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

Let’s talk about other reasons why so many school systems in Ohio chose not to be a part of Race to the Top. I already stated in my last blog that it was poorly publicized. But I will discuss three other reasons why I believe so many school districts in Ohio turned down this opportunity.

First, something I touched on a little in my previous blog, there were rumors circulating that this new plan would probably change the way teachers are currently compensated, based on years served and graduate classes and degrees achieved, and replace this with merit pay. This is a troublesome issue for teachers for a variety of reasons, which I have addressed in previous blogs. But let me lay out a few concerns that I have with merit pay. First, I do not feel that it is appropriate or fair to link merit pay to test scores as there are so many factors, over which teachers have no control, that influence student achievement on state tests. Home issues and the degree of parental involvement are two major factors in student performance. Second, I feel that merit pay creates competition between teachers when what we should be striving for is collaboration. If Joe Teacher has a system that is highly effective, and he knows he will be paid more bucks for his effectiveness, is he likely to share his techniques if that might mean sharing the bucks as well? Some certainly would, but I am afraid many would not. I can see using merit pay to reward schools which have consistently been effective in showing AYP in all areas of their student population.  That makes sense because it inherently builds a network of staff working in unison to be as productive as possible across the board. That is what is best for students. But I do not believe merit pay for individual teachers will create better schools.

Another item which I believe made it virtually impossible for many school systems to participate in RttT, including my own, was the requirement that all LEAs who joined in had to agree to match the funds that they would receive from the government. In our current economy, how likely is that? At a time when so many schools are operating in the red, this seems like an impossible stipulation, and I am sure it kept many school districts like ours from participating.

Finally, I believe some school systems bowed out when they learned that Ohio is proposing to allocate more than $35 million to hire 50 new Ohio Department of Education staffers, including some with annual salaries in excess of $100,000 per year. Again, at a time when districts throughout Ohio are being forced to make drastic cuts just to stay solvent, this is almost a slap in the face. Let’s put that money where it belongs and where it can do the most good. It just seems mismanaged to me, but what do I know?

Educational Reform, Funding Education, Merit Pay for Teachers, Teacher-World's Blog, state achievement tests Add new tag, Department of Education, LEAs, merit pay, Race to the Top, school reform

First, I am curious to know how many of you out there even knew about Race to the Top. I think it was one of the best kept secrets. And I’m not sure why that would be the case. This should be a good thing, right? So why wasn’t there more publicity about it?

The only reason I knew anything about RttT was because I am always searching the internet for important education news that might be interesting to blog about. So I read about it quite awhile ago and blogged about my excitement that possibly, for the first time, the Department of Education was going to get it right, since one of the goals was to align the math and reading standards nationally from elementary school up to college. I was very excited about the prospect of common standards and what that could mean for teachers. Aside from that, I heard nothing about RttT. We received no information at our schools about it. Such an important venture that would involve school systems throughout our state, and we were never adequately informed? I don’t get it!

A few months ago, we got an email from our union president asking us if we wanted to be a part of this plan. The first problem I had with this was that it was hard to commit to a plan that you had never seen. One of our concerns was that it might involve merit pay, something most of us do not support, and that it also might interfere with the union and its rights. Due to these issues, we voted down the opportunity to participate in this contest. But, admittedly, I don’t think most of us even realized that what we were turning down was the Race to the Top. I didn’t connect the two events either because it wasn’t expressed clearly in the email.

Recently, I explained to some of my co-teachers what we had turned down and what it means for our careers. That will be the topic of a future blog, but my point in this blog is this: why was the opportunity to be involved in educational reform, which is supposed to be so important, so poorly explained and why was there so little publicity? Every school system in participating states should have been showered with information about Race to the Top long before we were ever asked to take a vote. Additionally, it seems ridiculous to sign on to a plan that you have never seen. The order seems convoluted. Wouldn’t it have made more sense to study the proposal before committing to it? Am I crazy or does it feel a little like a trap to you? Would you ever sign a legal document that would affect your future without reading it over first?

I am hoping that before states enter into Phase 2, some of these issues will be ironed out and school systems will be better equipped to make the decision to either accept or decline the opportunity to be involved in Race to the Top. We will just have to wait and see.

I am also curious how many of you who are reading this are in a school system which is currently participating in Race to the Top. Please let us know, and tell us how you were informed about RttT,

Educational Reform, Merit Pay for Teachers, Teacher's Unions, Teacher-World's Blog Department of Education, Educational Reform, Race to the Top, teacher unions

I have been blogging about the upcoming meetings which will be held to discuss the assessment process currently in place and ways to improve it. I wish I had seen anywhere in the statements made by either Arne Duncan or the Department of Education the need to revamp the social studies achievement tests. Let me state my case, and feel free to tell me if you agree or not.

