Michael Klonsky in Chicago disagrees with Pedro Noguera’s views in the Nation about the Chicago teachers’ strike. Here Klonsky sets the record straight:
Pedro Noguera claims that the CTU, “has not been willing to acknowledge that more learning time and a clear and fair basis for judging teacher effectiveness are legitimate issues that must be addressed.”
I’m a big fan of Pedro but his latest criticism of the union is not only ill-timed, but dead wrong as well. The union doesn’t oppose “more learning time” for students as Pedro Claims. From the start, they supported the idea of a longer, better school day (see the Ward Room (http://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/ward-room/CTU-Contract-Longer-School-Day-163588976.html) including more art, music, physical education and recess, similar to the school day at the private school where Rahm and board member Penny Pritzker send their children.
The union’s approach to a longer school day moves well beyond and improves upon the mayor’s top-down imposition of more seat time on teachers, students and parents. It is true that union has opposed the idea of a longer school day and year without any added compensation for teachers as mandated by the board.
Pedro’s other poke at the CTU for supposedly not offering an alternative approach to improving “teacher effectiveness” is also misleading. The union, with research support coming from the CReATE group of researchers, has put forth important ideas for transforming the current inadequate evaluation system (See CReATE member Isabel Nunez’ commentary in the Sept. 12 Sun-Times http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/15107882-452/standardized-test-scores-are-worst-way-to-evaluate-teachers.html).
What makes Pedro’s criticism so unfair, particularly at this time, is that the union has taken on both the more-seat-time issues as well as new approaches to teacher evaluation at great risk during the current contract negotiations. Perhaps he isn’t aware that since the passage of Sen. Bill 7, Chicago teachers are legally barred from negotiating over anything except wage/benefit issues.
Pedro would do well to read the union’s excellent document, “The Schools Chicago’s Students Deserve” to better understand where the CTU is coming from. The report can be found at http://www.ctunet.com/blog/text/SCSD_Report-02-16-2012-1.pdf
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Mike, thank you for clarifying…after I read Pedro’s piece I was confused. I read the schools Chicago’s students deserve a few days ago and the first thing I thought was he must not have read that document. I hope he does now.
I had the same reaction to the article. I was hired by a district desperate to find enough teachers, and I know some of us were hired (and retained) from the bottom of the barrel. Some, but not all, became good, and even great. I don’t know what help there might have been for those who were not ready (or right) for the classroom.
Is it fair to ask the university to weed them out? That means less tuition paid to the university. Should administrators be held responsible for passing dud teachers from school to school? I’ve seen this happen. A mediocre teacher can become very adept at flying under the radar.
But every day I watch brilliant, dedicated teachers stand up for their students in an increasingly hostile environment. It’s kind of like seeing a stable full of magnificent and spirited Arabian horses being whipped for not being good enough plow horses. And all the district seems to want to do is buy more and heavier plows.
Critics of public schools and the teachers and unions that serve them are either ill informed in the field of education, OR well-informed PR masters.
Resisting the privatization and exploitation of public schools and the students in them becomes “”teachers refuse to teach children.”
Seeking more input into shaping meaningful teacher evaluation, and NOT obediently accepting ridiculous non-educator formulated evals…that becomes “teachers refuse to be evaluated.”
The middle class to lower middle class (if you are lucky-I have been teaching for more than ten years and make much less than any average I’ve seen quoted) income is continually compared to the average income in the impoverished areas served. That becomes “teachers are over-paid”
The crafting of this message, I think, is intentional, not some “whoopsy!”
Give credit where it’s due. The “message” is clever, consistent, and deceptive.
Diane
With all due respect – and I’m a big supporter of CTU – the one thing they haven’t done a very good job with is getting out the word that teachers aren’t opposed to being evaluated and even have, in fact, proposed their own system of evaluation – even allowing for the near blackout from the MSM. I post a lot on Eric Zorn’s blog on the Chicago Tribune and the question I see a lot is basically, so if teachers don’t want to use test scores for evaluation, what evaluation system, if any, would teachers consider? As much of a supporter as I am of CTU, even I have had a hard time finding a solid answer to that question. Now, of course, given the bias in the MSM, it’s understandable why people are ignorant of the teachers’ positions on most issues, but on this issue, even I have had to confess ignorance. Among the fact sheets that CTU and its allies have been trying to get out to the public, I would suggest including a bullet point explaining how teachers are currently evaluated and what the teachers have proposed for evaluation.
It’s difficult for anyone to find a solid answer to the question of teacher evaluation. Maybe that’s because good teaching is an art.
Check out the Montgomery County Peer Assistance and Review model
Google it
Diane
NVlibrarian – But this kind of response isn’t going to win you any friends, even among people inclined to support you generally. Yes, teaching is an art, but does that mean teachers should have no evaluation? Most professions involve a great deal of “art”, but most professionals are subject to some sort of evaluation.
