Thank you Martha’s Vineyard…
For the hurricane that got downgraded to a tropical storm and the lights that did not go out
For Chilmark Pottery and the cool glazes that set Geoffrey free
For all the September Issues on top of an autographed copy of Goon Squad at Bunch of Grapes Bookstore
For Jodie in Chilmark who had made a man cry when she bought his stone sculptures in Zimbabwe
For the pie that was as good as the fried clams on that flawless afternoon on the terrace at Aquinnah
For Washington Ledesma’s Uruguayan imagery and his lovely wife who let us into his studio
For the other couple on Mink Meadows beach at sunset showing us how it’s done with wine glasses and kisses
For Back Door Doughnuts still hot out of the oil and the line of happy patrons in the parking lot every night
For Dragonfly and Pik Nik galleries with works by our new favorite artists as well as an old friend
For Vineyard Scripts who were there when we needed them
For State Road Restaurant because they still make carrot cake the way they used to
For the Chappaquiddick Ferry that did not tip us into the sea even though it seemed like it might
For the turtles in small, medium, and extra-large at Mytoi Pond
For the sunset supper from The Bite on the beach at Menemsha
For the late night visit to the ATM on the Haunted Vineyard Tour with cash and ghost stories to go
For the beach at Gay Head with the clay cliffs, rocky surf, and flashbacks of hedonistic sun worshippers from California in the late 70s
For the deer that was staring back at us as we peered over the deck in the early morning light
For the children on the merry-go-round at Oak Bluffs and the Trek mountain bike…with training wheels
For the hairy surfer dudes carrying giant boards onto the Woods Hole ferry
For our first beach vacation in years
For the brief moment when I thought we were still there as I woke up back home
Making Teacher Pensions Portable
Point #2 of my Seven Keys to Education Reform calls for portable teacher pensions. Many teachers would benefit from career mobility to keep themselves energized professionally. To date, those who have needed to move on, within or out of the profession, could only do so with severe financial penalties. Meanwhile, union pension fund managers have faced fears of insolvency due to underfunding as well as early withdrawals. The good news is that real solutions are being proposed.
Most news stories about state and municipal pension funds do not have happy endings for anyone. A piece from my Kellogg alumni magazine offered a pleasant departure from that trend. Professors Joshua Rauh of Northwestern University and Robert Novy-Marx of the University of Rochester have co-authored a solution to the puzzle…
“…that states be allowed to issue tax-exempt bonds to pay off their pension debt. But state would only qualify for the tax exemption if they agreed to place new employees in defined contribution 401 (k) plans rather than traditional pensions. All new hires would also be eligible for Social Security.”
This proposal addresses several of the issues raised in my earlier post, Trouble with Defined-Pension Funds, and is only one of several remedies suggested in the full text of the article. I recommend it.
Hearts and Minds
School must be a safe harbor for the hearts and minds of our children. Sometimes that trust must go the distance for the sake of their very survival. Concussion laws are being considered across the nation, a must for athletes in contact sports. Equally important is the prevention and treatment of sudden cardiac arrest.
Twelve years ago today, Jon and Diane Claerbout faced the unthinkable. Their brilliant and talented 25-year-old son Jos had arrived at work, started checking his email, and suddenly died. Since that time, they have met and supported hundreds of parents who have faced similar tragedies as their children, many of them high school or college athletes, have died suddenly. Diane has worked tirelessly with Parent Heart Watch, an advocacy organization that seeks to raise awareness and enact legislation mandating screening for and prevention of Sudden Cardiac Arrest in youths. For emergency treatment, AEDs, or Automated External Defibrillators are becoming commonplace in many educational and sports complexes. However, access to them and knowledge of their use continue to stymie efforts to save collapsed children in time.
Tributes for Jos and the many other young victims of sudden death attempt to ease the pain of loss, but they cannot recapture these wonderful spirits or the promise their lives had held. We need them here and now. I salute my sister and brother-in-law in their work even as I regret their pain and the absence of Jos.
Jos sought to live life well, seeing each day as an adventure. He wrote eloquently and dabbled in TV and film ideas. Describing himself as a migrant worker on his resume, Jos took detours with relish, interrupting his education, once to be a salmon fisherman in Alaska and again to take an internship in Washington to study the religious right, a group he had come to know as a force to be reckoned with while working in Alaska. During his brief career in Silicon Valley, Jos wrote “Don’t Fear the OOP,” a Java tutorial modeled on a formula for writing a trashy Western novel that still earns rave reviews today. He was eclectic and original, at once ethereal and obsessed with details. He could perseverate on a passing fancy for days then take time out to win a Muumuu contest.
Jos was a hero to his young cousins. When we went to Washington the summer before Jos died, my step-daughter, turning her back to the White House impatiently, just kept asking, “When will we see Jos?” I wish we had a better answer today.
Saying No to Peer Pressure
Professionals benefit from constructive peer review. On the other hand, teachers calling upon one another to use peer pressure to ensure fellow teachers are up to snuff brings flashbacks of old-fashioned bullying. When compounded by passive aggressive leadership that pits teachers against one another, revival of toxic culture is more likely than reform. True leaders seek positive change and actively intend professional collaboration and review.
After a restless summer of teacher-bashing, budget woes, and discouraging reports from the field, educators are preparing to go back to school, each with renewed commitment to be part of the solution. Something has gone awry, however. In the absence of authentic education reform, well-meaning teachers are trying to fill the void. When talk turns to teachers using peer pressure to make sure their colleagues are up to snuff, it is time for the leaders to step in with a little counterintuitive insight.
Vigilante justice on behalf of students could set education reform back a few decades. A leader with a posse of do-gooders (who, by the way, often got a pass on their own quality review by association) was a hallmark of old-school toxic culture. We have been trying to move forward to a world of objective evaluations and collaboration. Good intentions need to be recognized and commended, of course. But efforts to bypass official channels of supervision should be redirected toward support for the whole team. New forms of evaluation and quality improvement are stressful enough without the distraction of self-appointed standard bearers.
