Teacher World

This is the last in my series on Diane Ravitch. I have been blogging about her recent article from the August/September issue of neatoday magazine. In her article, “Stop the Madness”, she explains why she no longer supports NCLB, and she ends her article discussing how we can improve our schools.

According to Ms. Ravitch, “We must first of all have a vision of what good education is.” We should be asking what constitutes a well-educated person, what we want students to learn before they graduate, what we want them to accomplish, and why we educate students. In other words, we need to agree on what education is, what it looks like, and why we want to be a part of it as teachers.

Second, she says we need to look beyond reading and mathematics and decide what other qualities are synonymous with a well-educated, well-rounded student. We want to turn out students who are able to think for themselves, have good character, are able to make good decisions, have courage and humor, and who treat others with compassion and fairness. And we need to teach students to be responsible citizens who make educated decisions by rationally studying different points of view.

Finally, she states that we need to send out academically well-rounded students who are able to use both math and science to understand and solve real problems in their communities and in their world and who can also appreciate and participate in their artistic and cultural heritage. In other words, we need students who participate in  significant ways, who enjoy the world around them, and who are willing and able to work to improve it. We need to teach them about the world in which they live and help them to find their niche within it.

What kind of test could ever adequately measure these truly important things? There is no such test because the true test of these qualities is life and the purposeful living of it. As Diane Ravitch states, “If these are our goals, the current narrow, utilitarian focus of our national testing regime is not sufficient to reach any of them. Indeed, to the extent that we make the testing regime our master, we may see our true goals recede farther and farther into the distance.” She concludes by stating that, if we continue on this current path, we are likely to produce a generation who equate learning with the drudgery of “worksheets, test preparation, and test-taking”.

In her final plea to turn the current tide by doing away with NCLB in the hopes of saving our public schools, Ms. Ravitch wraps up with this eloquent, heart-felt statement: “As we seek to reform our schools, we must take care to do no harm. In fact, we must take care to make our public schools once again the pride of our nation. To the extent that we strengthen them, we strengthen our democracy.”

(Diane Ravitch’s article was based on her book entitled The Death and Life of the Great American School System: How Testing and Choice Are Undermining Education,)

Educational Reform, High Caliber Schools, No Child Left Behind, Teacher-World's Blog, state achievement tests Diane Ravitch, Educational Reform, NCLB, state achievement tests

Let’s discuss what Diane Ravitch calls “the danger of the culture of testing” that has been created as a result of NCLB, as reported in the August/September 2010 issue of neatoday magazine. Feel free to say a few “amens” and “you’ve-got-that-right-sister” as you read her critical points.

Ms. Ravitch states that “one of the unintended consequences of NCLB” has been the “shrinkage of time available to teach anything other than reading and math”. Since these are the only test scores used to calculate a school’s adequate yearly progress, she claims that teachers feel forced to put much more time into the teaching of these subjects, leaving less time for science, social studies, and the arts. She goes on to say that many schools have even done away with recess in order to better prepare students for math and reading tests.

In our district this year, we are required to attend grade level team meetings which will meet twice a week. Guess what we are discussing and brainstorming in these meetings? We will be looking at formative assessments for (you guessed it) reading and math to identify areas of weakness and collaborate as a grade level to improve upon these skills in order to bring up test scores. What are conspicuously lacking from this list are science, social studies, and the arts. My guess is that most teachers out there would agree that they are spending more time and effort teaching reading and math than in teaching other subjects. And we all know why we are.

Diane voices legitimate concerns too that our focus as teachers has also shifted, due to the emphasis on test scores, from thorough knowledge of the subject matter to test-taking skills and strategies. She cites the use of previous tests, which are available on the Department of Education website, to prepare students and claims that “in urban schools, where there are many low-performing students, drill and practice became a significant part of the daily routine” as a result of NCLB.

Ms. Ravitch, thank you for bravely stating what every teacher out there knows. We teach differently, but we don’t teach better. We teach differently because instead of trying to educate our children, we are trying to get them to pass tests that make our schools look good. And, as a result, we are doing our children a disservice; a disservice we are forced to continue to do because our jobs are on the line. Don’t you just wish we could get back to being real teachers preparing our students for real life and real careers, to be responsible citizens and real community leaders, and to love learning simply for the sake of learning, not to pass a bubble test? Do I hear an “Amen, sister”?

