The Two Worlds of Ed Reform

I want to recommend this great piece teacher/blogger Katie O about this weekend's conferences in Chicago. Read the whole thing (us teacher/bloggers need that click-through love), but here's the takeaway:

To me, the moral of this tale of one city’s schizophrenic day of education is this:  Sure, we love progressive education practices, but only for the rich white private schools.  When it comes to the vast majority of our children in public schools, we want to standardize and sterilize learning into easy-to-compare test prep factories.  We want to sort and control public school teachers, just the way we sort and control their students.  While the rich children explore, learn, question, dream, try, experience, fail, and enjoy the process of expanding their minds in beautiful schools and small classes with no pressure of grades or homework, all the other people’s children are condemned to mindless, empty recitation of facts.  These children’s teachers are forbidden to explore progressive ways to inspire these young people, except in the spaces “between the cracks”.  While the privileged choose a school for its unique, child-centered curriculum, public school teachers secretly “interrupt” the scheduled dry testing curricula with real authentic discussion and learning while telling their students “When the Feds come, tell them we’re on page 93.” (David Stovall, Associate Professor at University of Illinois-Chicago)

Progressive education and its respect for the teacher and the learner is something every child in this country deserves.  Let's start "interrupting" the education deforms happening now to see this goal come into reality. [emphasis mine]

Jonathan Kozol's been saying this for years. This emphasis on the "achievement gap" is a distraction from both the funding gap and the curriculum gap.

Adding Ms. Katie to the blogroll now...

Our National Crisis!

A bunch of education writers are meeting in Chicago as I write this. Apparently, according to the Twitter machine, they're all talking about teacher evaluations. And a very serious concern is getting evaluations right for art, music, and PE teachers.

See, there are hordes of these bad specialist teachers roaming our schools' hallways, making kids step off the wrong foot when they throw or endorsing bad color combinations or screwing up their embouchures. Obviously, they are directly responsible for the mess we are in:

This is a national crisis and it must be stopped at all costs. We know scads of these bad teachers exist because we've been told so by think-tanky types who aren't actually educators or researchers, but publish easy-to-read reports.

The solution is to tie PE teacher evaluations to writing scores for their school and have their principals wear x-ray specs, because that is obviously much better than the status quo. And to those of you teachers who think maybe I've lost perspective here: obviously, you care more about adults than kids and you should lose your job protections immediately.

We simply can't treat these teachers like professionals and let them police themselves like every other profession. We must beat Finland! Where they treat teachers like professionals. And don't bombard kids with standardized tests.

Uh...

"A Vast Improvement"

And so falls the New York Times:

Tennessee has a long way to go in improving its schools, but it has made significant headway in turning itself into a laboratory for education reform. It was one of the first states to test a rigorous teacher evaluation system, which was put in place this school year. Yet even before the results are in, political forces are now talking about delaying the use of these evaluations. State lawmakers and education officials must resist any backsliding. 

Tennessee’s need to do better was underscored when the latest National Assessment of Educational Progress, also known as the nation’s report card, ranked the state near the bottom in fourth-grade math performance, just ahead of Alabama, Louisiana and Mississippi. These dismal results — slightly worse than those reported in 2009 — were made public earlier this month during legislative hearings on the evaluation system.

Here's an exercise in logic: did any of the states that far outpaced Tennessee and are at the top of the nation - say, for example, New Jersey - use a poorly conceived teacher evaluation system that is opposed by actual educators but pushed by corporate interests?

No. So maybe we want to look somewhere else for solutions, ya think?

The Times continues:

Teacher evaluations now have three components: 50 percent from classroom observation data, 35 percent from student growth on test scores and 15 percent from student achievement measures that are locally selected. The teachers are rated on a five-point scale, from “significantly below expectations” to “significantly above expectations.” School districts are not required to fire anyone based on the ratings, but the state now requires teachers to work for five years, instead of three, before they are eligible for tenure. Those who want tenure have to earn high ratings for two years.

Honestly, how many times do we have to go over this before the ill-informed commentariat gets it? It may be 35% of the evaluation, but it becomes 100% of the decision. And we know the volatility across years in value-added models is far to great to make high-takes decisions.