To short circuit this phenomenon, teacher quality programs should formalize a process for peer review as well as professional development to support its implementation. Orientation should address the shared values among staff members, an understanding of roles for each team member, and simulated exercises to explore the process in advance. Constructive peer review can empower professional collaboration while taking the “gotcha” of peer pressure out of the mix.
Making NCLB Happen
I oppose NCLB waivers on the grounds that they undermine the rights of children who may have been underestimated by the very advocates they depend on for their futures. However, this was not meant to promote antagonism between or toward educators or their regulators. Working together is the only way to go. Indeed, regulatory third parties could provide the mediator role between school leaders and teachers in the short-run even as they rush to reinvent themselves and eliminate the regulatory sources of the conflict.
My last post was a bit out of synch with my self-proclaimed no-fault education reform stance. In my haste to preserve high standards for all children, I suggested that it was okay, and perhaps even beneficial, for districts to “be embarrassed in public” and to have regulators “all over their butts” if they were leaving high-risk children behind. In reality, a collaborative approach to this painful self-examination is crucial to any successful outcome.
Urban schools need help raising the bar and building a better education system. Many other schools need to reinvigorate their programs to ensure that they have maintained historically high standards and practice inclusive excellence. Even more schools are pretty good, but would benefit from continuous quality improvement. So how can we as a nation begin to diagnose clusters of problems and address them in a scalable fashion?
The big picture foretells of 80+% of schools failing, and some would imply that the Feds will be running our school systems very soon. Loud calls for a government pull out have presumed failure as a foregone conclusion and proposed a remedy that ultimately abandons equal protection and due process under the law for at-risk children. However, we need to break down the problem to see the less draconian reality behind the numbers.
For those who think we are just getting too picky about all this anti-discrimination business…
- Schools with subgroup failures have no fear of government takeover. They simply have to prove that they are not engaging in discriminatory practices that harm individuals in a particular demographic or disability grouping. And the proof is in achievement of proficiency within any relevant subgroup. A waiver to avoid this obligation would be unconstitutional in and of itself.
- Schools demonstrating a recent history of improvement yet leaving too many students “needing Improvement” simply need to accelerate growth, accepting advice from policy makers. If progress from within an organization is not adequate, the search for external guidance is merely prudent.
Professional development is needed beyond the urban setting to share insight into breaking failure cycles within high-risk populations. Many privileged communities fail to fully assimilate newcomers into their most successful programs. Students who do not fit in immediately find themselves reassigned to alternative programs, losing access to honors classes and advanced placement. Struggling students within this underclass are among the first to be declared incapable of achievement on tests; however, they are being underestimated daily. Test scores continue to be good predictors of achievement in post-secondary education, and it is unconscionable to rely on alternative pathways that do not foster equity in academic preparation.
For those with persistent AYP failure…
In extreme cases, regulators may be given an iron grip over a school, but this power can be used with reason. To date, a turnover-based policy of redistributing people without systemic change has produced more failure complicated by growing cynicism. As the number of schools being managed grows, this practice could be parodied as a giant game of Whack-An-Educator as people associated with failing schools are shuffled about within any troubled district. There is no end game in sight here.
The blame game was not invented in response to NCLB, but its accountabilities have sent finger-pointing into hyper mode. There has been a landslide of support for school leaders in their search for scapegoats among their teachers, which has been a driving force behind punitive teacher evaluations. A backlash of support for teachers has been developing as these witch hunts have spun out of control. It is beginning to feel like we need a reset button to reestablish sanity and pursuit of solutions within a collaborative school community. Yes, unions and districts working together.
To help districts improve performance under NCLB, federal and state education leaders need to use their bully pulpit to engender genuine growth within schools based on trust, collaboration, and a persistent, i.e., more than eight-year, belief in equity for all children. More specifically, regulators have the opportunity to develop models of management that…
- Bring an end to treading teachers and assist school leaders in seeing all of their staff members.
- Restore a level playing field for all teachers and objective bases for evaluation.
- Encourage general management growth for school and district leaders, especially motivation of the total staff – not just the most obvious champions and freeloaders.
- Sponsor experiments with weighted average funding of students to get more resources directly to the schools.
- Differentiate between the need for professional development for more inclusive strategies for populations with high risk or special needs and systemic reform for toxic organizations.
For long-term improvement in the ESEA, I have suggested Seven Keys to Education Reform. Ultimately, Federal legislation must reflect a rethinking of the decision architecture that drives the education industry. Many dysfunctional actions among educational institutions originate at the Federal level. As national and state policy-makers ask educators to realign their organizations with their missions, a good look in the mirror is in order.
Leaving Children Behind
There are words for people who manage systems that leave out children of color, children of Hispanic heritage, or children with special needs. “Failing” is not the worst of them. Why should we be allowed to reject NCLB as a failed initiative when all it did was catch us in the act?
Since the beginning of the No Child Left Behind initiative, schools across the country have made great strides to improve education. This is good news. We should be proud of those accomplishments. However, we cannot celebrate victory. The children who were at risk remain so, and our efforts have not been inclusive enough. Our mission has not been accomplished.
The headlines keep emphasizing the large percentage of school systems that cannot make the grade under the increasingly stringent guidelines for NCLB. Educators try to deflect this reality by begging the question and claiming that any benchmark against which there is so much failure must, by definition, be a failure itself. They cite the pain “for the children” of being labeled failures and call for waivers to remove that designation.
Truth is…having a school be labeled a failure hurts the pride of the people who work there, those charged with success under NCLB. What hurts the children is living the life of less educated members of society. And all our requests for relief from NCLB translate into the right to abandon the hopes of those children without getting caught and being embarrassed in public.
