Archives for the month of: July, 2012

In an effort to compete with the big for-profit online companies that take away their students and their state tuition money, school districts in Pennsylvania are considering the creation of their own cyber schools.

This shows the fallacy of competition and the bottom line.

It makes perfect economic sense to compete with K12 by opening another cybercharter.

It makes perfect economic sense to encourage your own students to stay home and learn online, because that is what the competition is doing.

But it makes no educational sense because study after study shows that online learning is not right for many students, that it provides an inferior quality of education for many, that test scores are lower, graduation rates are lower, and dropout rates are higher than in traditional schools.

Yes, public schools can compete. But they should compete by doing what they do best: Providing a place where human beings who are caring and well-prepared teachers can interact with students on a face-to-face basis. Inspiring them, encouraging them, bringing out their best, teaching them as only a human being can.

Yesterday, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan had a story in the Huffington Post extolling his work in building respect for the teaching profession.

He has accomplished this, he says, by insisting that teachers be evaluated based on the test scores of their students.

Exhibit A of his success, he says, is Tennessee. Mr. Duncan relies on a report by Kevin Huffman, the state commissioner of education (former PR director for TFA, now employed by one of the nation’s most conservative governors).

The report says that since Tennessee won Race to the Top funding in 2010, it has seen remarkable results because it is now using test scores as 50% of teachers’ evaluations.

Leave aside for the moment the fact that leading researchers (like Linda Darling-Hammond of Stanford University and the National Academy of Education and the American Educational Research Association) say that these value-added measures are inaccurate, unreliable, and unstable.

It is simply bizarre to boast about a one-year change in state test scores. It has long been obvious that state test scores are less reliable than NAEP and that any real change requires more than one year of data as evidence of anything.

According to NAEP, the scores for Tennessee in both reading and math were flat from 2009-2011. Perhaps Secretary Duncan should wait for the release of the 2013 NAEP  before boasting about the dramatic gains in Tennessee.

In the meanwhile, I urge Secretary Duncan and his staff, and Commissioner Huffman, to read the joint statement of the National Academy of Education and the American Educational Research Association on value-added testing and its misuse in evaluating teachers. It is called “Getting Teacher Evaluation Right.” I am sure that the Secretary agrees that policy should be informed by research.

Here is the executive summary:

Consensus that current teacher evaluation systems often do little to help teachers improve or to support personnel decision making has led to a range of new approaches to teacher evaluation. This brief looks at the available research about teacher evaluation strategies and their impacts on teaching and learning.

Prominent among these new approaches are value-added models (VAM) for examining changes in student test scores over time. These models control for prior scores and some student characteristics known to be related to achievement when looking at score gains. When linked to individual teachers, they are sometimes promoted as measuring teacher ―effectiveness.‖

Drawing this conclusion, however, assumes that student learning is measured well by a given test, is influenced by the teacher alone, and is independent of other aspects of the classroom context. Because these assumptions are problematic, researchers have documented problems with value-added models as measures of teachers‘ effectiveness. These include the facts that:

1. Value-Added Models of Teacher Effectiveness Are Highly Unstable: Teachers‘ ratings differ substantially from class to class and from year to year, as well as from one test to the next.

2. Teachers’ Value-Added Ratings Are Significantly Affected by Differences in the Students Who Are Assigned to Them: Even when models try to control for prior achievement and student demographic variables, teachers are advantaged or disadvantaged based on the students they teach. In particular, teachers with large numbers of new English learners and others with special needs have been found to show lower gains than the same teachers when they are teaching other students.

3. Value-Added Ratings Cannot Disentangle the Many Influences on Student Progress: Many other home, school, and student factors influence student learning gains, and these matter more than the individual teacher in explaining changes in scores.

Other tools have been found to be more stable. Some have been found both to predict teacher effectiveness and to help improve teachers’ practice. These include:

  • Performance assessments for licensure and advanced certification that are based on professional teaching standards, such as National Board Certification and beginning teacher performance assessments in states like California and Connecticut.
  • On-the-job evaluation tools that include structured observations, classroom artifacts, analysis of student learning, and frequent feedback based on professional standards.

    In addition to the use of well-grounded instruments, research has found benefits of systems that recognize teacher collaboration, which supports greater student learning.

    Finally, systems are found to be more effective when they ensure that evaluators are well-trained, evaluation and feedback are frequent, mentoring and coaching are available, and processes, such as Peer Assistance and Review systems, are in place to support due process and timely decision making by an appropriate body. 

    And here is a short summary of the report by Linda Darling-Hammond.

