If Jaun has 6 plantains, and Maria takes four of them, and it takes two plantains to make one serving of aranitas, how many servings can Juan ask his abuela to make?Those of you who teach young kids know where this is going: children are concrete thinkers; they just don't make the transition to abstract thinking very well. Change "plantains" to "ground beef," and aranitas to "hamburgers," and you'll undoubtedly raise the scores of kids in my district (although a lot of my kids probably think hamburgers come from a frozen patty tree).
This page is for discussion. The discussion can be intense, but it should not be acrimonious. This page is not for snark (though a good turn of phrase is appreciated), barbs, insults or incriminations. Everyone here wants to help kids. There are often differences of opinion about how that should be done. Feelings are as welcome as facts, but keep it civil.Here's how to keep it "civil," apparently:
I go up against the president of the teachers union in New Jersey all the time, right? She's got a bad haircut and terrible fashion, right?How "civil."
Anonymity here is generally frowned upon. Anonymity creates fights, not debate. Standing up for what you believe in is hard, and that's why so few people do it. Here, we're trying to create an environment where you can be you, because who you are - your experience and voice - matters. To wit: in April of 1963, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. did not send an anonymous letter from the Birmingham jail.Gosh, whoever could he be thinking of?
What kind of job do you think the standardized tests used in New Jersey schools do at accurately measuring students’ abilities – excellent, good, only fair, or poor?
What kind of job do you think the standardized tests used in New Jersey schools do at accurately measuring the job teachers are doing – excellent, good, only fair, or poor?
"Permanent" job? That's just not true; and yet, 42%, even with this push poll, STILL endorse tenure. Maybe they've been reading about what's happening in Elizabeth.After working in a New Jersey public school for three years, a teacher is either given tenure or let go. A teacher who gets tenure after this trial period is basically given a permanent job unless they engage in serious misconduct. Do you approve or disapprove of giving school teachers tenure?
Too bad this isn't what Christie proposes. The people against what's proposed above must be the ones who know this isn't what's on the table.One proposal currently being discussed would grant teachers limited tenure, which means they would be evaluated regularly even after getting tenure. If they fail an evaluation, they would be given up to three years to improve and regain their tenure. However, they could also be fired during this time if they do not improve. Do you approve or disapprove of this proposal?
Do you think the proposed education reforms in New Jersey will help close this achievement gap, make it even wider, or have no impact on the gap?
By over 2-to-1, people believe the "reforms" will not change anything, or make things worse.
- Close gap - 25%
- Make gap wider - 11%
- No impact - 41%
- (VOL) Depends - 7%
- (VOL) Don’t know - 16%
"Terrible" Education System Is Main ImpedimentThis can't possibly be right. Everyone on TV allowed to talk about education knows America sucks; and Wall Street agrees! That's why they're funding a "transformation" of our schools - you know, to get us to be more like the Chinese! Like Whitney Tilson wants us to be! Yes, he does!
11. (SBU) However, Lai identified China's "terrible" educational system as presenting a serious impediment toward achieving a shift to a more knowledge-based economy. The current system promotes copying and pasting over creative and independent thought. Lai said that the system rewards students for thinking "within a framework" in order to get the grade. He described the normal process undertaken by students when writing as essentially collecting sentences from various sources without any original thinking. He compared the writing ability of a typical Chinese Phd as paling in comparison to his "unskilled" staff during his decade of work with the IFC in Africa.
At least 23 states have made huge cuts to public education spending this year, and school districts are scrambling to find ways to cope. School foundations, parent-teacher organizations and local education funds supported by business groups and residents contribute at least $4 billion per year to help public schools throughout the country.On the other:
Look, you can't expect the "producers" to subsidize these lazy, parasitic students, what with their endless calls for sports and the arts and computers and reasonably sized classes and text books and teachers with college degrees who have health insurance.
The 400 richest Americans used to pay 30% of their income on the average to Uncle Sam. Today, they pay 18% on the average, according to Steve Rattner, a Wall Street financier, who just presented these figures on Mornings With Joe,MSNBC.The main reason for the drop in their tax rate of some 40% is the tax cuts by George Bush in 2003, taking the rate paid on dividends and capital gains down to 15%. This reduction in the investment class’s taxes powered the bull market in stocks from the fall of 2003 until the fall of 2007.
