Me and Tom Moran

I wrote an admittedly stinging piece over at Blue Jersey about Tom Moran's hagiographic treatment of David Tepper, the man behind the money behind the corporate reform movement in New Jersey. Moran actually posted a response, and I responded back in kind. You can follow the fun at the link.

I'll admit it: I've been very hard on the guy. And yes, I've been snarky. But it seems to have drawn his attention.

And it's not like he hasn't dished out plenty of the same himself. His reflexive disdain for unions is a constant refrain in his work, and it contrasts starkly with the laurels he throws Tepper's way.

But what bothers me more is how superficially he treats education reform. It actually flows nicely into his anti-union message: if a teachers union is against something, it must be good! Even if it really isn't.

So, yeah, I'm pretty cheesed at Moran and his writing on reform. I expect better from the largest newspaper in New Jersey. But I am willing to engage on the issues and drop the snark - if he will do the same. Which means we should hear a better argument for "reform" coming from the pages of the Star-Ledger than "people want it and the union doesn't!" That's dismissive of the NJEA and facile to boot.

I want to hear Moran explain how he's going to keep the cancer of cronyism oozing from Elizabeth out of the rest of the state if and when tenure is eliminated. I want to know why charter schools are such a panacea when even the operators of the few successful ones admit they can't replicate what they are doing on a large scale. I want to know how he proposes to deal with the Mack truck-sized errors in systems that use standardized tests to evaluate teachers.

And if he's going to try to defend his views with weak arguments, don't look for me to pull any punches. This stuff is deadly serious and I'm not about to sit back and let one of the best education systems in the country be destroyed without pushing back. If you really believe in this stuff, Tom, you'd better bring your A-game.

So: let's talk...

ADDING: I'm with Atrios when he says that newspaper website comments are probably the worst places on the interwebs. But check out the commenters on Moran's articles. I think he's seriously misjudged his readers.

"Overpaid" Teachers Redux

Yeesh...

The effects of this liability are already popping up: when Standard & Poor dropped New Jersey’s credit rating in February, the first explanation given was “concern regarding the stresses from the state’s poorly funded pension system.” Such fallout can only be expected to spread, with Pew reporting that pension funds in 31 states were funded below 80 percent in 2009.

How did the situation get so grim? While the financial crisis and irresponsible politicians played their parts, the defined-benefit (DB) models dominant in the public sector are at the core of the problem. Most teachers, and public workers in general, are shielded from financial uncertainty by plans that guarantee them pensions that pay a set amount, regardless of economic or political changes. This places the risk that the fund will depreciate on the employer, whereas private sector employers tend to remove the employer’s risk and stabilize employer contributions through defined-contribution (DC) plans.  In this model, workers and/or employers contribute a set amount to their retirement fund without a definite expectation of return. [emphasis mine]

You know why they're shielded? BECAUSE IT WAS AN INCENTIVE TO TAKE LESS MONEY IN SALARY!!!


Everyone who is honest with themselves knows that college-educated teachers make less money than they could if they worked in the private sector. Why, then, do teachers (and cops and firefighters and all other public workers) take the job? Partially, because it's something they really want to do, and they're willing to earn less to do it.

But another motivation is that they base their compensation on future earnings. They take less up front for the stability of knowing that a modest pension is coming on the back end.

These pension "reform" maniacs are trying to mess with this explicit contract so they can get the short-term benefit of screwing current and soon-to-be retirees out of their contractually due compensation. And there's a good chance they'll find enough morally and intellectually bankrupt judges to let them get away with it.

The problem, however, is that they are taking pensions off of the table now and forever for those entering the workforce. When young people see that pensions were what Mary Poppins called a "pie crust promise" - "easily made, easily broken" - they simply won't accept them. They are going to want to see the scratch up front.

And the taxpayer will have a choice: pay up, or accept a lower quality of worker.

The pension maniacs are playing an incredibly dangerous game; it will have consequences long after they've moved on to the next life. Are we so short-sighted that we can't see this?

Motivating Students Through Blowin' Stuff Up

From the nice folks doin' nice things who are gonna teach our kids through X-Boxes:

I want these kids to be talking about what they got out of the Dimension U system in the same breath that they're talking about what they got out of World of Warcraft; what they got out of Halo - 'cause it's the same psychological motivations.

And what are the "psychological motivations" inherent in Halo?

Well, OK then. Bet he won't forget to add inside the parenthesis first next time...

I guess this is the school system Rupert Murdoch envisions for our future. Nice.

Oh, did you notice the video is brought to you by the University of Phoenix? Your free-market education system at its best!

Please, Make It Stop!

I can not get this out of my head!!!!