District leaders must examine their collective consciences and redouble their efforts with the struggling children. And having the regulators all over their butts while it happens is just the price one pays for betraying the trust of our most vulnerable kids.
Scientists and Other Critical Thinkers
Educators may not abdicate responsibility for STEM education. All the scientists in the world cannot do their jobs and teach the children in K-12 schools. But a relatively small cadre of volunteers can create a pipeline of promising young scientific thinkers from every demographic whom they would call their own.
Seems like all scientists are from Missouri, the Show-Me State. This need for evidence of student preparation is driving a two-pronged approach to STEM improvements in education. One is highly visible, but not scalable, mentoring by scientists for future scientists in extended day programs throughout public education. The other is a systematic development of capacity in math, science, technology, and engineering within every school. Neither will succeed without the other.
Scientists are the new elite across the globe. They are brilliant thinkers who make things that the rest of us take for granted. They go to elite schools, they have the power to change the world, and many have amassed incredible wealth. Yet, they jealously guard their gates. The barriers to entry in science go beyond academic challenge and achievement. The scientific community sometimes seems skeptical to the point of chauvinism when considering newcomers.
Educators need help opening doors for their students; they also need help integrating 21st century STEM innovations across the curriculum. Many students have limited access to the world of scientific discovery beyond electronic devices. All students need opportunities for exploration that fosters deep mechanical and intellectual engagement, crucial building blocks for higher order thinking. To remedy the situation, a number of successful after school programs have brought professionals from the scientific community to introduce real world problem solving opportunities for students. As partners, these corporate citizens share content knowledge and skills from applied math and science with support from teachers who offer pedagogical awareness and classroom management.
Students who develop analytical and critical thinking skills through their work with mentor scientists should see benefits in all areas of their schooling. However, this will not single-handedly save schools or close the achievement gap. What it should do is provide evidence that the children CAN achieve at a higher level and overcome barriers to access to higher education and careers. Armed with higher expectations and new allies from the field, the schools themselves are ultimately responsible for their own success and long-term survival.
More Odd Reporting on Education Research
This is a test…has Twitter eliminated scrutiny of education research? Harvard and Education Next have released a survey showing divergence of public opinion from that of the community of educators. But guess what? They cited the issues related to public education and, more specifically, urban education. Then they focused on results specific to parents in the top income categories in their states…the folks who almost never send their kids to public schools. Yes, these are the people most likely to have the leisure time to engage in politics…but the report perpetuates their singular access to power brokers rather than merely acknowledging it as an historical reality.
I am a firm believer in education research. But puleeeeeeeeeeeeze…give us some real material that is helpful. I am not opposed to voucher systems in education per se. But it is bizarre to suggest that there is some public good in presenting research findings claiming parents are strongly in favor of vouchers to pay for private education alternatives if you only consider rich people. Sure. You surveyed parents who were the top income earners in their regions and they said they wanted to be given free access to private schools. We have redistributed income in our economy to the wealthy to the point of financial collapse. Now, we should send their kids to private school for free, too?
Okay…back to the facts. A press release entitled Public and Teachers Increasingly Divided on Key Education Issues introduces the results of the annual survey by Education Next and Harvard’s Program on Education Policy and Governance. In all fairness, they surveyed people from all walks of life. And they accurately reported up front that there was essentially NO REAL CHANGE IN PUBLIC OPINION between this year and the last. However, this was not a news story. That could only be found if one isolated out the responses of college-educated parents from the highest income category. Then, strong divergence of opinion between the elite public and the school teachers gave them something to talk about. Of course, there was divergence of opinion between the elite public and the not-so-elite public, too.
The gist of the report…education policy will be driven by power brokers armed with limited information and no vested interest in public education. Teachers are becoming more polarized in their views in this climate. Somewhere out there a blogger is heralding our new age of data-driven education reform. Others of us are still waiting.
Whole-school Bonuses in NYC…It’s Complicated
Columbia University PhD candidates Serena Goodman and Lesley Turner prefer individualized teacher bonuses over whole-school bonus plans. That was the only conclusive evidence I could find in their article describing their work on the aborted whole-school bonus program at the NYC DOE. Now the Rand Corporation has revisited the experiment, suggesting in the fine print that it failed because of inadequate teacher buy-in and competing accountabilities. Too bad they did not stop there.
New York City’s Department of Education has scuttled an experiment that paid merit bonuses to staff for whole-school performance. The DOE suspected that the program was ineffective and ended the bonuses less than two years into a three-year plan. A couple of Columbia PhD candidates seemed, at least on the surface, to confirm that perception. However, too many factors were in flux to draw any real conclusions. Further, the researchers spent more time suggesting support for an alternative (unstudied) program than they did critically assessing the flaws that made the whole experiment invalid. Their persistent attempts to draw an untested conclusion seemed inexcusable. That was before I read the Rand Corporation’s research brief, What New York City’s Experiment with Schoolwide Performance Bonuses Tells Us About Pay for Performance. Rand repacked the flawed study with some attitude surveys and spun it for release as legitimate research. Sadly, rapid electronic dissemination of their fictional findings has transformed them into virtual reality.
Whole-school merit pay failed to drive a statistically significant change in outcomes in the New York experiment. This absence of a result occurred in a truncated time period, under unstable conditions, and using an unreliable measurement tool. This form of merit pay deserves reconsideration under more reasonable conditions. The issues…
1. The objective of the study did not match the method.
The study sought to evaluate the impact of whole-school bonuses on motivation to achieve student outcomes in effective schools. Instead of conducting the experiment in stable, effective schools, the study group was chosen from the most disadvantaged schools.