Using value-added and other types of growth model estimates in teacher evaluations is probably the most controversial and oft-discussed issue in education policy over the past few years.
Many people (including a large proportion of teachers) are opposed to using student test scores in their evaluations, as they feel that the measures are not valid or reliable, and that they will incentivize perverse behavior, such as cheating or competition between teachers. Advocates, on the other hand, argue that student performance is a vital part of teachers’ performance evaluations, and that the growth model estimates, while imperfect, represent the best available option.
As Atrios said the other day: when you're confronted with a "Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right..." column, watch out.I am sympathetic to both views. In fact, in my opinion, there are only two unsupportable positions in this debate: Certainty that using these measures in evaluations will work; and certainty that it won’t. Unfortunately, that’s often how the debate has proceeded – two deeply-entrenched sides convinced of their absolutist positions, and resolved that any nuance in or compromise of their views will only preclude the success of their efforts. You’re with them or against them. The problem is that it’s the nuance – the details – that determine policy effects.
Matt, buddy - that's what we're talking about, isn't it? That's the entire issue. Nobody is against "well-designed teacher evaluations"; we're against poorly-designed ones. Do you think the evaluations people like Michelle Rhee and Chris Christie and Arne Duncan are selling are any good?Let’s be clear about something: I’m not aware of a shred of evidence – not a shred – that the use of growth model estimates in teacher evaluations improves performance of either teachers or students.Now, don’t get me wrong – there’s no direct evidence that using VA measures has a positive effect because there’s really no evidence at all. This stuff is all very new, and it will take time before researchers get some idea of the effects. There is some newer evidence that well-designed teacher evaluations can have positive effects on teacher performance (see here, for example), but these systems did not include test-based measures. [emphasis mine]
Given this, is it so extreme to say "don't use test scores to make high-stakes decisions about teachers"? Is that a position that is just as far out of the rational center as saying "fire and pay teachers based on test scores"?This situation would seem to call for not simple “yes/no” answers, but rather proceeding carefully, using established methods of policy evaluation and design. That is not what is happening. Thanks in large part to Race to the Top, almost half of public school students in the U.S. are now enrolled in states/districts that already have or will soon have incorporated growth estimates into their evaluations. Most (but not all) of these states and districts are mandating that test-based productivity measures comprise incredibly high proportions of evaluation scores, and most have failed to address key issues such as random error and the accuracy of their data collection systems. Many refused to allow for a year or two of piloting these new systems, while few have commissioned independent evaluations of these systems’ effects on achievement and other outcomes, which means that, in most places, we’ll have no rigorous means of assessing the impact of these systems.[emphasis mine]
Dude, my side isn't implementing ANYTHING! The corporate "reformers" are doing all the implementing! They want to radically change the way teachers are employed, paid, and fired on the basis of this stuff - not us teachers! And they want to do so without any of the caveats you're suggesting.In my view, this failure to address basic issues reflects extreme polarization between the “sides” in this debate. When positions are black and white, details and implementation get the short end of the stick.
Matt, if you were here, I'd make you look me in the eye while I say this:On the other “side” of the divide, any admission that growth measures might play even a small, responsible role in evaluations risks the dreaded slippery slope, while a cautious acknowledgment that standardized testing data do provide “actionable” information somehow represents a foot in the door for an evil technocratic regime that will sap public education of all its humanity. [emphasis mine]
Recently, I was in a meeting with a colleague from the public sector and the subject of education advocacy organizations came up --- in reference to those groups working nationwide as well as those already in or slated to come to New Jersey. Before the discussion even started, my colleague stopped and rolling his eyes said, "Oh that's right...I've heard you advocacy people don't play nice in the sandbox together." This surprised me, as I hadn't realized education advocates had a reputation of not working well together. My colleague, however, assured me that this was common knowledge.