Changes in Teaching, Educational Reform, No Child Left Behind, Teacher-World's Blog, state achievement tests Diane Ravitch, NCLB, standardized tests, students, teachers

Wow! Have you read anything written by Diane Ravitch? The latest neatoday magazine had a lengthy article written by her which answers a lot of questions about NCLB and Obama’s policies to “reform” NCLB. Over the next few blogs, I will be going over some of the interesting facts she presents regarding what has become, for most teachers and principals, a very heated issue.

Diane Ravitch is an educational historian who was appointed to public office under both Presidents Bush and Clinton and is a former United States Assistant Secretary of Education. As such, she was a strong proponent of NCLB when it was originally proposed, but her opinion about Bush’s educational reform has dramatically reversed itself in recent years. This is important for us to keep in mind: she was not against it from the start but has become disillusioned with it over time. This gives her comments, in my opinion, far more credibility.

In this article, Ms. Ravitch discusses how recent educational reform was born. She points a finger at “The Billionaire Boys’ Club”; foundations like the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the Walton Family Foundation that have taken a keen interest in failing schools and low test scores leveraging their way into a position of influence in American education. As she says, “There is something fundamentally antidemocratic about relinquishing control of the public education policy agenda to private foundations run by society’s wealthiest people. These foundations, no matter how worthy and high-minded, are not subject to public oversight or review, as a public agency would be. They have taken it upon themselves to reform public education, perhaps in ways that would never survive the scrutiny of voters in any district or state.”

She continues to point out that, while public schools and teachers are being held to an incredible degree of scrutiny and accountability, these foundations have no accountability whatsoever. This means that there is no consequence to them if a policy they have advocated should fail, but the schools that had to administer that failed policy may face consequences.

The goal of these foundations seems to be to privatize public education as much as possible. They point to the few charter schools that were successful in 2009, as the role models for educational reform. (Interestingly, out of the 4,600 charter schools operating in 2009, only about 300 were visibly successful.) Now, Diane makes a good point. If more charter schools are introduced into urban areas where poverty abounds, these schools “will enroll the motivated children of the poor, while the regular public schools will become schools of last resort for those who never applied or were rejected. The regular public schools will enroll a disproportionate share of students with learning disabilities and students who are classified as English-language learners; they will enroll the kids from the most troubled home circumstances, the ones with the worst attendance records and the lowest grades and test scores.”

Ms. Ravitch makes the point that privatizing public schools is as ludicrous as privatizing police and fire departments. And she predicts the demise of public education if we do not stand up to politicians and these wealthy “reformers”. She closes this section of her article with a valid argument for public schools when she states, “As we lose neighborhood public schools, we lose the one local institution where people congregate and mobilize to solve local problems, where individuals learn to speak up and debate and engage in democratic give-and-take with their neighbors.”

A sobering thought in sobering economic times. Just think back to your public school education and all of the community events that were inspired by your school: band, choir, school plays, athletic events, science fairs, art shows, etc. These are the kinds of things that tests can’t measure, but they most assuredly build character and dedication, and for some, lead to eventual careers. And these are the kinds of things that build community.

I, for one, will continue to be vocal about my love for and dedication to public education, as Diane Ravitch is doing. What about you?

Educational Reform, No Child Left Behind, Teacher-World's Blog Diane Ravitch, Educational Reform, NCLB, privatizing education, public education

Over the next few blogs, I ask for your indulgence as I write about some very interesting articles which appeared in the latest neatoday magazine (August/September 2010). This first blog pertains to an article that appeared regarding merit pay.

This short article was entitled “Merit Pay Myths”, and it focused on whether merit pay has been proven to increase student test scores or student achievement. The prevailing belief by supporters of merit pay is that the promise of bonuses or increased salaries will inspire teachers to work more diligently to get their students to perform at the levels that are necessary to show academic excellence, particularly as evidenced by higher test scores. One of the assumptions that those who advocate the need for merit pay make, in my opinion erroneously, is that teachers are inspired by the higher pay check, and will not work as diligently without holding out that carrot. Let’s get real for a moment! If teachers were inspired by a higher pay check, they would never have entered the teaching profession, which is notorious for being an underpaid vocation. Am I right?

