to plan their route. They just spout words like accountability, choice, and charters without any pause for the best way to implement those principals. Then there are those who tout one reform as some sort of cure-all. These reformers have tunnel vision. They miss the interconnected nature of school reform. Both of these attitudes are dangerous.

This is buffet reform. Buffet reformers mix and match foods, pile their plates high, maybe get dessert first. The buffet is not about quality or satisfaction, it’s about how much you can stuff. The result is usually the same; you wind up overstuffed and unsatisfied. You may stumble upon an exemplary meal, say at the Plaza or Harraseeket Inn on mother’s day, but for the most part it’s not a great experience.

True reform works more like a great tasting menu. Everything is planned with a purpose. All of the ingredients cooked to be so much more than the sum of their parts. Each dish complementing the last. Education reform functions best when implemented in that fashion.

Take the example of school choice. Many see school choice/ competition as a positive force. Those with the wealth to do so have been able to choose private school for their children. Since we have become a physically mobile society, those with money have been able to choose their children’s school by where they live. Making school choice available to all students levels the playing field. But just advocating choice alone does not foster meaningful competition or provide the greatest benefits to schools, parents, and students.

How is a parent to know what a certain school offers to their children? There is no simple way for a parent to examine a school. A system should first be in place that collects school information and it should include more than just student test scores. Parents should be allowed to view school safety records, graduation rates, college attendance rates, extracurricular programs, arts programs, ap courses offered, and other relevant data. Districts should be able to provide families with this information in a simple format. This data should make it easy to compare schools and locate certain strengths parents and students desire.

Although test scores are only one part of the information provided to parents, they are an important one. Choice forces districts to set clear goals which necessitate better, more efficient testing. Reforms to what we test and how we test, moving toward leaner problem solving and analytical testing, need to be coupled with school choice. So we are moved toward greater accountability for students and teachers.

Greater flexibility also comes along with this. Flexibility and accountability go hand in hand. If you have one without the other you might as well have neither. So with accountability teachers can be given a wide birth as to how they instruct in the classroom. As long as the students are learning who cares if a teacher can convey their knowledge best by hanging upside down from the ceiling. And of course with schools accountable districts and schools can have greater flexibility as to who they hire for teaching and administrative jobs. A certain amount of decentralization can be encouraged.

You can see how the business of meaningful reform quickly becomes interdependent, or perhaps I just confused the Hell out of you. Flexibility and accountability are always at the heart of every reform. Without flexibility choice cannot be meaningful. There will be no more choices then there are now. Great innovation will not be allowed to develop. Without accountability nothing is in place to ensure a certain standard to what our children our learning. Parents will have no way to make a proper decision in choosing a school without data to back it up. Accountability provides that data.

Of course I have simplified, for sake of this conversation on choice, what flexibility and accountability can do for education. The topic has been explore on numerous websites and books. Most people who disagree with particular reforms have not seen a comprehensive well thought out plan. All they have been given are buffet reforms. Which is why they continue to leave the table unfulfilled.

Texas Grading Policy Epic Fail – Minimum grades for failing students

“Everything is bigger in Texas” is how that oft used saying goes. When it comes to education policy in Texas the saying still applies. The state’s newest exercise in grading can be nothing but a massive failure.

Many Texas school districts have imposed minimum grades teachers can give to students. A score of 50 or 60 has been set in some districts, with a few raising the bottom to 70! When I went to school a 70 would have been a C-/D+ depending on the teacher. A student could theoretically not turn in an assignment or completely bomb a test and still receive an average score.

from Web Watch

Republican Senator Jane Nelson, a former teacher who introduced the bill, said the practice of putting a minimum on student grades encourages students to “game” the system.

“Kids are smart and can figure it out,” she said. “A student in one of these districts with a minimum grade of 70 can sit in class and say, ‘I don’t have to do any homework, I don’t have to answer any questions on tests, and they still have to give me a 70 no matter what.”