Why it's hard to play nice: If you think about it, the ugly truth is there seem to be many reasons education advocates might not get along --- all of which tend to involve resources. There is a limited donor pool interested in advocacy, a limited number of political leaders willing to take on the issues, a limited number of experts who can speak with authority to those issues, and a limited attention span of the public and media to compete for. Even more, it's difficult to prove worth and earn credibility when so many factors play into the outcome of education policy and legislation. [emphasis mine]The date of this post is August 11, 2011. We've been watching B4K get a lot of attention and press this summer.
Additional opinions at the table make for higher quality policies. For example, the American Federation of Teacher's was a key partner in Colorado's drafting of the "Great Teachers and Leaders Bill" (SB 191), which they helped ensure would set a national standard for other states to follow. At DFER, we're encouraged to have open dialogues with partners, honest conversations about the opportunities and challenges, and to share all relevant information. When united by common goals, playing the partner role verses the competitor role leads to the greatest outcomes. Perhaps this is why I was so surprised by my colleague's comment.I'm glad to hear that DFER is coming out strongly against Governor Chris Christie's attack on the NJEA and his refusal to work with them on crafting policy. I'm sure they will hold him to account...
In New Jersey, the success of education reform will not be to the credit of one group, one administration, or one bill...no matter how strong. Success will only be realized when a significant collection of people, groups, and leaders come together and play nice while working towards the same goal. It starts - very importantly - with individual legislators; those legislators who are willing to vote yes or no, those who take on ownership as a bill sponsor and the responsibility for the drafting process, and the legislative leadership willing to launch critical and oftentimes difficult dialogues. The crux of education reform policy at the state level comes down to the collective and bold efforts of legislators at a very personal and individual level. For advocates, if we can't reign ourselves in, play nice, and be the best support to our legislators, it will be to the detriment of all we fight for.
Democrats for Education Reform, a political action committee that has put hard cash behind its reform crusade in New York State, quietly opened a New Jersey affiliate in February.
Its goal is to peel Democrats away from the grip of the New Jersey Education Association, the powerful teachers union. That will take communication (white papers, radio ads, door-to-door campaigning, if necessary) and eventually investment — checks written directly to legislators' campaign accounts.
"I haven't identified our top 10 legislators who are for us and our top 10 legislators who are being detrimental," said Kathleen Nugent, the group's New Jersey director. But over time, the group will target "who is supporting their kids and who is supporting the unions."
The national group now has chapters is six states and is stacked with executives of hedge funds — Anchorage Capital Partners ($8 billion under management), Greenlight Capital ($6.8 billion) and Pershing Square Capital Management ($5.5 billion).Hey, I thought everyone was supposed to come to the table! I thought Colorado was showing us the way by inviting the union in. But I guess that's the Rockies; here in Jersey, we have to target the union supporters, because everyone knows teachers unions can't possibly have the best interests of kids at heart.
My point here is not that these are bad schools, or that they are necessarily engaging in any particular immoral or unethical activity. But rather, that a significant portion of the apparent success of schools like North Star is a) attributable to the demographically different population they serve to begin with and b) attributable to the patterns of student attrition that occur within cohorts over time.Click through to see Baker's entire analysis. Still, for a school that has 55% of it's students qualify for free lunch, getting this close to the state average in the SAT English and essay tests - and beating the math average - is no small feat.
While not a measure of the overall quality of the school, the rating can reveal the level of a high school’s commitment to preparing average students for college.Well, if it's not a measure of overall quality, then why are you ranking the schools? Aren't these rankings going to be inevitably interpreted this way? Why do this exercise in the first place?
Add to this the fact that 40% of new teachers never earn tenure after the standard three years, and you can see that this ad is a steaming load of dung.Still, most agreed that the small numbers of tenure charges filed with the state are really only a fraction of the cases of low-performing teachers for whom the formal filing is a last resort, a vast majority of them eased out of the classroom as the complaints mount.'You don’t see these statistics, but I would say that hundreds of teachers who receive the first tenure charges resign,” said Eugene Liss, general counsel to the Newark Teachers Union. "Maybe the case didn’t go all the way to Trenton, but many who sit with us, they end up leaving the profession."Newark has a system in which teachers receiving unsatisfactory ratings are required to undergo additional training through Seton Hall University. Last year, it was 90 teachers, all but 12 of whom returned to the classroom, he said. Those 12 all resigned, none by tenure charges. [emphasis mine]
The owner of this page, B4K is advancing education reform. We will not allow posts from un-named, un-verified, un-credible sources. This blogger has repeatedly attacked this organization and it's members at a personal and un-factual level. We will allow posts from legitimate media sources."Un-factual"? Is that a word? Will the Merit Pay Fairy take away a quarter if one of my kids uses it on a bubble test?