2. Bonus-related motivation was obscured from the onset by externalities.
The system-wide New York City accountability system was implemented simultaneously with the whole-school merit pay experiment. These new public report cards became the basis for high-stakes decisions across the NYC DOE that could lead to principal firings and school closures. These factors held the potential to overwhelm the impact of the bonus money on differential performance. The researchers discarded this factor, suggesting that the new NYC DOE accountability was barely noise in the environment compared to NCLB.
Teachers did not have a clear idea of their bonus potential. In each school, a committee of four administrators and teachers decided, after the fact, how to distribute the bonus money, if earned. Individual bonuses varied from $200 to $5,000 with few limitations on the gang-of-four’s discretion.
The results were measured using an unstable tool. The NYC accountability reports, which formed the basis for merit pay, were new and unfamiliar to many employees. Also reports were subject to variability in NYSED test scores. Standardized test scores had been rising across all populations during the period studied, suggesting that the tests themselves were becoming less rigorous. Control groups could have seen their performance rise regardless of motivation.
3. The study sample was not representative of the population.
Random selection did not yield demographics that were representative of overall populations in schools. In fact, bonus pool schools had a higher percentage of students whose learning was complicated by special needs, English language proficiency, and poverty. They had more minority students, less experienced faculty, and higher absenteeism. In addition, they had a history of lower than average test scores in math and reading.
4. Performance measurement was not standardized between the study group and the control group.
Bonus pool schools with lower test scores were required to make larger incremental improvements to meet accountability goals than their counterparts in the control group.
5. The time horizon for the study was too short.
The program was implemented late in the first year – announced in November with accountability for test results beginning two months later in January – and ended in the second year. This is not adequate time for authentic behavior change.
Billionaires Take the Bait
When did Bill and Melinda Gates forget who they were? Billionaire philanthropists have joined the great rescue mission that is public education today. They bring seemingly unlimited resources to drive the solution to one of the greatest challenges in the nation, educating our children. Yet they have undermined their own efforts by getting co-opted into the colossal group think tank of an insular industry. Myopic vision and managerial inexperience are being funded by giants who should know better.
To be successful, educators must invest the right amount of money in sustainable and scalable models driven by the mission of educating children in every demographic. All human capital as well as tangible and intangible assets must be redeployed efficiently and effectively, evolving from a turnaround mode to a growth model. While funded and regulated as a public good, education must be administered as an entrepreneurial business that is responsive to the needs of those it serves. Who should be better at helping us achieve these objectives than billionaire philanthropists who accumulated their wealth by solving problems just like these?
The trouble is…our billionaires fell for the notion that the same leadership that has flailed for the last fifty years in education still offers the best insight into its own needs. Yes, we have the arrogance to invite the greatest entrepreneurs of our nation into our industry and assume they cannot function without being indoctrinated into our way of doing things. They are the money; we are the brains in this very flawed operation.
As funding agents, our business experts have taken the bait. They have skipped the diagnostic phase of the turnaround assignment. Partners with deep pockets have funded school leaders who deflect their own accountability onto teachers and ask for help firing the culprits and building better replacements. Little attention has been paid to an organizational model that systematically misallocates resources, operates bureaucracies that impede progress in favor of meeting regulations, and manages human resources divisively.
The potential exists to fund schools that serve as incubators for new ideas, to build databases for informed decision-making, and to motivate professionals to achieve better outcomes. Instead, smart managers are helping us to build slick new ways to perform the usual dumb tricks. How can we create entrepreneurial small schools in a district where diminished funding trickles down to the school level? We offer fewer choices to diverse learners and hope that the special relationships we build will suffice to engage them. How can we give teachers the knowledge they need to improve their practices collaboratively? We threaten them with rankings that will ultimately determine who stays or goes. How can we manage our human capital to achieve better results? We invest in elite newcomers, target the lowest common denominator for elimination, and ignore the majority in between. This is not managerial excellence.
Looking at the generic issues in education, we should welcome guidance on such issues as…
- Understanding our core mission
- Implementing continuous quality improvement
- Incubating ideas through small business start-ups
- Managing and motivating adults
- Fostering entrepreneurship in a regulated industry
- Building a better pension plan for the future
- Understanding asset-based management
Thus far, our work with mission statements has overlooked the primary goal of educating children, focusing instead on dozens of unique concepts that differentiate small schools. We need to start at the top and organize our districts around the children first. Spend the first dollar on that mission, not the nickels and dimes that trickle down to deconstructed schools. On the other hand, there are ways that education cannot be viewed through the lens of capitalism. Entrepreneurs, for example, know self-sacrifice and investments in sweat equity; the analogous martyrdom model for turnaround schools is not sustainable. Perhaps when our billionaires come to their senses they will help us find a better way.
Boys and Girls NEED to Run Around
PE classes and open spaces have become scarce at the same time that academic accountability has risen. What has been lost in the transfer is the place for recreational activity in the learning process.
The Trouble With Boys has percolated up to the surface of the dialogue in education. It has been suggested that schools are designed for girls, hitting gender bias as an issue, and suggestions quickly go hyperbolic to the point of total school redesign with same sex tracking. However, the real gender difference is how children are socialized to deal with boredom, fatigue, and distraction. Boys move around, girls quietly lose focus without obvious behavior problems. Both genders suffer academically, but educators look for the Problem Child…not the problem.
Maybe we don’t have a problem with boys. Could be that boys AND girls have a problem with us, and at least one element may not be so hard to resolve. PE classes and open spaces have become scarce at the same time that academic accountability has risen. What has been lost in the transfer is the place for recreational activity in the academic process. Children who have time for physical activity return to their studies with greater focus and stamina. Boys AND girls could benefit from short activity breaks and reintroduction of kinesthetic electives.