Let’s teach our children how to cheat the system. That’s a noble aim to teaching. Districts employing these policies cite dropout rates and providing a “safety net” as reasons for the minimum grading policy.

from Dallas News

“There are students who make mistakes and wind up with poor grades in one grading period during the semester,” said Leslie James, assistant superintendent for policy and planning in the Fort Worth school district. “If they are not allowed to turn it around, it can become hopeless for the student. They need an opportunity to bounce back.”

James’ comment shows the lack of faith in teachers. Now while I have been an advocate in greater accountability of both teachers and students, this sort of micromanaging hurts classroom efforts. James is telling teachers, “I don’t believe you will give students adequate opportunity to make up work they’ve missed. You wont give them help to boost their poor grades either. You also don’t know how to grade students. Let us tell you how to do your job.” A teacher is in the classroom with these students. Few teachers want to fail anyone. Their job is to produce success in their students. So when they do we must recognize there is reason behind that.

This whole notion of a safety net disturbs me to no end. In “A for Effort. F in life.” I wrote about the dangers of protecting children from failure in school. Instilling children with a sense of entitlement to rewards without the work sets children up for massive failure in life. I haven’t change my mind. There is no safety net in life. An employer is not going to keep an employee who constantly performs below expectations but believes they are doing just fine. How can this person be expected to improve?

We are preparing kids for the outside world. The rewards from quality work can be great and ultimately more satisfying than just doing the bare minimum (or less than that in Texas’ case). The consequences of failure in the real world can be a cardboard box with the safety net of a soup kitchen.

Why The Secrecy DOE? – Voucher study facts withheld

By this point everyone knows that President Obama’s slogan was change. One of the most reassuring changes Obama promised included government transparency and accountability. This was a welcome change after the Nixonian secrecy of the Bush Administration. For ed policy wonks and those his campaign , it was no surprise when Obama called for the same principals to be applied to education.

Yes everyone from students to teachers to administration, presumably straight up to the DOE would be accountable for the health of our education system. Supposedly we would be privy to accompanying stats as well.

When I read this story about the hijinks surrounding a recent DC voucher study I felt betrayed.

from Real Clear Politics

[The voucher program's] popularity notwithstanding, Obama stayed silent as Congress scheduled this initiative’s demise after the 2009 — 2010 academic year. Both a Democratic Congress and DC authorities must reauthorize the program — not likely.

Now it emerges that Obama’s Department of Education (DOE) possessed peer-reviewed, Congressionally mandated, research proving this program’s success. Though it demonstrates “what works for the kids,” DOE hid this study until Congress squelched these children’s dreams.

This analysis compared voucher users’ test scores to those of students who requested vouchers but lost the award lottery. Among DOE’s results:

*While they were no better at math, voucher recipients read 3.7 months ahead of non-voucher students.

*Student subgroups — including high achievers, those from functional schools, and applicants between Kindergarten and grade 8 — showed “1/3 to 2 years of additional learning growth.”

*While 63 percent of non-voucher parents gave their kids’ schools As or Bs, 74 percent of voucher parents so rated their children’s campuses.

This good news remained concealed, from the study’s conclusion last fall, through March’s Congressional debate, until April 3, when DOE finally released this report. That was a Friday afternoon, precisely when news whisperers issue stories they want journalists to miss in the mad dash for the weekend and citizens to overlook as Saturday’s papers vanish beneath ski equipment, movie tickets, and pitchers of beer.

Worse yet, DOE researchers reportedly were forbidden to publicize or discuss their findings. “You’d think we were talking about nuclear secrets, not about a taxpayer-funded pilot program,” the April 5 Wall Street Journal editorialized.

For Team Obama, this is transparency we can believe in.

One expects better from Obama who won a scholarship at age 10 to attend Hawaii’s prestigious, private Punahou school. “There was something about this school that embraced me, gave me support and encouragement, and allowed me to grow and prosper,” Obama has said.