Don't believe me? Don't think Derrell's "movement" isn't primarily about Derrell? Well, look at this slide from his Powerpoint:And, yes, I had some fun with him using the word "right" incessantly; I guess he can have fun with my constantly ending sentences with prepositions. Whatever - nothing here's risen above the level of an Oxford debate or a Dean Martin Roast. Snark is part of the bloggers art, and I think I've been pretty restrained, thank you.
Nice - Derrell is all "About Advancing the People that Advance the Reforms": namely, Derrell. Hey, it's not like I'm questioning the man's motives: he's incredibly upfront about it.
I'm not going to play chicken-and-egg here. He's going to take his swipes, and guess what? I'm going to take mine.@@Dyrnwyn @jerseyjazzman how abt just an answer of any type? What r ur qualifications? Don't NJ parents, kids & educators deserve an answer?
stopthefreezeNJ @jerseyjazzman My qualifications? I care about your ability to move the needle on student achievement more than you do.
B4NJKids-Better Education for New Jersey Kids Laura, this is Derrell and not the moderator. This page is about discussion and not bile. You want to reference the references, that's fine. You want to disagree, that's actually welcome. What's not allowed here is a universe of ad hominem attacks and speculation about the motives of the folks who work for B4K. One of our trustees has been called a psychopath and I won't go into what has been written about me (and counterintuitively I want to emphasize this isn't about any individual...it is about a movement to change the status quo). Perhaps it's easy to create a big fiction (not accusing you of doing it) because conspiracies play well...but that's not what we are about. You want to get together sometime to discuss it...I am more than willing...but we're not going to be an amplifier for unacceptable attacks on the staff, their integrity, or their intentions. I hope that explains our position. Enjoy the rest of the day. --DerrellOK, look - I'll stand behind anything I wrote, and if I really am off base, I'll apologize and retract it.
I'm going to stop right here and make a few things clear: I am not criticizing LCCS. It's probably a great school, and certainly the deserving children who attend there should be proud of their accomplishments. Further, I am not criticizing charter schools. As I've stated here many times, I believe they have their place; I started my career in a charter school.Go back and read the entire thing, and tell me where I've stepped over the line. Tell me how this is "unacceptable."
I am also not criticizing Skinner for working at a charter school, nor for sending her children to one. Every parent has to do what is best for her own child, and Skinner obviously cares enough about her own kids' education to work on their school's behalf. In fact, I think you could make a pretty good argument that staying in Jersey City and getting involved in her own children's school is commendable in comparison to her friends who fled to the suburbs.
No, my problem is this: Shelley Skinner has gone beyond advocating for her own school. She now occupies the world of corporate "reform," where charters are sold under false pretenses:
As we in New Jersey know, Rhee is partnering, to great fanfare, with Derrell Bradford's B4K:In his new book, Class Warfare, Steven Brill confirms that Michelle Rhee is being funded by Rupert Murdoch. Murdoch, CEO of News Corp., is currently embroiled in a growing cell phone hacking scandal. Rhee’s mentor, Joel Klein, serves as Murdoch’s chief legal counsel. News Corp is the parent company of far-right FoxNews.According to credible sources, Rhee took as much as $50M from Murdoch.
The FBI is currently investigating whether or not Murdoch's News Corp sought to hack the phones of September 11 victims. I don't have to tell anyone what that means for the people of New Jersey.As a 501(c)(4) B4K won’t have to disclose its donors. Bradford confirmed back in June that Tepper and Fournier are the lone funding sources but that may have changed with the new link up with StudentsFirst.Bradford told the Star Ledger the partnership "should help us fund raise and work on reform in the most productive way possible." He said the two groups will work on "grassroots organizing and political activities in the fall, supporting reform candidates running for election."
