Teacher World

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

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

Over the next few weeks, I will be blogging about Race to the Top, the national contest to find creative ways to improve education in the United States. First, let me give you a brief summary of the goals of Race to the Top, or RttT, as it is called.

It all started last February with the signing of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 by President Obama. The purpose of this legislation is to “stimulate the economy, support job creation, and invest in critical sectors, including education. The ARRA lays the foundation for education reform by supporting investments in innovative strategies that are most likely to lead to improved results for students, long-term gains in school and school system capacity, and increased productivity and effectiveness”. This act is providing $4.35 billion in grant money to the RttT fund, to “encourage and reward states that are creating the conditions for education innovation and reform; achieving significant improvement in student outcomes, including making substantial gains in student achievement, closing achievement gaps, improving high school graduation rates, and ensuring student preparation for success in college and careers; and implementing ambitious plans in four core education reform areas:
 
Adopting standards and assessments that prepare students to succeed in college and the workplace and to compete in the global economy;

Building data systems that measure student growth and success, and inform teachers and principals about how they can improve instruction;

Recruiting, developing, rewarding, and retaining effective teachers and principals, especially where they are needed most; and

Turning around our lowest-achieving schools.”

The states chosen as finalists in this national competition are Colorado, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina and Tennessee. Winners will be chosen in April, and the school systems that were part of their state’s application process will be the models for implementing their detailed plan of recovery for their state.

Wow! Quite a venture with some awesome potential! If you haven’t read anything else about it, follow my link above, and do some other reading about it because, in my next blogs, I will be discussing my state’s plan and what I think of the process and the proposals. Interesting reading! Talk to you again after you’ve done your homework! Enjoy!

Educational Reform, Funding Education, High Caliber Schools, Teacher-World's Blog American Recovery and Reinvestmenat Act, education reform, President Obama, Race to the Top, state competition