DC voucher recipients want such life chances. If you want to bawl like a baby, visit VoicesOfSchoolChoice.org and watch the Internet’s most inspirational and simultaneously heartbreaking video.

“In my old public school, people screamed at the teacher, walked out of school during class, hurt me, and made fun of all my friends,” says Paul, age 11, imploring Obama to keep hope alive. “I love going to school, where I can learn and be safe,” says Breanna, 9. “I want to go to Morehouse College, like Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.,” says De’Andre, 9. “I am going to grow up and be a good man.”

With young black kids themselves begging for vouchers, why would reputedly pro-poor, pro-black Democrats kill this popular and effective school-choice program?

Follow the money: Teachers’ unions’ paid $55,794,440 in political donations between 1990 and 2008, 96 percent of it to Democrats. Senator John Ensign’s (R – Nevada) March 10 amendment to rescue DC’s vouchers failed 39-58. Among 57 Democrats voting, 54 (or 95 percent) opposed DC vouchers.

I can understand withholding information sensitive to national security. It almost goes without saying. Education research is not a national secret. Especially good news. Every single American should have been privy to this information as soon as it came out. It turns my stomach to think that the administration would have withheld this study until after a vote to end the program. Could this information have saved the DC voucher program? Quite possibly. Playing this sort of underhanded politics with our children is disgusting and repugnant.

Unfortunately this story may go unnoticed. I hope that it is carried to all across the nation. You wanted to have the most transparent and accountable government Mr. Obama. Now it’s time to stand up and take your lumps on this debacle. You, Duncan, and the DOE must be held accountable.

UPDATE: Here are a few links to other articles and the PDF links to the study itself.
The DC Voucher Impact Study
Opinion of Brookings Institute rep involved in study
Bismarck news outlet calls buried study news a “shocker”
The Examiner gathers some opinions on the matter

More Merit Pay Madness- Sunday Editorial on Editorials

This Sunday Chuck McKay, a Newport, Maine high school teacher launched a brutal attack on merit pay for teachers and teacher accountability. Boy, there is so much to cover. Chuck really missed just about every mark in his assault. Let’s begin at the end. McKay warns us that, “when President Obama announces his support for “merit pay” for teachers, before you stand up and cheer, make sure you know exactly what “merit” really is.” Chuck, before you stand up and jeer merit pay take your own advice. Let me give you a little helping hand.

Later in his article Chuck admonishes those who believe teacher accountability an integral pillar of education reform. He then goes on to preach class size as a magic bean that will solve all our problems

from Bangor Daily News

You could fill an Olympic swimming pool with all the studies that prove lower class sizes result in higher student achievement. You would think that would translate to lots of new job openings for teachers.

Taxpayers seem more concerned about getting more for less, research be damned. So, school boards won’t cough up the coin to hire more personnel; communities would rather maintain status quo and keep taxpayers docile.

Ok, there are studies that suggest class sizes under 20 in the early grades help set a good foundation. A small class does not a good teacher make. A poor teacher is a poor teacher for 1 child to 100. Same goes for a quality teacher. You can’t deny that Chuck.

Chuck claims it is impossible to measure the quality of a teacher. He dismisses merit pay as “goofy” because the lack of a ruler for teacher quality. Or perhaps because he cannot see past what he has been ingrained to believe about merit pay.

Some reformers recognized that student assessments must be part, but not the only piece, to teacher accountability. Chuck assumes that we would only base teacher accountability on student scores, which must be inherently evil.

from Bangor Daily News

How do you quantify the value of a teacher? Test scores? Please. For starters, it is unfair to students to assault them with another battery of tests, this time directly affecting the livelihood of their teacher.