Every year, as part of its customer service, the New York City Department of Education asks parents what they would like to see changed.

Every year since the question has been asked, parents have chosen as their top priority: Reducing class size.

In 2007, when the survey was initiated, the Mayor minimized parent concerns by lumping together all other choices as if they were one, to say that parents had many concerns.

This year, when the Department presented its slide show of the results, it left “class size” out of the slide.

Wonder why.

The Huffington Post article linked in the first sentence is nearly an exact copy of the post on the NYC Parent blog in the second link.

Thanks to Leonie Haimson, parent advocate, who is a tiger on the subject of class size.

One of the much-hyped new ideas of our time is the “School of One.” This is a new use of technology in the classroom.

It was declared a success in 2009 by Time magazine before it was ever implemented anywhere.

It was created by TFA alum, Broad-trained, ex-Edison, ex-NYC DOE executive Joel Rose and implemented on a pilot basis in the New York City public schools.

There are two different stories embedded in The School of One.

There is the story of the business of education, and School of One is a cutting-edge venture in edu-business.

The other is whether it is pedagogically sound. On this count, Gary Rubinstein has posted an informative review.

Here is a blog that says that a school with low test scores is like a failed restaurant.

We know what happens when a restaurant fails.

It closes. It goes bankrupt. The hungry customers go somewhere else.

He is an entrepreneur who is now in the business of reforming schools.

Here is his analysis:

Struggling schools are like failed restaurants.  The kitchen staff are the educators. Maybe the chef is the chapter union leader.  The restaurant owner/manger is the school administration.  Customers are the kids.  And Eli Broad or one of the education agencies he funds is Gordon Ramsey.  He comes in with honest, straightforward observations, and tells you what’s going wrong.  Sometimes it’s the chef that’s the problem and the management is too disengaged to fix it.  Sometimes it’s the management, inhibiting the talent of a bunch of great cooks.  In most cases, the restaurant is neglected – dirty and infested.  Disgusting actually, especially if you look in the secret places, behind and underneath things, as LA Unified knows all too well.

Well, gosh, wouldn’t you be thrilled to have Eli Broad come to your school and tell you how to fix your problems? Wouldn’t you want to have a guy who made billions in the home-building and insurance industry tell you what’s wrong and what to do?

Or are you just a lousy chef working in a rat-infested building without the sense to do anything about it?

Yesterday, readers of this blog had a homework assignment. I asked  you to read David Berliner’s important article about education and inequality.

Today, I wish to share with you a letter that he wrote to a list of people who read the article. I am reprinting it with his permission.

I thought you  might want to read it because it contains an inspiring message.

Those of us who think that the current so-called reform movement is destructive of education values can take hope: All of us, doing what we can, when we can, where we can, will make a difference.

If  you want to write him, his email is online. Google him. He is at Arizona State University.

David Berliner writes:

I want to thank so many of you for your kind words. Nothing makes a writer feel better than having someone actually read what they wrote and take a moment to say they liked it! Thanks.

In the flurry of emails that I was copied on, a few readers have commented that this kind of response to the world we live in is not enough to change very much, and that is surely true. It’s just my way of helping, as  inadequate as it may be. But it’s the kind of thing that if enough of us do, and circulate, and inform, might eventually lead to greater receptivity to change. It also allows us to look in the mirror in the morning and think that at least we did something!
 
When The Manufactured Crisis was published by me and Bruce Biddle, I received a short note of appreciation from Noam Chomsky, which I proudly hung on my wall. I wrote him back and asked how he manages to keep up his scholarly critiques in the face of enormous opposition to his views, and he kindly wrote back a short note that said something like this: 
“If you do nothing, nothing will happen.
If you do something, chances are nothing will happen.
But if you do something you can at least look at yourself in the mirror.”
 
That’s a good personal goal, and allows for hope that more can happen. 
 
The rebellion against high-stakes testing which is now occurring didn’t start when Paul Wellstone announced that NCLB would be a failure. The little book I wrote with Sharon Nichols, “Collateral Damage,”  got very little play even though we documented early on the problems with NCLB and the fact that you cannot test your way out of the problems our schools have. But we and Wellstone and dozens of others who had little effect contributed to the arguments that Diane Ravitch got to make in a way that finally found an audience. Her powerful writing, her credentials and past history, and her personal commitment finally got the attention of a lot of people who had ignored a lot of others who said similar things.  Now the rebellion against NCLB is on, the cheating we predicted and the gaming we documented based on the ubiquity of Campbell’s law is now understood to be widespread, and there is retreat from the nonsensical expectation that there will be “100% success for all by 2014, as waiver after waiver is given. 
 