Engaging lesson plans are well established among best practices in the classroom. In addition, it is well documented that student centric spaces that allow for movement during learning support the kinesthetic learner. However, the need for recreational activity as the cerebral intermezzo between lessons may have been underestimated. Further, shortened lunch times and shifting of sports and other physical activities to out of school time prevent children from having intellectual and emotional downtime when they need it. Being natural problem solvers, the children try to get what they need for themselves.
A child who is acting out cries for help. A child who grows silent goes unnoticed. Both need a remedy. I am not suggesting that recreation is a total cure. Yes, there are intractable problems that need closer study. However, we should try the simple solutions when we can, and the return to play as a way to enhance learning is needed for children of all ages.
Treading Teachers
Luring the next generation of heroes into the teaching profession has become the perennial solution to every ill in education…because, of course, blame for every problem in education has been laid on the teachers. So, whatever happened to all those good teachers who have been hired over the years?
The ritual is played out annually. In the limelight, new heroes arrive with great expectations, anxious to be inducted into their new profession. Rising stars step up to pseudo-leadership positions, the new role models for veteran teachers in need of reinvention. The unwilling, the usual suspects, gird their loins and place their union reps on speed dial. Administrators extend their welcome, endorse their favorites through praise, and send the occasional stern glance. In the background, the majority of staff watches the show.
Yes, there are millions of teachers who love what they do for a living and do it with quiet dignity behind the scenes. For many of them, the best they can hope for is to be taken for granted, to be left alone to perform their duties out of the spotlight. They could be the true leaders, the natural mentors, and the knowledge bank for pedagogy and student support. Yet they often seem to have become the forgotten partners for administration.
Public education is a profession with a very flat pyramidal structure. This structure has been successfully employed in higher education and many high tech industries. It has been heralded as the model for innovation and independence. However, it presumes a strong potential for individual achievement as well as a preference for stability and lower professional risk once tenure has been attained.
Absent the great successes in a field of innovation or the prestige of a university professorship, elementary and secondary education offers limited extrinsic professional value. Nowhere is this more evident than in the urban setting. Challenges far outweigh the recognition or rewards, and the flat pyramid offers little opportunity for promotion. Instead, the culture has developed a cycle of churning those who offer early signs of leadership through a short-lived rising star/falling star phenomenon.
Each batch of fresh recruits brings the potential for new solutions to the achievement gap in urban education. Promising rookies quickly catch the eye of administration. As they grow into their jobs in the classroom, many begin to be groomed for leadership. They offer access to the latest innovations from education schools. Dedication bordering on masochism underlies their choice of the urban setting. They are eager to please and cannot say, “No.” And they do not know yet that tying up all the loose ends for a department or project does not constitute management training. A star is born.
Eventually, a few begin to climb the leadership ladder. Many leave the field, exhausted, disillusioned with education, or drawn to other opportunities. Some remain and join the corps of career teachers. This last group finds itself walking a fine line as they re-assimilate with rank and file teachers, many of whom have grudgingly tolerated their stardom. No time to look back. The next class of new teachers has arrived. New heroes are offering the best lesson plans and latest technology. Pedagogy has shifted; what was old is new again. But only the newer kids are allowed to own it.
Above it all, school leaders tread through the cycle, not actually affecting much change in student outcomes. Accountability calls for action, and action means calls for new teachers. “Send me a new batch…the last ones seem to be broken…Where, oh where, can we find good teachers?
Meanwhile, an invisible army of teachers carries on, driven by their independence, a desire to share in the joy of discovery, and the knowledge that they are not really alone in spirit. Still, it is going to be a long 30 years. There must be a better answer.
No Time for NCLB Lite
Twitter tells us that testing is bad for everyone. I disagree. I love the changes I have seen in my students as they have grown in knowledge and maturity while meeting the challenge of high stakes tests. Yes…urban students with special needs, many with English language fluency issues as well. They can do it. Oh, and, by the way, they are the very children we are not supposed to leave behind.
The digital v. analog paradigm shift is an artifact of history. However, as an analog person, I see a similar conflict between the process people and those with a results orientation. Educators tend to build processes, while education policy has moved in the direction of results. This may be no less intuitive than the shift to a digital world. Why does everyone seem so surprised that teachers might benefit from a lesson in translating their processes into results?
As process people, teachers design ways for students to engage in learning, constantly inventing and reinventing the path to knowledge. They can manage a classroom. They can direct instruction. But, they cannot control the student’s moment of knowing. As students struggle, educators tend to tighten any controls they can. Yet the student’s independent thought is essential to success in applied problem solving. This has become one of the classic conflicts in education.
In the current politicized climate, teachers must learn some new tricks…and apply them persuasively… while being observed by the hanging judge. This external control works no better for adults than it does for children. So how can we step back from this rhetoric without taking our eyes off the ultimate goal for our children? I will hypothesize that we can keep the tests, maintain the benchmarks for English language learners and students with special needs, and achieve the desired results. However, we must make partners of all educators, not sort them by individual results. And we must pay them collectively for results at least in the short run.
Twitter tells us that testing is bad for everyone. I disagree. I love the changes I have seen in my students as they have grown in knowledge and maturity while meeting the challenge of high stakes tests. Yes…urban students with special needs, many with English language fluency issues as well. They can do it. Oh, and, by the way, they are the very children we are not supposed to leave behind.
It is crunch time for NCLB; time for the sprint to the finish. Unfortunately, instead of working together to achieve our collective goal, we are engaging in vicious hunts for scapegoats and building hyperbolic arguments against testing. Suddenly, “the current testing environment” has been redefined as value-added testing in every subject at the beginning and end of every school year. That is not NCLB. However, this device has led many to question testing altogether, sadly removing accountability for the students who are most in need of the benefits of that accountability.