Another issue I have always had with merit pay is that at a time when school systems everywhere are being asked to engage in collaboration and mentoring to improve student performance, which involves utilizing and sharing each other’s effective techniques, I believe merit pay could lead to a completely different outcome. I fear the tendency for some teachers who are highly effective in their teaching strategies and therefore receiving merit pay, might be to guard their strategies so as to guarantee continued monetary rewards, thus leading to competition rather than collaboration. I have argued against merit pay for these and other reasons.

So, what did the latest study completed by Mathematica Policy Research find? According to this article, these researchers looked at Chicago’s Teacher Advancement Project, which has been operating for three years now getting its money from the federal Teacher Incentive Fund, and they found that merit pay “had no impact on test scores or teacher retention rates”. Over three years and no improvement? Does that seem like good news for merit pay advocates? The article concludes by saying, “In its defense, federal officials said they ‘can’t expect immediate results’.” Okay, but shouldn’t there be some improvement after three years? It just leaves me wondering: how many years does it take before merit pay pays off?

Educational Reform, Merit Pay for Teachers, Teacher's Unions, Teacher-World's Blog merit pay, NEA, teachers

This is a follow-up blog from the article in Forbes, June 7th edition, as promised. While I recommend that you read the article, “What Educators Are Learning from Money Managers”, for yourself, in case you don’t get the chance I would like to explain a little bit more about these charter schools in New York and Connecticut, how they operate, and how this might translate to public education. (See previous blog, “What Forbes Magazine Can Teach Public Schools”)

First, clearly the charter schools mentioned in the article have resources that most public schools do not, especially in terms of technology and the ability to offer teachers a higher income than traditional public schools can. So, how do they accomplish this? Well, Achievement First, the nonprofit discussed in my last blog,”has a $60 million budget and 17 schools with 4,500 students, making it the equivalent of a good-size school district. The company spends less than 10% of its budget on central administrative costs, compared with 15% to 25% at most urban school districts…The savings get spent at the school level. Teachers receive higher salaries-and help.” A typical ratio of “helpers” is about 23 teachers to 5 administrators, which includes deans and coaches. So, in other words, they pay teachers well, but the expectation is that they will be continually coached and trained to ensure that they are successful at closing the gaps in education and proving statistically that their students are making constant progress.

One would assume that teachers would be drawn to these schools due to the promise of a higher salary, but it sounds like a rigorous program. Achievement First tries to draw in young and creative teachers who have been in programs like Teach for America. While they get paid more, they work 10-hour days and the school year is longer. “Roughly 10% to 15% of its teachers quit each year; another 5% or so are fired for poor performance, compared with 9% attrition and 4.4% dismissal rates for public schools.” I can’t help but wonder if there is a higher burn-out rate due to the longer day and longer school year. Frankly, I find the concept of a 10-hour day outrageous. Not only would it be mentally and physically exhausting for both students and teachers, but it would make it extremely difficult for students to be involved in any outside activities such as sports, scouts, or any other outside lessons and would take away from family time as well. Likewise it would be restrictive for teachers. It would take a fair amount of sacrifice on everyone’s part, and therefore, this is one aspect of these programs which I would not advocate.

The article ends on a sad note for public educators like myself when it states, “It’s lamentable how many defective products the U.S. education industry sends out of its $660 billion factory. But it’s encouraging to see that there are ways to boost the output.” Then let’s really boost the output! Apply what is applicable to public schools nationally. Share the wealth, and let all students reap the benefits. If our goal as a nation is to send out young people who are adroit and capable of competing in our global economy, and we have evidence that the techniques to do so may be available, then it behooves us to make these techniques available to all. Hook up all schools to software that will do for public education what it is apparently doing in these charter schools; giving teachers the data and the resources to best meet students’ academic needs.

Changes in Teaching, Educational Reform, High Caliber Schools, Teacher-World's Blog Achievement First, charter schools, education reform, Forbes, public education

The June 7, 2010 edition of Forbes featured an article entitled “What Schools Can Learn from Money Managers”. If you can pick it up and read it, I would strongly recommend that you do so, as it is well worth reading. In the next few blogs, I will be discussing some of the important concepts addressed in this article.