If you want to win hearts and minds on this point, you need to make it clear how teachers are already evaluated, what improvements the teachers themselves have suggested and why that’s better than being evaluated by seemingly “objective” measures such as standardized tests. (Yes, I know standardized tests aren’t objective, but I’m not the one you need to convince – I’m already on your side.)
Here, for instance, is a fairly typical comment by one of Eric Zorn’s regular commenters (one who is usually pretty liberal):
“The following is a legitimate question and not intended as a flame. I hope some of the teachers who post here will respond.
“It appears to me that the reason a teacher goes to work every day is to impart knowledge to his/her students. To make them “know more” or “think better,” in so many words. The ability to do this very well, or at a so-so level, or poorly is what would separate excellent teachers from bad ones (and, yes, by definition, there are bad teachers).
“So student performance over a several year period of time should be a good indicator of a teacher’s skill, especially when compared to peers at the same grade level in the same district.
“Why don’t good teachers want to be evaluated based on their results? What would be a fair, repeatable, practical, and accurate way to assess whether a teacher is actually any good at teaching?
“From a non-teacher’s point of view, I don’t see how student performance, over time, CAN’T be included in a teacher’s performance evaluation.”
How would you answer this?
Pedro’s conclusion-jumping about the CTU lacking a plan/solutions reminds me of similar criticisms of you/your book. People said you gave no solutions when, of course, the “Lessons Learned” chapter at the end (of the hardcover) listed them in over ten pages.
And my next book will offer even more. And the solutions I offer have evidence and experience behind them, not just hunches, wishes, and ideology.
I take issue with the idea that teachers and the CTU, ” From the start, they supported the idea of a longer, better school day…”. As a CPS parent for 7 years, I can tell you that is an out and out fallacy. Please do some research into our “closed” and “open” campus school days. For years individual schools had the ability to choose the open campus model of 6.5 hours. Very very few did. Most choose to continue the shamefully short 5.45 hour day, meaning zero recess for the kids. Two years ago, CPS (after being prompted by parent groups), tried to get schools to switch to open campus voluntarily. Only 13 did. Think about that. Only 13 schools decided that recess was necessary. It was at that point that the full court press for the full school day began. Rahm was wrong to attempt the extreme 7.5 day. However, the short day culture was too pervasive. It was not until the proposal of 7.5, parent pressure, and the changes in SB7 that made length of day and year non-negotiable, did the CTU suddenly decide that a “better” day was a priority. Those of you who do not live here or have kids in CPS, have no idea what the culture has been like in these schools. Things seem one way from a distance or on paper, but the reality is something else.
More seat time does not necessarily equal greater learning gains. We tried extending the school day for the worst performing schools in Miami. The time was totally wasted. They simply added two hours to the day without any additional resources. Teachers and students were both burnt out at the end of the regular school day and no learning occurred in the extra hours. Test scores did not improve. A total waste of money and time.
If they are so concerned about lack of instructional time, they should reduce class size. I can tell you everything takes longer when you have a class of 45 compared to a class of 25. When you start dumping 50-60 kids in a room, nothing gets done at all. If you claim you don’t have the money to reduce class size, why do you find money to extend the school day and keep classes huge and unproductive?
The biggest concern for parents under the 5 hr and 45 minute day was the lack of recess and minimal time for lunch. Recess was truly the catalyst for all this.
People should take everything Pedro Noguera says with a shovelful of salt: the man is a political log-roller who plays both sides. He likes to polish his purported progressive bona fides by occasionally voicing wishy-washy qualms about corporate education reform, while enabling (as he did as SUNY charter school authorized) attacks on the public schools.
No one should be surprised tha he would misrepresent the CTU’s position. When the chips are down, you can rely on him to be on the wrong side.
As a Canadian, we often wonder what makes Americans tick. English Canadians in particular seem to be very close kin of Americans and yet at times we are shocked by the differences. We look at what all of the OECD nations are doing and they seem to be seriously examining the PISA type results and wondering what it is they can all learn from Finland, Korea, Singapore even some aspects of Canada (world’s highest % of population with post secondary education). Everybody else is looking OUTWARDS trying to learn from one another.
Americans, on the other hand want to look INWARDS and reinvent the wheel. As Linda Darling-Hammond points out (you really do have fabulous education leaders down there, you just don’t listen to them) there ARE such things as best systems out there.
Is anyone else except the UK using privatization, vouchers, charters, teacher bashing, union bashing, Mayoral control, teacher testing, standardized testing on steroids, and the rest to improve their system? Why reinvent the wheel?
The worldwide solutions seem to be early childhood education, smaller classes, (we all quote STAR-Tennessee) better nutrition, health care, (pre-natal, dental, optical) and other human level improvements. All of the rest of us are benefiting by research, often American research (Perry study). It is really sad that few down there listen to the research of your own experts. The rest of us thank them profusely.