One of the issues we have in Ohio, which may or may not be true of all states’ achievement tests, is that so much of our social studies test at the fifth grade level is a fourth grade test, in that it is based on material covered in Ohio history in fourth grade. Now, I understand the rationale that students should remember what they learned the year before and build on that knowledge the next year. But Ohio history and United States history involve two completely different curriculums, and the only time they converge is when we talk about the Mid West region or historical events that occurred in Ohio. Therefore, to ask students on a fifth grade achievement test to recall very specific information about Ohio inventors or battles and other events that occurred in Ohio seems both unfair and unnecessary. How many of us could remember specific details about events we learned about a year ago? Does this really test mastery of the social studies standards?

These tests contain many questions which, in my opinion and other teachers I have spoken to as well, have little or nothing to do with understanding the foundations upon which our nation is built. We should be assessing students’ broader knowledge of important concepts pertaining to:
* the exploration and colonization of our nation and how this affected the Native Americans who lived here
* our fight for independence
* the formation of a workable government through the Constitution of the United States
* the branches of government and how they effectively check and balance each other
* citizen’s rights and responsibilities
* a basic knowledge of economy
* immigration; reasons for it and how it shaped our nation
* how industrialization, transportation, and expansion changed our nation

If our social studies test would address these issues in a broad way, I believe it would be a truer test of how well students understand the country in which they live. Shouldn’t the goal in teaching social studies be to educate the younger citizens to have pride in their country and instill a desire to be responsible, contributing members of the society they will play an active role in when their education is complete? If that is our goal, then shouldn’t our test reflect that goal? Or would we prefer citizens who can recall the Battle of Fallen Timbers and what the most important outcome of that battle was?

Don’t get me wrong. I think it is admirable to have the ability to recite specific and detailed information about the past. I am just not sure that this is the criterion upon which we wish to base mastery of social studies. The time has come to revamp these tests with the true goal in mind; to create citizens who have a solid understanding of their nation and a strong desire to serve it as contributing members. Otherwise, I think we’ve missed the mark.

Educational Reform, Teacher-World's Blog, state achievement tests Add new tag, Arne Duncan, assessment testing, citizens, Department of Education, Educational Reform, social studies achievement tests

There is some encouraging news from the U.S. Department of Education, where they have announced that they will be holding several meetings with representatives from each state to focus on the need for educational reform in the following areas:
* Adopting college- and career-ready standards and assessments;
* Recruiting, developing, rewarding, and retaining effective teachers and principals;
* Building data systems that measure student success and inform teachers and principals about how they can improve their practices; and
* Turning around our lowest-performing schools.

Over the next few blogs, I would like to address some of these goals separately, but, since the first one has me most excited, I will start there.

In Arne Duncan’s speech to the National Conference of State Legislatures on December 10, he stated, “Forty-eight states have already signed on this year to a state-led effort to develop common, college and career-ready standards in English and math. This common core standards movement originated in the states, and it is very much a state effort. Just a year ago, no one would have anticipated that 48 states would agree to work toward common standards. This is the right thing for children, for our nation’s long-term economic health, and it is courage in action.”

Wow! Is it possible that we are finally going to get it right? That standards from the elementary level up will be commonly aligned, taught, assessed, and used to create a framework that will culminate in the academic structure of our colleges and universities? Is this possible, or is it too good to be true? We are so used to working autonomously that we have difficulty even picturing what a unified educational system would look like. Imagine a nation in which every state had the same standards and the same tools with which to assess successful mastery of these common standards. Imagine all students taking the same achievement tests and the opportunity that would create for better interpretation of test data. Imagine having a common way to formulate, assess, and use the data collected from these tests to better educate our children. Imagine the benefits of national collaboration to attain best results in our schools.  Imagine how much easier it would be for students who moved from state to state to continue their progress seamlessly.

Forgive my excitement, but the potential here is staggering! And for the first time in a long time, I am waiting with anxious anticipation to hear what comes out of these meetings because these educational reforms might actually have the power to reform our educational system for the better. So, let’s keep our fingers crossed, or if you believe in prayer, let’s do that, too. It’s been a bumpy ride, but maybe; just maybe, it’s going to get a whole lot smoother.