The article zeroes in on Achievement First, a nonprofit out of New Haven, Connecticut, which operates 17 charter schools in Connecticut and New York and is described as “more like an information-driven company than an old-fashioned school district”. The emphasis in these schools is on closing educational gaps, particularly among African American students and students from low income households, showing yearly progress as well as successful passage of state achievement tests, and increasing graduation and college-bound percentages.

In a nutshell, here is a basic outline of how these charter schools are attaining success. First, children in kindergarten through second grade are given one-on-one reading comprehension tests which are graded on a scale of 1 to 12. If the results indicate that the entire class struggled on the tested concept, teachers would reteach that concept. “But if individual students fall behind, the school pulls them out into separate groups for intensive instruction on their individual weak points. The extra lessons can be delivered on a computer or during a lunchtime tutoring session; the important thing is that teachers and administrators are constantly watching and adjusting their methods as test results come in.”

Additionally, some companies, like Wireless Generator, who have traditionally worked behind the scenes in the medical industry, are now in the business of providing software that teachers can use to regularly assess students in reading proficiency and math skills. “The software can differentiate causes of failure, distinguishing between students who are too slow and those who make errors; it can also flag kids (who don’t understand the concept).Then it prompts the teacher to group children at similar developmental stages together and provides proven instructional techniques for their particular problems.” How awesome! Software that is set up to evaluate individual weaknesses, compile lists of students with similar weaknesses, and recommend the appropriate remediation to resolve those weaknesses! And the article is quick to point out that this information is in no way used to discipline or call out a teacher, but rather to teach them how to be most effective in providing students with the skills they need to master problematic concepts.

It boggles my mind, and hopefully yours too, when I wonder whether such an approach to education is possible on the national level, which is the gist of this article! We have a head start already: nationally aligned standards. What if… now just imagine this…what if each school district was linked into a national data base like Wireless Generator with the same national assessments to be administered periodically throughout the year, and providing the same kind of feedback which is available to these charter schools? Imagine if teachers whose students scored well on an assessment were utilized to tutor those students at that grade level who were red flagged for that skill. Or, they could be used, along with the instructional techniques offered through the software, to help coach teachers at that grade level to work with students who were struggling. Imagine if we looked at our individual classes as the launching pad from which students would be moved throughout the tutoring time to different teachers in order to achieve the best results for all students. And imagine if all of this was orchestrated through a national program that all schools had access to rather than each school system doing their own thing and reinventing the wheel to develop formative assessments, evaluate test results, and decide what to do from there.

When I read about the success of these charter schools, I can’t help but be a little envious of the resources they have that most public schools do not. But, at the same time, it motivates me to use this information to get something going on a smaller scale in our school next year. Next year in our district, teachers will be meeting as a grade level once a week for both reading and math to look over results we are generating from formative assessments and use those results to plan effective teaching strategies to meet the needs of those students who are not achieving. After reading this article, I am hopeful that we might implement some of these same techniques. And in the meantime, I can always dream that at some point we will experience the kind of reform mentioned in Forbes on a national level.

Changes in Teaching, Educational Reform, High Caliber Schools, Teacher-World's Blog, teaching strategies Achievement First, assessments, charter schools, Forbes, public schools, Wireless Generator

On June 30th, and again on July 7th, press releases from the Department of Education itemized states which would be receiving funds through grants, the 2009 budget, and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. I confess to being awestruck at the amount of money being earmarked to states to protect teachers’ jobs, to turnaround low-performing schools, and to comply with the guidelines of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The further I got into the two press releases, the more questions I had. My hope is that someone from the Department of Education might read this blog and be able to answer these questions which I am respectfully putting out there:

* When our economy is so crippled and money is so tight, where is all of this money coming from, or are we all just going to be paying it back in taxes for years to come?
* Is this money earmarked for specific purposes, and are those purposes public knowledge?
* How can citizens attain this information as it pertains to their state?
* In what ways are states being made accountable for how the money they receive is being utilized?
* Is money being allocated equally to all school districts within each state or are funds mainly being funneled to low-achieving schools?
* Many of the states listed already received money from ARRA. Why are they receiving more money, and how can interested citizens be informed as to what was achieved from the first round of funds their states received?