Yes Chuck, part of the value of a teacher is what a child has learned in their class. That is never detached from the profession. That is the main reason for teachers, to teach. One of the ways to measure that is by test scores. Chuck falsely assumes that this will require more exams. That is an unfair scare tactic. Why must we have more tests? Why can’t we use the ones we have. The MEA testing system has been in place here in Maine for some time. I will it say again, as I’ve said before, standardized tests aren’t perfect. We need to reform them away from a multiple-choice format. Tests should be problem solving and analysis based, considering grade level of course. Why Chuck doesn’t consider that possibility I can’t say.

Chuck’s next argument against merit pay based on student assessments? His students are out to get him!

from Bangor Daily News

As a student, I wouldn’t want the pressure of knowing my performance has a direct impact on my teacher’s ability to support a family. As a teacher, I wouldn’t want students who didn’t like me deliberately tanking the test.

As a teacher, or a person in general, you know some people like you and some don’t. Some people are malicious enough to manifest their dislike in unsavory ways. Yes some students may deliberately do poorly on the test, but I find it hard to believe that would be an issue. Students should have a stake in doing well just as much as teachers should. How we could set that I’m not sure of at this time, but their test scores would most likely follow them through school and beyond. Also, what about a teacher who grades a student more harshly just because they don’t like them? That happens too. Not often, but it does. That doesn’t mean we close down the school does it? If you follow Chuck’s logic it does.

In one last jab against testing, Chuck tries this salvo.

from Bangor Daily News

Most importantly, testing as the penultimate measure of an educator’s worth ignores an obvious but overlooked truth: The most important thing you learn in school is not the content of any particular discipline. The most important thing you learn is how to learn. Try measuring that on a test.

Instilling a life-long love of learning in a child is an important endeavor. So is teaching children how to find the answers on their own. If a teacher is consistently failing to impart the basics on their students so that they can continue on their own how can that be called a success in any stretch of the word?

Chuck continues by suggesting that principal evaluations of teachers wont accurately measure quality.

from Bangor Daily News

Most teachers I know in various school districts are observed in class once or twice a year, at most, by their administration. On those occasions, a teacher can usually prepare his or her best lesson, not necessarily the one that best represents his or her typical job performance.

Principals probably have other methods of knowing which teachers are good and which are bad. But then, your next principal won’t necessarily agree with the current one.

You would need to come up with some legendary, magical teacher evaluation system in order to transcend good-ole-boy politics and inconsistent pedagogical philosophies in schools where the principal’s office has a revolving door.

Again Chuck believes that we can only use one form of measurement at a time. Combining many forms of accountability provides checks and balances, negating some of the flaws of each alone. Chuck is right on one thing. We need more principal and administrative visits. Make them surprise visits as well.

As teachers are accountable (partly) for student performance, a principal should be accountable for their staff. Principals should be subject to merit pay as well. This would provide principals with greater incentives to find teachers in need of assistance and reward those with better performance.

Last Chuck says that we are not able to factor in many intangibles when figuring merit pay.

from Bangor Daily News

What is the price of finding the book that turns a kid on to reading? What does it cost to prevent or break up a fight at school? What would you pay to have a teacher discipline a bully instead of looking the other way? How much is it worth to have someone notice changes in a child’s behavior and intervene, thus preventing a suicide or a drug addiction? Or implement a new teaching technology, even if it means more headaches, because it might empower kids? What tax increase would you tolerate to have a gifted child find her passion?

Ah but we can factor in those things. With the combination of peer review, student review, and principal review all of these things will factor into pay. It may seem callous to attach a monetary value to things like providing extra help to a student or taking initiative to introduce new methods, but we should. To pay someone who puts in the hard work the same as a teacher who just floats by is completely unfair. Those who go the extra mile should be rewarded. When we ignore those factors we are effectively saying, “Thanks for the extra work, but we aren’t going out of our way to recognize your excellence.” How much of that can one person take before they stop trying? We have got to break this culture that ignores achievement and rewards complacency.