Educational Reform, Teacher-World's Blog, state achievement tests assessments, career-ready standards, college standards, common standards, Department of Education, Educational Reform

On September 21, the U.S. Department of Education launched the “I Am What I Learn” Video Contest asking students to send in videos to YouTube about what education means to them and to their future. Over 600 videos were sent in to be judged by people just like you and I, and the top three winners got $1000 to use to further their dreams.

What an awesome idea, and what great videos from a lot of highly motivated young people! As a teacher, it was not only entertaining to watch these creatively diverse videos, but it filled me with hope as well. We do make a difference to our students. The things we teach them, the way we motivate them, the support we give them. Our efforts are not going unnoticed. What a great gift to teachers at this time of year to hear first-hand what education means to real kids! So, I am encouraging all of you, especially those of you who may be feeling that what you do is not as significant as you had hoped it would be, to sit back and enjoy some of these videos. I guarantee, you will be glad that you did. And you may just experience one of those special moments when you are powerfully reminded just how lucky you are to play a part in shaping children’s futures.

To watch these videos, go to: http://www.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/2009/12/12102009.html

Teacher-World's Blog Add new tag, Department of Education, students, teachers, Video contest

This school year started with a gift from the Department of Education for those of us who teach social studies in Ohio. Due to budget cuts, our state will not be administering the Social Studies Achievement Test for the next two years. Excuse me while I yell, “Yahhhhhhhh!” What a gift! Especially since those of us who administer the fifth grade version of this test feel that it is more of a fourth grade test then a fifth grade test anyway. So life is good, right?

Unfortunately, this news, while very welcome, is strongly reinforcing the downfall of state achievement tests. I have been bombarded with questions from my fellow social studies teachers about what I am teaching or not teaching this year. There has been talk of leaving out chunks of previously taught subject matter. And, to make matters worse, there is a general feeling from those who do not teach social studies, that those of us who do should be picking up the slack and volunteering our services in other ways.

First, whether we are administering tests for social studies or not, it is our school’s curriculum, not the tests, which dictate what we must teach, and this is based on our state standards. So why are teachers questioning what to cover this year? Before we administered these tests, were we not accountable for the board approved curriculum? Unfortunately, we are all so bombarded with the continual message that we must get our students to pass state tests, that it becomes our focal point.

Second, if we accept the premise that it is about teaching for mastery of the curriculum, it goes without saying that those of us who teach social studies will clearly be too busy covering our own curriculum to help other teachers cover theirs. So, while I am grateful for the test break, I respectfully decline any additional duties since my job really has not changed at all. I’m just breathing a little easier for the next few years and enjoying teaching social studies a little bit more.

Changes in Teaching, Teacher-World's Blog, state achievement tests Department of Education, OAT, social studies, state budget cuts, state testing

In my first blog concerning President Obama’s speech to our nation’s children scheduled to air on Tuesday, I touched primarily on the reaction from our parents over the upcoming speech and the decision made by our school system as a result. While some of the anger expressed by parents was purely political in nature, in fairness to parents, some of it was undoubtedly fueled by the Department of Education’s suggested lesson plans for teachers to use as follow-up activities after the speech. Before I even discuss the initial lesson plans that were suggested, can we address the obvious? Isn’t the Department of Education a non-political entity? Their very involvement in this issue muddied the waters, as far as I am concerned. Did the DOE suggest lesson plans after Reagan or Bush’s speeches? Why this time?

At this point, what seemed like an important message to our students becomes something suspicious and tainted. Especially in light of the originally suggested activities. For example, in grades K-6, it was encouraged to have students “write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president. These would be collected and redistributed at an appropriate later date by the teacher to make students accountable to their goals.” Furthermore, it was suggested that teachers “build background knowledge about the president of the United States by reading books about presidents and Barack Obama”. Whoa!!!!! Suddenly a speech about doing well in school and staying in school takes on a whole new meaning! Are we concerned about our children, or are we influencing children to support Obama and his future policies? And should our children by writing letters about how to help their president or how to help their country? This seems like dangerous territory to me, as I’m sure it did to parents.

To the Department of Education’s credit, they did realize their mistake and amended the suggested lesson plans to something more palatable, but by then, the damage was done. As a result, many districts like mine are probably being told not to show this speech. And unfortunately, if the message is powerful, which is very likely knowing President Obama’s style and eloquence, our students will be the losers. A sad ending to what I think was meant as an innocent and relevant appeal!

Teacher-World's Blog Department of Education, Obama, Obama's speech to students, parents, teachers