Again, I am asking these questions as a concerned citizen as well as an involved educator. When we are talking about this much money, I think we would all agree that a high level of accountability and transparency are critical to ensure a successful result.

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, Educational Reform, Funding Education, Teacher-World's Blog American Recovery and Reinvestmenat Act, Department of Education, teachers' jobs, turnaround schools

Okay, I apologize but I am still not done discussing Arne Duncan’s speech to parents at the Annual National PTA Convention in June. So, like it or not, I will spend the next two blogs discussing my reaction to some of his other note-worthy points.

In his speech, Mr. Duncan stated that in his numerous visits to school districts throughout the country he found that parents and teachers shared two common concerns about public school education. According to him, “First, they feared that schools were ‘teaching to the test.’ And second, they worried that the curriculum was narrowing, as school districts placed too much emphasis on boosting test scores on fill-in-the-bubble tests in math and English.” He acknowledged the current administration’s determination to deal with “a narrowing of the curriculum, and an over-reliance on fill-in-the bubble tests.”

And yet, we continue to hear about merit pay based on test scores, cutting teachers’ salaries based on test scores, and non-renewing teachers’ contractions based on test scores. So with so much riding on test scores, is it any wonder that teachers might feel the need to teach to the test? Is it any wonder that our curriculum is narrowing as what needs to be covered prior to the administration of these tests continues to increase? And does it come as a huge surprise that with less time to cover more material, if choices have to be made about what will be taught, the information that is not critical for the test will be pushed back for a later day?

This is the world that has been created for teachers and students due to the enormous emphasis that has been placed on one set of tests. If we don’t want education to narrow then we need to stop limiting how we measure student progress. Let’s pursue educational reform that would target the mapping of yearly progress for our students throughout the year, not just at one time during the year. And let teachers get back to what they entered the teaching profession to do: to instill within each student a love for learning and a desire to succeed.

Educational Reform, Teacher-World's Blog, state achievement tests Arne Duncan, limited education, PTA, state achievement tests

Have you heard that Pennsylvania is receiving $141 million to turn around its persistently lowest achieving schools? The announcement was made on June 9, by Arnie Duncan. According to the Department of Education, this money is part of the $3.5 billion made available to schools this spring as part of the 2009 budget and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. According to Duncan, “When a school continues to perform in the bottom five percent of the state and isn’t showing signs of growth or has graduation rates below 60 percent, something dramatic needs to be done. Turning around our worst performing schools is difficult for everyone but it is critical that we show the courage to do the right thing by kids.”

So, what does this mean for states like Pennsylvania who qualify for this money? Well, they have to follow one of these models in order to radically improve the educational systems in their states:

* TURNAROUND MODEL: Replace the principal, screen existing school staff, and rehire no more than half the teachers; adopt a new governance structure; and improve the school through curriculum reform, professional development, extending learning time, and other strategies.
* RESTART MODEL: Convert a school or close it and re-open it as a charter school or under an education management organization.
* SCHOOL CLOSURE: Close the school and send the students to higher-achieving schools in the district.
* TRANSFORMATION MODEL: Replace the principal and improve the school through comprehensive curriculum reform, professional development, extending learning time, and other strategies.

All of these, to varying degrees, are extremely radical steps which will ultimately be considered as threatening to the individuals involved in the affected schools. There are drawbacks to each, but let’s try to break it down. My first concern with the broad assumption that a school has to be turned around is precisely this: Is the school the problem, or is it the environment or the social decay in which the school is located that is the real culprit here? I continue to state, without equivocation, that until the environment these children live in changes, and it is not only acceptable but safe to go to school and get an education, no amount of intervention within the schools will be completely successful in turning these schools around. Having stated this obvious fact, for the rest of this blog, my purpose is to look a little deeper into these four methods to discern the pros and cons of each.

Clearly, the assumption of all of these approaches is that the principal has contributed through negligence or mismanagement to help create an environment which is not conducive to learning. In my opinion, principals should only be removed if careful examination of their record were to reveal inadequacies and failures. Otherwise, keep the administrator and work from there. And I have a real problem with the implied assumption with the Turnaround Method that the problem is the majority of the teaching staff. Why else is there a restriction that, at the most, only 50% of the teachers should stay on staff?