It's depressing that the Times - considered to be the gold-standard of journalism - clearly offers this opinion without having educated itself. It's especially depressing because their own Michael Winerip has reported so well on this very topic:

For 15 percent of their testing evaluation, teachers without scores are permitted to choose which subject test they want to be judged on. Few pick something related to their expertise; instead, they try to anticipate the subject that their school is likely to score well on in the state exams next spring.

Several teachers without scores at Oakland Middle School conferred. “The P. E. teacher got information that the writing score was the best to pick,” said Jeff Jennings, the art teacher. “He informed the home ec teacher, who passed it on to me, and I told the career development teacher.”

It’s a bit like Vegas, and if you pick the wrong academic subject, you lose and get a bad evaluation. While this may have nothing to do with academic performance, it does measure a teacher’s ability to play the odds. There’s also the question of how a principal can do a classroom observation of someone who doesn’t teach a classroom subject.

Is there a person on this planet who thinks this is a good idea? Do the failed members of the Tennessee business community - Tennessee's unemployment rate is higher than the national average, close to 10% - believe that stupidity like this will cover up their failures to produce a strong economy?

Once again, we teachers are left to contend with poorly designed systems cheered on by politicos who are clueless, business leaders who should spend their time fixing their own massive failures, and journalists who either can't or won't understand what they are writing about.

All of you need to step back and let us do our jobs. You are killing this profession and you need to put your egos and your self-interest in check and let us be the professionals we are. You will find you then have the time to fix your own political, economic, and media systems, with are in far worse shape than American education ever was.

Guyland's Got It

Now we're talking:

Across Long Island, there is growing concern about the direction being taken by the New York State Education Department. In breathtaking speed, State Education officials have made sweeping changes to how our schools operate, how our teachers and principals are evaluated and how our students are assessed.

As building principals, we applaud efforts aimed towards excellence for all of our students. We cannot, however, stand by while untested practices are put in place without any meaningful discussion or proven research. This is why we have prepared an Open Letter of Concern Regarding New York State's APPR Legislation for the Evaluation of Teachers and Principals. Written by two high school Principals (Dr. Sean C. Feeney and Dr. Carol C. Burris) and reviewed and edited by Elementary, Middle School and High School principals across Long Island, this letter states why everyone who cares about schools should be concerned about New York's APPR Legislation. The letter also articulates a better path forward for our schools and students.

Visit the links on the side to read the paper, support the paper and read the research behind the paper. The key to change is to make your voice heard! Be sure to contact your local legislators in order to express your concerns about the APPR legislation.

It is time for all educators to stand up and be heard. We are professionals and we should not be dictated to by those who don't have a clue about what we do.

Good on these dedicated, engaged, and knowledgable professionals for standing up to the nonsense that is being thrust upon them. More like this - MUCH more.

Why Do They Say What They Say?

Matt DiCarlo has another important post up today about Value-Added Modeling (VAM), the error-ridden statistics tool promoted by the corporate reformers as the solution to the "problem" of teacher evaluation (a "problem" I still contend no one has shown to be an actual problem).

Matt does what he does best: debunk think-tanky reforminess with actual research. In this case, he raises some important cautions about VAM's inability to account for student effects outside of a teacher's control (it can't), and about its volatility across years compromising its ability to make high-stakes decisions (it does).

To this, I'd add two things: one Matt will probably agree with, and one I'm sure he won't.

First: VAM is predicated on the idea that the standardized tests administered to students are themselves valid and reliable. There is every reason in the world to doubt this. But maybe my fears could be assuaged if every administration of every standardized test was followed by a public vetting of the tests themselves. In other words: if my job as a teacher is on the line here, shouldn't I get to look at the test and my student's answers?

I don't know why any teacher should buy into VAM if the testing process itself remains secretive and unaccountable. There no point in getting into the weeds of the technical problems with VAM if we can't even agree to that.

Next - and I'm sorry Matt, but I have to do this: Why do these people continue to push this stuff when it is clear all of the evidence is against them?