False Gods Are Not Appeased By Human Sacrifices

I noticed a few folks today beating up Andrew "Eduwonk" Rotherman on the Twitter machine for his column in this week's Time. Let me quickly recap, and then make a larger point about the ongoing reformy education debate:

Predictably, Rotherman first tells us that teacher quality is a serious problem without any real evidence that it is. Yes, there are bad teachers, just like there are bad pilots and bad architects and bad edubloggers - that's how life works. But where's the evidence that this is a huge issue in student achievement? Eric Hanushek's conjectures? Matt DiCarlo is able to dismiss those without batting an eyelid.

In his piece, even Rotherberg acknowledges that we're talking about one or two teachers per school. This is setting off alarms? I hate to point this out, Andrew, but if you have to rank everyone, someone will have to come in last. Even in a school with excellent teachers, some kids will have to have the worst teacher in the school - no amount of firing will change that.

Rothenberg also falls into the trap of calling for the firing of teachers without any sort of a plan to replace them. On his blog, he tries to dance around this issue, without directly addressing the rather obvious concerns of those like Bruce Baker: how are you going to get the best and the brightest into this field when you use wildly inaccurate measures to judge them?

All this aside, here's the part of the piece that made me bang my head on the desk:

Teachers themselves have the most to gain from an honest appraisal about their profession. Over the long run, better pay, improved working conditions, better training and professional development, and greater respect is politically conditional on creating a professional culture more in line with other fields. Neither the public nor the political class will go for it otherwise. A focus on instructional quality would also help defuse the bubble of enthusiasm among those who now see technology as a cure-all. What’s more, removing a small percentage of chronically low-performers would not only change perceptions, it would change educational performance. [emphasis mine]

Uh-huh. So, if I go along with your wacky scheme, Andrew, I'll make much more money and the bathroom will never run out of paper towels and I'll be loved and respected. But only if I stop whining and get with the program...

What a load of crap. Have you looked at the political climate today? Do you think dismissing a few teachers is going to change that? Do you think Jonah Edelman will stop his little machinations if we fire a few more teachers? And that Chris Christie will all of a sudden make nice with the NJEA and stop bad-mouthing teachers in front of kids?

Do you think Rupert Murdoch will just shrug his shoulders and walk away from a $650 billion "sector" once we cut off the tail end of the bell curve?

Please. Dream your dreams about this all you want, Andrew, but those of us on the front lines know the truth: we are under an assault that serves as a distraction from what is really causing problems in this country. No amount of firing - no matter how poorly designed - is going to change that.

These are false gods and they will not be appeased with human sacrifices. Fire us all - they will come after our replacements.

It's what they do; they don't know anything else.

The Workrate of the Reformy

Tomorrow is the Worst. Party. Ever. Band rehearsal must be taking up a lot of time for Derrell Bradford.

Because B4K has had three posts up in the last 30 days at their website's blog - one of which is a reprint of a Rhee op-ed in the Philly Inquirer. And the B4K Facebook page has far fewer posts per week than the not-financed-by-a-hedge-fund-manager Stop the Freeze NJ page.

Seriously: I look at these "reformy" sites and I don't see a lot of work: not much research, not much advocacy, not much... anything. What are these people doing? What sort of workrate do their funders expect? Are they pleased with the return on their investment?

Nice work if you can get it...

Heckuva Job, Eva!

We need more charter schools because they're so darn good for kids:

More than a third of the staff members at a Harlem charter school run by the Success Charter Network have left the school within the last several months, challenging an organization that prides itself on the training and support it offers its teachers.

The unusually high turnover at Harlem Success Academy 3 and the network-wide issue of teachers quitting mid-year led the founder and chief executive of the Success Charter Network, Eva S. Moskowitz, to express concern in an October newsletter.

“This is not a ‘gig’ ” she wrote, informing staff members that by breaking their commitment to the schools and families midyear, they were acting unethically.

At Harlem Success Academy 3, 22 of the school’s 59 administrators, teachers and classroom aides left between the end of the last school year and the beginning of this one, according to the school’s records. Some took jobs at other schools, some moved to new cities and some said they quit out of frustration with the school’s tightly regulated environment.

The loss of more than 30 percent of its teachers distinguishes the school within its network of six other schools, where turnover is less common. At Harlem Success Academies 1 and 2, the attrition rates were about 19 percent between June and this month. And at the network’s two Bronx schools, few faculty members left.

Yeah, look, this is just a small problem. 'Cause at the other schools, only 1 in 5 teachers left. Very stable...

Charter schools have generally experienced relatively high teacher turnover. From 2008 to 2010, charter schools’ average attrition rate was 25 percent and district schools’ was 14 percent, according to state data.

This isn't a bug - it's a feature. Geoffrey Canada keeps telling us it's good to have closing schools schools that fail, and teachers who flee the first chance they get. Kids apparently thrive in this sort of world.

Or not...