“Teaching to the test” has become the lowest common denominator among educators who have succeeded with achievement tests. It has been highlighted as an argument against testing…because it rewards bad instruction. I would suggest that schools where teaching to the test was needed to improve test scores must have had a pre-existing history of substandard instruction. In fact, teaching to the test may be a necessary evil during the transition to higher level instruction.
Educators with lowered expectations do not attempt to give all students access to the curriculum. As they teach to the test and the bar keeps rising, however, these same teachers are forced to broaden their students’ skill set. It begins with a core set of skills that are always tested. Then, critical thinking skills are deepened. New test content expands the breadth of topics that must be covered. Higher benchmark scores require students to be even bettered prepared. As more and more students achieve success, even skeptical educators find themselves getting closer and closer to teaching the full curriculum.
It has not been a pretty process, but 2014 was not set as a deadline for testing. It set the pace for all teachers to learn how to give all students access to a competitive curriculum. This goal must not be forgotten. It is time to set aside our differences and make it happen.
Decentralized Accounting in Schools – The Carpenter’s Dilemma
To paraphrase an old saying…If the Principal’s whole budget is a personnel budget…every problem looks like a person.
Asset-based management depends on knowing the true value of all of one’s inputs. Every school has bricks and mortar, people, fixtures, equipment, and supplies. It also depends on intangibles in the form of community partners, public and private. It is not the habit of a government service such as education to apply market principles to the analysis of its enterprise, its investments and its returns. However, we may well benefit from borrowing the tools of the market to know where we stand for strategic planning purposes.
In addition to taking an inventory of assets, each school would benefit from understanding all the fully allocated costs it incurs, not just the staffing costs. This would be a stepping stone to decentralized accounting, which would send more resources to the schools along with more discretion in spending and accountability for results. We have a genuine need to know where the money is spent. Teachers must demonstrate their effectiveness, but so must the many and varied offices and materials that comprise district overhead. Would any good manager intentionally pay for all of their goods and services at the current cost?
The New Urban Academic Campus
Heresy…today’s small high schools are building blocks for our future, crucial transition elements that, like scaffolding, must fall to reveal the 21st century high school.
Future shock? Large urban high school campuses will comprise at least a few small schools, athletic facilities, an arts complex, a tech center, and various culinary enterprises. Students will have options off campus for dual enrollment in college, distance learning, and work study. Community service will be mandatory, and civics lessons will transport students to government centers. Students will engage in exploration, but the pursuit may be a thesis, not necessarily hands-on learning. Small learning community leaders will have reinvented the assistant principal role. The campus will have a general manager running the operation.
Small high schools are helping to address the achievement gap in urban education. They seek to ensure that students are no longer falling through the cracks, and that they are getting smarter through exploration-based learning. However, pedagogically, they are too close to very good middle schools. This strategy must be temporary by design. In addition, small schools keep class sizes low by limiting administration to a small number of micromanagers with a yen for multitasking. Electives and extracurricular activities often depend on the skill set resident in the core content faculty, not student choice, and team sports are cobbled together with partnering schools in borrowed or substandard facilities. Sacrifices are made to preserve academic priorities.
Failure is not an option. Important investments are being made for our children to achieve equity in college preparation and access to the American dream. What, then, with success?
What key elements of this experiment must be preserved? Surely, a personal connection to school is a must for every student. Small school nurturing and student-orientation must survive. But is the pedagogy that has bridged the achievement gap equal to the task of taking students to the next level in high academic achievement? Strong mathematical and scientific thinking depends on algorithms and abstract thought. Writing for college must be quick and carefully composed, not formulaic or endlessly edited. Broad knowledge of culture and historical perspective set students apart. Facility with technology and spatial navigation must be assumed.
Collections of small schools will benefit from affiliation to underwrite expanded opportunities for their students. Personal choice is as important to academic motivation for students as the best intentions among their teachers and mentors. Once core competencies have been achieved, exposure to a menu of options will allow students to explore their interests and broaden their perspectives. For the more fortunate, it will unlock a passion for study in a newly discovered discipline.
This new high school exists in some wealthier suburbs today. I can only ask for at least as much for urban students. And it is not too soon to include this vision in our plans for their future.
Data on Social and Emotional Development
Psychosocial development of students creates opportunities, challenges, and goals for educators. Overarching questions can guide inquiry into data requirements and analysis to foster healthy development of school children. Formalizing the plan helps to refine and document aspects of an approach that already resides in less conscious professional practice.
Teachers enter the profession well-versed in educational psychology. However, all would benefit from periodic exploration of the ways in which psychosocial benchmarks affect student learning and inform curriculum and classroom management. Teachers moving to a new grade level or learning to engage students with a different social or intellectual profile seek guidance. Closing the achievement gap among children may create the need for a fresh look at expectations. In a profession that is driven by data, tracking social and emotional progress in students is an important source of information.
The following outlines examples of questions to incorporate into program design as well as grade level and whole school improvement plans.
Program design: As a school/grade level, are we facilitating achievement of normal developmental benchmarks in the children?
- Is each learning milieu age appropriate?
- Are academic challenges consistent with physical, social, and intellectual expectations?
- Do we communicate expectations and model behaviors for children to show age-appropriate skills in problem-solving, decision-making, and communication?
- Are there opportunities for exploration and expression that support healthy self-esteem and relationships?
- How do we accommodate the natural variations among children in each classroom?
- What support services do we provide for children demonstrating unusual social or emotional issues?
Planning and Assessment:
- Formative Assessment: Do our children arrive at school manifesting expected psychosocial behavior?
- Vertical alignment: What are the expectations for the children at the next academic level? What does feedback tell us about our students’ readiness in the recent past?
- Goals: Given formative assessments and vertical alignment needs, what specific outcomes related to psychosocial development do we want to prioritize and measure during the current academic session?
- Ongoing assessment: How can we document psychosocial development systematically?
- End-of-year assessment: Have we met our objectives and prepared our students for success at the next academic level?