Bruce Baker today points out that the situation has become so bad that career educators now have to have b.s. detectors wired into their heads as a prerequisite for the job:

Over the past year, I’ve actually become more supportive of the notion that our future school and district leaders really do need to know the research, understand statistics and other methods of inquiry and be able to determine how it all intersects with their daily practice, even when it seems like it couldn’t possibly do so.

Unfortunately, a major reason that it has become so important for school leaders to know their shit is because state agencies, including departments of education, which to some extent are supposed to be playing a “technical support role,” have drifted far more substantially toward political messaging than technical support, and have in many cases drifted toward driving their policy agendas with shoddy fact sheets, manifesto’s and other shallow, intellectually vacuous but “easy to digest” Think Tank fodder.

In many cases, this intellectually vacuous, technically bankrupt think tank fodder is actually being trotted out by state education agencies as technical guidance to local school administrators.

In other words: the people who actually run the schools are far more likely to know what the hell they are doing than the politicos and thinktanky types and media pundits, who push policies based on... what? On what are they basing their decisions? Research? No, the research is clearly pointing in another direction. So why do they say what they say? Why do they want what they want?

Are they too lazy to challenge themselves intellectually? Are they indifferent to the truth? That may be part of it. Do they accept incoherence as part of modern American political rhetoric? Watching the Republican primary debates, it's hard to argue that rigorously thought out policies are not only irrelevant to a political career - they may be a hinderance.

Certainly, we know there are hucksters out there looking to make a buck during the Haliburtonization of our schools. But even I acknowledge that this is only a part - and probably a small part - of the overall agenda for these folks.

No, I keep going back to the same place: this is all a distraction.

American conservatism is a 32-year-old experiment that has completely and utterly failed. The commercialization of our culture, the crony capitalism, the militaristic foreign policy, the disintegration of our infrastructure, the disintegration of civil rights, the indifference to human suffering, the rise of unchecked corporations, the selling of our government to the highest bidders... it has led us to disaster.

The only thing that will save us at this point is a return to real democracy, real capitalism, and a real sense of patriotism. This will require overturning the massive inequality that was the inevitable outcome of the policies we've had foisted on us these past decades. The problem, of course, is that it will also require the 1% (really, 0.1%) to give up their stranglehold on power. And many of them are not interested in that.

So they look for a new villian. Ah ha - education! Of course, if everyone went to college, we'd being doing swell (forget that college is massively expensive and out of reach for many Americans even if they are qualified)! It's our lousy schools that are keeping us back! Yeah, that's the ticket...

Let me be clear: do I think that corporate reformers like to see kids in poverty? No, of course not. Do I think corporate reformers want awful public schools? No, they don't. Do I think they make a legitimate point in saying we could and should be doing a better job teaching kids? Absolutely.

But I also know that their own interests in keeping the status quo line up very, very neatly with the corporate reform agenda. And I find it more than a little curious that the think tanks pushing this agenda - again, an agenda that has no evidence to back it up - are being funded by the very, very wealthiest among us.

And this is where Matt and I part ways. He believes the better argument will win; I'm far more skeptical. The corporate reform movement has both implicitly and explicitly questioned the motivations of both teachers and their unions in making their case for "reform." I believe that playing field needs to be leveled; I believe no one will listen to the better argument until we push back on the motivations of the arguer.

I admit, this isn't pretty. But it's the world we live in. We need to be honest about this.

A Star Is Born

Obviously I'm disappointed that Marie Corfield lost her race for the NJ Assembly; we've lost a chance to have a voice for those of us who care about education at a time when we really could use it.

Considering the gerrymandering going on (and not just in Jersey, but in statehouses everywhere), Corfield did incredibly well. I know losing after such hard work is disspiriting, but she and her running mates should be proud of their showing.

And I don't think this is the end for Marie Corfield:



We need more teacher-candidates like this woman, and she needs to stay in the fight somehow; she's too gifted a politician to stay on the sidelines.

We're proud of you, Marie.

Oh, Marie!

If you agree with anything I've ever said, then I ask - I BEG - you to do one thing:

Support Marie Corfield for NJ Assembly!

If you live in the NJ 16th District, you must, must, MUST get to the polls and vote for her. Friends and family too - no exceptions. This is important!