(h/t Leonie Haimson - hey, which one of your 1,000 URLs should I link to when I give you props?)

What Color Is the Sky in Nick Kristof's World?

Nick Kristof, 2009:

First, good teachers matter more than anything; they are astonishingly important. It turns out that having a great teacher is far more important than being in a small class, or going to a good school with a mediocre teacher. A Los Angeles study suggested that four consecutive years of having a teacher from the top 25 percent of the pool would erase the black-white testing gap.

Complete garbage - I mean, total, complete garbage - but whatev.

Nick Kristof, 2011:

“Schooling after the second grade plays only a minor role in creating or reducing gaps,” Heckman argues in an important article this year in American Educator. “It is imperative to change the way we look at education. We should invest in the foundation of school readiness from birth to age 5.”

So, teachers are astonishingly important, but schooling only plays a minor role after second grade. Or something - it's confusing...

No wonder he loved St. Michelle of Arc; they're both incoherent.

And Now, A Moment of Logic and Reason

Yeah, kinda shocking when you're covering education policy, but every once in a while, someone turns on his or her brain:

A new teacher evaluation system will be implemented statewide next year before administrators and educators have sufficient time to evaluate the success of its pilot program and make necessary adjustments, according to the New Jersey Association of School Administrators (NJASA).

The teacher evaluation system is a result of an executive order of the governor, which created a task force to develop a more authentic teacher assessment. The assessment will focus equally on classroom performance and student achievement. Currently, 11 districts are piloting the program that began in September 2011 and will conclude in March 2012.

“There needs to be time to review the results of the pilot program to determine whether it addresses all of the difficult questions,” said Dr. Richard Bozza, executive director of the NJASA. “For example, if one classroom has a number of special education students or limited English speaking students, should we rate the teachers the same on their students’ test scores? Authentic assessment is more complex than it appears.”

The NJASA advocates getting feedback from the pilot districts, as well. “Educators in the pilot districts are actively engaged and eager to participate,” noted Dr. Bozza. “But many of them are frustrated by the amount of work required in such a short time. We need to examine what is practical to implement statewide. We don’t want to launch a program before it’s ready. Let’s take the time to do it right.”

No, listen, we have to do SOMETHING! Including completely upending one of the best statewide systems in the country and radically changing a profession without fully considering the consequences!

Don't people understand? There's an election coming up! The children can't wait!

Testing "Experts"

Leonie Haimson points us to this report on the New York Regents Exam:

The state is finally cracking down on the practice of teachers grading their own students’ standardized tests. The state Board of Regents, the supreme authority in education, will not permit this practice to continue beginning in the 2012-13 school year.

One can’t help wondering: What took them so long?

Audits by the state comptroller for the last two decades have shown, The New York Times points out, that schools give better grades to their own students on state Regents exams than do teams of expert scorers. It’s well known that many more students score just above a passing grade than just below a passing grade -- showing, experts say, that teachers have given them a special push over the bar. [emphasis mine]

"Expert scorers." You mean, the folks who are paid $11 an hour to grade these things right now? Hired by the companies that pay temps $8 an item to actually write the tests?

The folks who make Todd Farley's Making the Grades essential reading for anyone who cares about this topic? The ones who argue about whether grass is a "food" - and their decision makes or breaks an entire district?

This is the part of the story that's the most important, but gets the least attention: these tests are a joke, in their construction, administration, and grading. But we're going to base our entire education system around them, which leads to the inevitable result:

Leonie Haimson of Class Size Matters, a parent advocate, told me: "It’s no surprise that there have been fraudulent practices. When you threaten to close schools and discipline or fire teachers and principals, you can hardly expect to keep the system honest. You put the teachers and supervisors in an untenable position. Schools shouldn’t be closed or teachers fired because of test scores."

Haimson also laced into the city’s Department of Education over allegations made by Richard Condon, the city’s special commissioner of investigation for schools.

He submitted a report about how teachers and even a principal have cheated to enable children to score higher on tests. But Condon has been able to investigate only a handful of 1,250 allegations of test tampering. The Department of Education has refused to make the details available, insisting on investigating most of the charges itself. It declines to make the results public.

This seems like an outrageous breach of responsibility to the parents of 1.1 million school children.

Haimson says: "It’s like there’s a black hole into which these charges of cheating disappear."

It's the same black hole that sucks up the matter of vetting the actual tests themselves (matter/matter... black holes... get it? Yeah, sorry...). We blindly believe these are valid, reliable instruments, but we don't bother to actually prove it.

Could it be the army of lobbyists from the testing industry descending into the state houses have something to do with this? Or am I being too cynical again, and I just have to trust that large corporations really have the best interests of children at heart at all times?

The only ray of hope I take from this entire story is that the media is talking to people like Leonie. If that ends, we're toast.