The School Closure method seems very unfair for so many reasons that it is hard to zero in on just one. First, it implies that everyone in that school was ineffective in the performance of their job. I find that impossible to fathom, let alone believe. And I can’t even imagine the navigational nightmare involved in redistributing all of these poor school-less children to other schools, not to mention what such an increase in student numbers would do to the schools which would have to accommodate the new arrivals. It just sounds like a total nightmare to me.

I refuse to address the Restart Model, so that leaves the Transformation Model. Of all of the above, I feel that this is the method that seems to be the fairest, although I wouldn’t feel that way if I was the principal. Let’s face it, is there any school anywhere that wouldn’t benefit from some transformation? What school would not turnaround with “comprehensive curriculum reform, professional development, and other strategies”?  (Notice that I took out the “extended learning time” because I have said in past blogs, and continue to maintain, that I think a longer school day is counterproductive. If any additional time is going to be tacked onto learning time, let it be adding on days to the school calendar not hours to each day.)

True turnaround of a school, in my humble opinion, can and should be accomplished with the original staff working together to bring about necessary change. Give teachers who have not been effective the opportunity to improve and grow. Then if they continue to be ineffective, let them go. Imagine the pride and solidarity that a successful transformation would create! These schools would serve as models to other schools that change is possible when there is money to support it and people working together to make it happen.

So, let the transformations begin! And good luck to all of you in Pennsylvania.

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, Changes in Teaching, Educational Reform, Funding Education, Teacher-World's Blog American Recovery and Reinvestmenat Act, Arnie Duncan, Department of Education, Educational Reform, turnaround schools

Now that school is over for the year and I have more time to contemplate what to look forward to in educational reform, here it is, as promised, but with a slight twist. I was going to write about what I thought was a more positive approach to Ohio’s round two RttT application, but upon deeper reading and rereading of the first application, I am feeling  some trepidation. Let me see if I can explain myself better.

When our school system was in the decision-making stage for round two trying to determine whether we wanted to jump on board, our union sent us a list of reasons to support or oppose the participation of local schools in round two. When I read the first statement of support, I was initially enthusiastic. Here it is: “Each participating LEA will develop its own (teacher) evaluation model. Districts, in partnership with their local unions, will develop evaluation systems that meet the criteria outlined in the preliminary scope of work. The Educator Standards Board is developing a model evaluation framework that districts may choose to use…(RTTT - Phase II Information and Clarifying Points, 2010)”

Yes, I thought! They are going to let local school systems work with their unions to come up with a fair way to evaluate teachers. Then I read a little closer, and got snagged on these tiny little words: “that meet the criteria outlined in the preliminary scope of work”. Hum…What does that mean? So I went back to the original RttT summary, and then I got really concerned. Here is what I read: “ODE will collaborate with LEAs and teachers unions to develop a teacher evaluation model that includes annual evaluations, provides timely and constructive feedback, includes student growth as a significant factor-”. And that’s where I stop. Now, let me be clear. I totally agree that we should be responsible as teachers to show student growth, that is, after all, why we are there, but if that growth is going to be solely or even partially measured by state achievement tests, I have a problem with RttT.

Don’t get me wrong! Measure student progress, by all means! That should be part of a teacher’s evaluation. But do it in a variety of ways. Make common formative assessments which can be administered regularly. Use these to chart student progress, and use these results for grade level collaboration, mentoring, and planning. Establish grade level teams where teachers work together to study those assessment results in order to better facilitate student progress, and let teachers’ willingness to work together on these teams be another important aspect of teacher evaluation. And there are so many other worthy factors in determining teacher effectiveness. But never, never base my effectiveness as a teacher on one test for which students have no ownership. And without the new summary for Ohio’s RttT round two in front of me, I have no idea what criterion will be proposed to determine student progress. Hence, I have legitimate misgivings and concerns.

So I appreciate the OEA who clearly stated: “Although student outcomes can be considered as one of several criteria for assessing the practice of teachers and principals, OEA believes as most researchers do that the use of student outcomes as the primary indicator of success is inappropriate to achieve the desired result of a valid, fair and robust educator evaluation system.” Now this is language I can agree with! What about you?

Changes in Teaching, Educational Reform, Teacher's Unions, Teacher-World's Blog, state achievement tests, teacher evaluations ODE, RttT, state achievement tests, teacher evaluations