Chuck assumes, like so many, if we can’t have a perfect assessment system we should have none at all. It’s just not fair! Well Chuck, it’s not fair to let things continue the way they are. I would much rather we get things in place to start progressing toward a better system then continue on the same path. I don’t claim to have all the answers, but Chuck seems to provide none. If you read this Chuck, I was a little harsh, but you got me fired up. Also, I’d like to see your solutions Chuck. Readers, yours too.

More Merit Pay Madness- Sunday Editorial on Editorials

This Sunday Chuck McKay, a Newport, Maine high school teacher launched a brutal attack on merit pay for teachers and teacher accountability. Boy, there is so much to cover. Chuck really missed just about every mark in his assault. Let’s begin at the end. McKay warns us that, “when President Obama announces his support for “merit pay” for teachers, before you stand up and cheer, make sure you know exactly what “merit” really is.” Chuck, before you stand up and jeer merit pay take your own advice. Let me give you a little helping hand.

Later in his article Chuck admonishes those who believe teacher accountability an integral pillar of education reform. He then goes on to preach class size as a magic bean that will solve all our problems

from Bangor Daily News

You could fill an Olympic swimming pool with all the studies that prove lower class sizes result in higher student achievement. You would think that would translate to lots of new job openings for teachers.

Taxpayers seem more concerned about getting more for less, research be damned. So, school boards won’t cough up the coin to hire more personnel; communities would rather maintain status quo and keep taxpayers docile.

Ok, there are studies that suggest class sizes under 20 in the early grades help set a good foundation. A small class does not a good teacher make. A poor teacher is a poor teacher for 1 child to 100. Same goes for a quality teacher. You can’t deny that Chuck.

Chuck claims it is impossible to measure the quality of a teacher. He dismisses merit pay as “goofy” because the lack of a ruler for teacher quality. Or perhaps because he cannot see past what he has been ingrained to believe about merit pay.

Some reformers recognized that student assessments must be part, but not the only piece, to teacher accountability. Chuck assumes that we would only base teacher accountability on student scores, which must be inherently evil.

from Bangor Daily News

How do you quantify the value of a teacher? Test scores? Please. For starters, it is unfair to students to assault them with another battery of tests, this time directly affecting the livelihood of their teacher.

Yes Chuck, part of the value of a teacher is what a child has learned in their class. That is never detached from the profession. That is the main reason for teachers, to teach. One of the ways to measure that is by test scores. Chuck falsely assumes that this will require more exams. That is an unfair scare tactic. Why must we have more tests? Why can’t we use the ones we have. The MEA testing system has been in place here in Maine for some time. I will it say again, as I’ve said before, standardized tests aren’t perfect. We need to reform them away from a multiple-choice format. Tests should be problem solving and analysis based, considering grade level of course. Why Chuck doesn’t consider that possibility I can’t say.

Chuck’s next argument against merit pay based on student assessments? His students are out to get him!

from Bangor Daily News

As a student, I wouldn’t want the pressure of knowing my performance has a direct impact on my teacher’s ability to support a family. As a teacher, I wouldn’t want students who didn’t like me deliberately tanking the test.

As a teacher, or a person in general, you know some people like you and some don’t. Some people are malicious enough to manifest their dislike in unsavory ways. Yes some students may deliberately do poorly on the test, but I find it hard to believe that would be an issue. Students should have a stake in doing well just as much as teachers should. How we could set that I’m not sure of at this time, but their test scores would most likely follow them through school and beyond. Also, what about a teacher who grades a student more harshly just because they don’t like them? That happens too. Not often, but it does. That doesn’t mean we close down the school does it? If you follow Chuck’s logic it does.

In one last jab against testing, Chuck tries this salvo.

from Bangor Daily News

Most importantly, testing as the penultimate measure of an educator’s worth ignores an obvious but overlooked truth: The most important thing you learn in school is not the content of any particular discipline. The most important thing you learn is how to learn. Try measuring that on a test.