Some suggestions for content in professional development are outlined below:
| Whole learning community |
|
| Grade level sessions |
|
| Vertical alignment sessions | Discussions with adjacent grade level teachers to compare their expectations with actual student manifestations
|
| Grade level regroup | Development of goals for the year and tools for measuring results |
In the classroom…
If a school does not have the habit of formally addressing psychosocial development, the data gathering may seem onerous. However, this system simply seeks to document and refine an approach, many aspects of which are already integral to each teacher’s practice, and engage the children in the process.
- Assess psychosocial development at start of year.
- Talk with students about who they are and how they are changing.
- Observe students as they demonstrate benchmark behaviors.
- Keep a developmental portfolio or diary with them/for them (depending on age).
- Reflect on growth at the end of the year.
And finally, expect variations, but also observe outliers and be alert to the need for intervention.
First Glance at Teacher Effectiveness Data
How can we create a climate of continuous quality improvement for educators? The job is complex,; the work is difficult, and the intangibles are highly valued. And, no matter how well the students perform each year…a new cohort arrives and the process starts all over again.
Each year, teachers are hired, provided job descriptions and terms of engagement, and assigned course loads and student rosters. Textbooks, curricular objectives, and pacing guides may be available. Orientation sets expectations for the culture, academic goals, policy, and procedures of the school. Day one ends and the business of educating students begins.
Facing one’s job as a teacher can be daunting. A complex mix of lonely autonomy, resource constraints, and unpredictable challenges must be met with courage, resilience, and flexibility. Often, time is the scarcest commodity, and the start of a new school year marks the end of personal leisure time and lifestyle choices. Students come first, and teaching them must be its own reward.
This would seem like an administrator’s dream – highly motivated people wanting to do what is best for children. However, it is that same independent spirit and devotion that creates conflict in teacher evaluations. How do you create a climate of continuous quality improvement for a collection of individual contributors whose motives are so sincere and whose commitment is so complete as to be deemed beyond reproach?
Some ground rules are needed…
- Level the playing field for all teachers. No good guy/bad guy dichotomy. Teachers resist even minor constructive criticism in a culture marked by exemplars and losers.
- Create teacher effectiveness reports and share and validate the data before implementation.
- Balance the subjective content with generous quantities of objective data that link accountability to parameters under each teacher’s control.
- Be sure to include any behavior that is valued in the tool. Attendance may not be the most highly valued attribute, but if you presume it, you will lose it.
- Limit the impact of data gathering for teacher effectiveness reports with automation, student participation, and integration into existing routines.
So, how do you evaluate teacher effectiveness? How well that teacher does his or her job must be assessed using a variety of data sources to answer a range of questions. Some are as simple as what were the most basic terms of engagement, and were they met? Or, did you hire a “whole” teacher or one who has qualifiers concerning readiness to teach? Did the teacher fulfill contingencies for continued employment, make reasonable progress toward continued preparation? What are the values of the school? Did the teacher support the culture in a positive way? For example, did the teacher collaborate effectively, resolve conflicts well, support collegiality?
What was the outcome for the students? Were students engaged in education? Did students complete the course successfully? Were they satisfied with the teacher/instruction? What did their portfolios show about their instruction and assessment? How well did they perform on formal assessments? How did their parents respond to their educational experience? Too many questions, but I would rather design a tool around too many than too few.
1st Draft of Teacher Effectiveness Framework
|
Question |
Data Source |
Data Use |
| Is the teacher meeting basic terms of employment? | HR record | Attendance, participation in professional development, professional conduct |
| Is the teacher highly qualified? | HR Profile | Credentials, progress on plans |
| Is the teacher meeting curricular expectations? | Teacher planning documents | Evidence of unit plans, robust lesson prep with differentiation |
| Student notebooks | Evidence of course content | |
| School-wide curriculum tracking system | Adherence to pacing guides, content standards | |
| Is the teacher maintaining a safe and effective classroom environment? | Continual classroom walk-throughs, casual observation | Visible evidence of student-centered design, organizational support, student engagement, and visual content reinforcement |
| Record of interventions | Discipline issues, pro-active problem-solving | |
| Are the students successful? | Attendance record | Attendance rates, patterns |
| Local assessments | Scores on assignments, informal tests, formal assessments | |
| Student portfolios | Samples of student work, student record of academic and psychosocial accomplishments, peer review | |
| Student report cards | Pass rates, grade distribution | |
| Student follow-up records | Advanced placement, graduation rates | |
| Student’s actual and predicted scores on standardized tests | Teacher value-added to test scores | |
| Parent surveys | Parent satisfaction with instruction, classroom environment | |
| Can the teacher deliver a strong composite snapshot of his or her practice? | Classroom observation | Teacher’s practice in action |
| Peri-observation data bank | Documentation of practice in terms of curricular goals, lesson prep, student record and work samples, teacher’s standard records and personal progress data | |
| Pre and post-observation conference | Teacher’s reflectiveness, response to feedback | |
| Does the teacher support the school’s culture and values? | Teacher peer review | Evidence of collaboration, vertical course alignment, professional conflict resolution |
| Professional development portfolio | Contribution to school culture and value system, participation in organizational growth goals, personal growth record |
This is just a starting point for discussion. Many issues remain for customized format, such as…
- How well developed was the assignment in terms of deliverables? How creatively was the gap between defined and discretionary deliverables closed? Was the program academically rigorous?
- Was there unusual challenge in the course load and roster? Is there hardship duty to be assessed?
- Were there added dimensions of special needs or English language proficiency? Did this involve co-teaching or unique curricular requirements?
Comments welcomed.
Thoughts on English Language Learning
In the world of multiple intelligences, linguistics is NOT one of mine. However, I try to pay attention to any dialogue on language acquisition or management of English Language Learners (ELL). After many years of listening to proponents for bilingual education, full immersion, or sheltered immersion programs, I have designed a couple of hybrid models for 1st year ELL students.