If you don't live in her district, contribute now. Every little bit helps in the her final push.

This woman is our best chance of having someone in state government who gets it. When she gets elected, we will finally have a voice for educators in Trenton. Think what that would mean for all of us:



We need this woman in the legislature. Let's do this - Oh Marie!

Honey-Doin'

You know who the last guy in the world who should regulate plumbers is?

Me. Because I've spent all day trying to redo Mrs. Jazzman's powder room ("You use it too!"), and I know just enough about plumbing to know I am completely unqualified to tell anyone anything about it.

You know who the last people in the world who should regulate teachers are?

Politicians, business leaders, and pundits. They have as much practical and theoretical experience in education as I do in home repair.

That doesn't mean I don't know when a plumber has done a bad job, and it doesn't mean they don't know if their kid got a bad teacher. It doesn't mean I can't learn to replace a sink, and it doesn't mean they aren't entitled to give a well-informed opinions about teacher evaluation.

But wide-scale regulation of any industry should be left to those who know what the hell they are doing.

I'm actually proud of the fact that I sweated off a bad toilet valve and used a Sharkbite fitting to replace it. But only an idiot would put me on a panel to design evaluations for plumbing licenses (I burned my thumb and index finger picking up the old valve - putz...).

And I'd be arrogant, a fool, or both to accept the position if it was offered to me (you know who you are).

Teachers need to regulate teachers. It's really that simple.

The secret to good teacher evaluations is duct tape!

(I'll bet 9 out of 10 of you who read this have no idea what this picture is about. Dig it.)

Our Student Debt Crisis

Congratulations to a great New Jersey teacher. Nice to see Milken money going to help teachers instead of screwing up their profession (those Milkens have made quite a mess of the education system down in Tennessee).

The source of the prize aside, I couldn't help but notice this:

Iannucci said he’s considering putting the money toward his $78,000 in student loan debt. He attended Seton Hall University, then graduated from Montclair State University with a degree in computer science. He later earned a master’s in educational leadership from Montclair State. [emphasis mine]

If the Milkens really want to help teachers, they'd put their money into lobbying for revisions to the tax code that stop giving Wall Street-types enormous tax breaks. We could then put that money into helping young people who are committed to public service pay off their outrageous student loan debts.

No society that really cared about elevating the profession of teaching would allow educators to go into this kind of hock. In fact no one, teacher or otherwise, should incur this kind of debt merely from earning a college degree.

A society that cares more about keeping taxes on the super-rich low while forcing middle-class people who go to college to carry this kind of burden clearly places very little value on education at all. I'm happy for this teacher, and he deserves this prize, but he and every other young person who works hard and plays by the rules deserves more support than this.

Who Will Be The First "Reformer" To Use This Factoid?

A new way of measuring poverty comes out on Monday. Childhood poverty in this new model drops from 22% to 15%.

So, who will be the first corporate reformer to use this factoid to say we should stop using childhood poverty as an "excuse" to keep us from firing teachers, stripping them of tenure, and instituting merit pay?

Post your winners in the comments.

ADDING: From the article:

While most scholars have called the fuller measure a step forward, Robert Rector, an analyst at the Heritage Foundation, argues that both census counts — old and new — sharply overstate the amount of deprivation in the United States. In a recent study, he cited government data showing many poor families had game systems like Xbox.

“When the American public hears the word poverty, they are thinking about material hardship — bad housing, homelessness and hunger,” he said. “Most of the people that are defined as poor by the government are not poor in that sense.”

You can buy a used Xbox at a garage sale for a little bit of nothing. Even new, a Wii will cost you $150 at Walmart. That's not too much to scrape up.

You can be poor and have a video game console, or a cell phone, or air conditioning. People make choices; they see middle class folks giving their kids Play Stations, and they stretch themselves to do the same. That doesn't make them deserving of their situation; it doesn't make them leeches.

But at Heritage, I guess you're not "really" poor unless you're living in a cardboard box. Besides, we all know you'd be able to get that new version of Call Of Duty coming out next month if your kids' teachers didn't suck so bad...