Instilling a life-long love of learning in a child is an important endeavor. So is teaching children how to find the answers on their own. If a teacher is consistently failing to impart the basics on their students so that they can continue on their own how can that be called a success in any stretch of the word?

Chuck continues by suggesting that principal evaluations of teachers wont accurately measure quality.

from Bangor Daily News

Most teachers I know in various school districts are observed in class once or twice a year, at most, by their administration. On those occasions, a teacher can usually prepare his or her best lesson, not necessarily the one that best represents his or her typical job performance.

Principals probably have other methods of knowing which teachers are good and which are bad. But then, your next principal won’t necessarily agree with the current one.

You would need to come up with some legendary, magical teacher evaluation system in order to transcend good-ole-boy politics and inconsistent pedagogical philosophies in schools where the principal’s office has a revolving door.

Again Chuck believes that we can only use one form of measurement at a time. Combining many forms of accountability provides checks and balances, negating some of the flaws of each alone. Chuck is right on one thing. We need more principal and administrative visits. Make them surprise visits as well.

As teachers are accountable (partly) for student performance, a principal should be accountable for their staff. Principals should be subject to merit pay as well. This would provide principals with greater incentives to find teachers in need of assistance and reward those with better performance.

Last Chuck says that we are not able to factor in many intangibles when figuring merit pay.

from Bangor Daily News

What is the price of finding the book that turns a kid on to reading? What does it cost to prevent or break up a fight at school? What would you pay to have a teacher discipline a bully instead of looking the other way? How much is it worth to have someone notice changes in a child’s behavior and intervene, thus preventing a suicide or a drug addiction? Or implement a new teaching technology, even if it means more headaches, because it might empower kids? What tax increase would you tolerate to have a gifted child find her passion?

Ah but we can factor in those things. With the combination of peer review, student review, and principal review all of these things will factor into pay. It may seem callous to attach a monetary value to things like providing extra help to a student or taking initiative to introduce new methods, but we should. To pay someone who puts in the hard work the same as a teacher who just floats by is completely unfair. Those who go the extra mile should be rewarded. When we ignore those factors we are effectively saying, “Thanks for the extra work, but we aren’t going out of our way to recognize your excellence.” How much of that can one person take before they stop trying? We have got to break this culture that ignores achievement and rewards complacency.

Chuck assumes, like so many, if we can’t have a perfect assessment system we should have none at all. It’s just not fair! Well Chuck, it’s not fair to let things continue the way they are. I would much rather we get things in place to start progressing toward a better system then continue on the same path. I don’t claim to have all the answers, but Chuck seems to provide none. If you read this Chuck, I was a little harsh, but you got me fired up. Also, I’d like to see your solutions Chuck. Readers, yours too.

My Michelle – Michelle Rhee and the union shuffle

Dylan Thomas said, “Don’t go gentle into that good night.” Chancellor of D.C. schools Michelle Rhee lives by those words.

Most of those who know of Michelle Rhee have one of two reactions upon hearing her name: gush with adoring praise or curse her name and spit on the ground. Personally I see her for what she really is, someone with ambitious ideas that puts children first, but who works poorly with others.

The Huffington Post ran a story yesterday, yes sometimes they actually do more than just post links, on Rhee’s crusade to turn around one of the worst urban school districts in the country. Half of the article is devoted to the tough accountability changes Rhee wishes to impose on D.C.’s teachers and the resistance from teacher unions. Rhee’s words make her sound more like General Patton than an education official.

from Huff Post

Rhee, a widely praised if controversial education reformer, has promised to raise student test scores. She told the Huffington Post: “We are going to impose the new evaluation tools regardless” of the outcome of talks with the union. “We are going to be moving people out who are not performing.”

Rhee’s comments stunned union officials. “I’m dumbfounded,” said a top American Federation of Teachers (AFT) official involved in the negotiations, declining to publicly identify himself.