The first, CharterAmericas creates a community center based charter school that assimilates the speaker of limited English with a very strong primary language. The program celebrates the intersection of the cultures of the Americas and provides a combination of bilingual and sheltered immersion learning. Further, it seeks to engage the local community in a shared value of multilingual language fluency.
The second, a Cultural Studies program, focuses on native language instruction of topics across the curriculum to students with very little understanding of English and significant gaps in knowledge from very significant absenteeism. In this latter program, the goal for students is to achieve foundation content knowledge and improve skill in language arts while studying their own culture and native tongue.
Common themes with both programs include…
- Strong language arts studies in the student’s native language
- English taught as a foreign language credit
- Emphasis on native language for new academic content, English instruction for rehearsal of familiar concepts
- Living arts content in English with vocabulary training and hands-on learning opportunities
Option 1: A charter school that serves as a one-year intensive academic transition program for newcomers with modest English proficiency. The school is part of a community center that serves the extended family as they adjust to life in an English-speaking world.
CharterAmericas
Languages of the Americas, Year 1 ELL program
Language Arts – Primary language at grade level with learning standards comparable to ELA. This course is intended to develop deep knowledge and appreciation of reading with comprehension, writing by genre with appropriate mechanics, and vocabulary growth in the students’ native language.
Co-teaching at Grade level with interpreter – in English + primary language translations with after-school tutoring in primary language
- Math
- Social Studies
- Science
Electives – bilingual with English vocabulary learning standards, oral and written assessments, and performance tasks for content
- English I as a Foreign Language credit
- The Arts – fine art, music, drama, dance
- Living Arts – Culinary arts, fashion, woodworking, handyman
- Technology – Keyboarding, Office Software, Graphics, Web Design,
- Health and Physical Education
Community links
- Lifelong learning – tutoring support after program completion
- Whole family success planning (ESL, career counseling and training, adult education)
- Leadership series – multilingual lectures, debates, cultural events
- Part-time interpreters from community
- Feeder schools in local district
- Universities with cultural links – Latino and/or Caribbean studies
- Performance series – student and community productions
- Support services – counseling, health links
Languages supported
- Creole
- English
- French
- Portuguese
- Spanish
Trouble with Defined-Benefit Pension Funds
Pension funds scarce and getting scarcer
“The N.J.E.A. – the teachers’ union – decided to launch its first strike in the coming battle when it obtained what it said was a list of the recommendations that will be in the final report of a pension study commission…Edithe A. Fulton, president of the association, said that some of the proposals ‘represent the most outrageous assault ever attempted on the state pension system’…According to the teachers’ association, the proposals would raise retirement ages, lower benefits, increase premium co-payment requirements for health care and penalize those who retire early… At present, a person retiring at age 60, with 20 years of service and a final average salary of $28,000, would receive an annual pension of $9,333, or about $777 a month. The new formula would reduce that to $3,242, or about $270 a month.
The February 19, 1984 edition of the New York Times foretold of an upcoming debate over management of under-funded teacher pensions in the State of New Jersey. The numbers are quite different today, but the story is sadly similar. Unfunded pension benefits, once thought to be an artifact of 1980s stagflation, have reared their ugly heads again. While the nature of the problem seems similar on the surface, a number of differences will make the solution much more difficult this time around.
The problem in 1984…pension funds had gotten into trouble after years of inflation and a relative absence of economic growth in the US. By the early 80s, inflation topped 18%, and this high cost of capital meant greatly discounted pension fund valuation. As retirees lost private benefits, Congress reconsidered the Social Security Opt-Out provision of ERISA and added benefit protection for private beneficiaries. However, the greatest amount of relief came in the form of lower inflation. By 1986, the slow, painful stagflation scenario had played itself out and discount rates began a rapid decline. Fund balances were adjusted upward and the stock market grew. A problem of supply of funds was resolved with market-based renewal of that supply.
Fast forward to the current situation…During periods of unprecedented growth on the stock market, flush fund managers had allowed pension trustees to pay out generous benefits to retirees. Defined-benefit plans created schedules of accruals that presumed these conditions would continue indefinitely. As we now know, the market conditions were buoyed at least partially by fraudulent financial vehicles and imprudent behavior. The world economy has stalled and volatile market behavior has made fund valuations more difficult. Interest rates are already low, and inflation fears only make the situation more ominous. Essentially, there is no chance of a magic pill in the form of a market-based improvement in the supply of pension funds. Our greatest hope lies with long-term growth in the economy that must happen over time.
To complicate matters, Baby Boomers are becoming eligible for benefits in record numbers. Even as pension funds become scarcer, this new level of demand for pension funds is accelerating. The solution to the problem necessarily relies on artificially increasing the supply of funds or moderating demand. The former would mean adding money to the pot from public or private sources, i.e., government bail-outs or increased employee contributions. Demand reduction would mean postponing eligibility for benefits or reducing benefit payouts. However, defined-benefit plans limit flexibility for benefits that have already accrued for existing employees.
Several states and municipalities have moved to stop offering defined-benefit pensions to new employees, choosing instead to offer defined-contribution plans such as 401K or 457 plans. The relief offered by such changes will not be adequate to prevent the looming financial crunch for retirees. Nevertheless, it will allow future retirees to have more control over their money and timing in a proactive way.
Now, back to the 80s…when the Social Security safety net was restored. In 1983, Congress put an end to government workers opting out of Social Security. Because of a grandfather clause, about 5 million Americans still do not participate in Social Security. As the mantle of control over solvency in old age gets shifted to the individuals in private plans, perhaps it is time for the hold-outs to opt back IN to Social Security.
SchoolsRetooled TM 