“She is correct to say she has the power to unilaterally impose a teacher evaluation system,” the AFT official said, but “all you have to do to get her real agenda is to look at the language she used with you. Words like ‘impose,’ ‘unilaterally,’ ‘regardless,’ and ‘power.’ They all say the same thing. She wants to do it to teachers, not work with them.”

He contended that Rhee’s stance disregards the right of the WTU “to bargain the outcomes of the evaluation system. This obviously includes due process rights and compensation, if she wants to attach pay to the results of the evaluation.” In a plea to Rhee, the AFT official said, “If the chancellor is willing to collaborate with the union in developing a fair and expedient evaluation system, the Union is willing to use those results for performance pay and possible dismissal.”

Accountability is important. Good teachers should be rewarded. Tenure and bonus should be linked teacher assessments. Extra training, mentoring, and other assistance should be offered to teachers not meeting standards. Those who consistently perform under standards should be let go. We need these standards, that is non negotiable. What standards we set and how we assess those standards needs a great deal of work. This is where cooperation with teachers and unions are key.

Teachers are in the trenches so to speak. Their input on students is first hand, not just from statistics. If teachers are going to be involved in implementing these standards they have got to have input on what they are. There are so many pieces of this puzzle to consider. Special needs students, districts that already perform high, local factors, and so many other aspects need to be examined. To drop those standards down from on high would be inappropriate.

Though reformers like Rhee are hated by teachers, the numbers are showing they can get results.

from Huff Post

From 2002 to 2008, the percentage of 4th graders in New York City meeting the math grade standard rose from 52 to 79.7 percent. Over the same period, the percentage of 4th graders reaching the English standard rose from 45.5 percent to 61.3 percent.

“We’ve changed the situation on the ground, creating the conditions necessary to transform our schools and classrooms and results for kids,” Klein declared when the statistics were released last June. “We’ve set high standards, created strong academic interventions for struggling students, held schools responsible for results, and given educators the tools they need to assess how well they’re doing and how well students are progressing.”

There are many who would refute Klein’s gains and his methods. Numbers only tell half the picture. I still find Klein’s remarks promising. If the numbers haven’t been doctored by say stacking schools and keeping special needs kids out, then they back up a lot of the reform principles myself and others hold.

A study done by Paul Tough in 2006 questions that these methods alone can lift our students.

from Huff Post

Other studies, according to 8,500 word November 2006 NYT Magazine piece by Paul Tough, have found, however, that — teacher competence notwithstanding — it is extremely difficult to improve test scores in schools located in poor, minority neighborhoods, and point to family background as a leading cause of poor student performance:

“[The] data largely confirm that idea [that family background is the leading cause of student performance], demonstrating clearly that the best predictors of a school’s achievement scores are the race and wealth of its student body. A public school that enrolls mostly well-off white kids has a 1 in 4 chance of earning consistently high test scores . . . a school with mostly poor minority kids has a 1 in 300 chance,” Tough reported in the New York Times after examining a host of studies

Tough suggested that the problems of educating poor minority children lie not only in the family background of the students, but also in the structure of the public school system:

“The evidence is now overwhelming that if you take an average low-income child and put him into an average American public school, he will almost certainly come out poorly educated. What the small but growing number of successful schools demonstrate is that the public-school system accomplishes that result because we have built it that way. We could also decide to create a different system, one that educates most (if not all) poor minority students to high levels of achievement. It is not yet entirely clear what that system might look like …. but what is clear is that it is within reach.”

Race and family background are not excuses. They may be obstacles we must overcome, but ultimately all students can achieve no matter what their background. The school’s responsibility is not to right these social wrongs, but to give students the tools to right them once they have completed their education. Tough is correct, we don’t yet know what a new system would look like, but it’s not far away. In getting there we have got to remember why we are doing this. Not for unions, not for reformers, not for teachers, not for bragging rights, not for fame, not for fortune, but for the kids. It’s cliche, but it’s true. Everyone should repeat that every time we debate these issues. Kids come first.

Your view?