I like to think that each bit of scholarship and each letter to the editor, and each voice at a school board meeting and each sign at a protest march that doesn’t have much of an effect in itself, lays the foundation for someone to make the mark when the time is right. Each little act of scholarship and letter writing and act of protest prepares the way for the next, and the zeitgeist eventually changes. 
 
Its the little bit of optimism I cling to in a world just made for pessimists! And by contributing a little bit to the fight for change, each of us gets to look in the mirror and feel a little less unhappy.
Cordially, and with great admiration for all you do,
David

K12 has found a new market. I wonder if the state reimbursement is higher to deliver online instruction to homebound children with special needs:

 

Ads by Google what’s this?
Special Needs: K12
K12 Provides The Support Children Deserve, w/ Free Books & Materials!
www.K12.com/Florida

I started this blog on April 24, three months ago.

I began with the following entry:

I decided to start my own blog because I was overusing Twitter and treating it as a miniblog, which it isn’t.

My weekly blog at Bridging Differences is great fun for me, and I love the format of exchanging letters with Deborah Meier. That format creates a certain aura of informality and encourages me to speak freely in a non-academic tone, the way one speaks to a friend. So, I don’t know where this will go, and I don’t know if I will succeed in remembering: 1) how to access my new blog; 2) my user name; 3) my password.

But if I can overcome these hurdles, I look forward to writing blogs on a near-daily basis, unconfined by the 140 character limit of Twitter, thus relieving my Twitter followers of the cascade of tweets that now clutter their Twitter feed from me.

Now it can be told.

I have posted on more than a “near-daily basis.”

I have posted more than 600 pieces, many written by you, the readers.

I have stopped overloading the Twitter feed of my followers on Twitter.

Instead I overload your mailboxes with anywhere from 5-20 posts daily.

Some of my very best posts are written by my readers, for which I thank you.

My readers are teachers, principals, parents, and people who care deeply about education from all over the world.

A friend wrote today and said that he liked the blog. I said that I always react in my head to everything I read. I used to mutter silently to myself. Now I have a blog and I can write a post on the blog instead of muttering.

So, if I am cluttering your mailbox, I apologize for that. You are free not to read the posts.

But I am having too much fun to stop.

And, one thing more, I have no idea how to access the blogsite. I just click on the latest comment to get there. Someday, I’ll have time to learn that little detail.

The good news is that I do remember my password. That’s an accomplishment.

Keep sending me your local news and comments. I learn from you every day.

Diane

The William Penn Foundation in Philadelphia paid for the services of the Boston Consulting Group (the group that spawned Bain).

BCG recommended privatization of a large number of schools in the city, allegedly to save money. But as we know, charters don’t save money and on average, they don’t get better results. But they do manage to compete with public schools for limited public funding.

Now we learn that the foundation was not content to bring in the hired guns of BCG, it also put $160,000-180,000 into PR to promote the recommendations to the citizens and legislators.

These guys will do whatever they can to make sure public education does not survive in Philadelphia.

To whom is the William Penn Foundation accountable? Who elected them to rearrange the lives of the people of their city?

I was in a car the other day with friends who don’t pay much attention to education issues, and one asked me, “Who is this guy who figured out how to teach math to everyone?” He said he read about him in Time magazine. Thus is a myth created.

I am not a reliable critic of math methods, it’s not my field so I have not assayed a view of Khan and his videos.

But today I read a devastating critique. The bottom line: the videos aren’t very good and neither is the math.

I have a tendency to want to see educational ideas developed in a sober and careful way, because I know of US education’s tendency to jump on bandwagons and adopt the latest fad and new thing. Teachers tend to be skeptical of quick fixes and properly so.

It is not that they are resistant to innovation, but they are resistant to hype, and properly so.

The author, Karim Kai Ani, writes as follows:

The real problem with Khan Academy is not the low-quality videos or the absence of any pedagogical intentionality. It’s just one resource among many, after all. Rather, the danger is that we believe the promise of silver bullets – of simple solutions to complex problems – and in so doing become deaf to what really needs to be done.

As Arne Duncan said, we need to invest in professional development, and provide teachers with the support and resources they need to be successful. We need to give them time to collaborate, and create relevant content that engages students and develops not just rote skills but also conceptual understanding. We have to help new teachers figure out classroom management – to reach the student who shows up late to class every day and never brings a pencil – and free up veteran teachers to mentor younger colleagues.

I recently attended the inaugural #TwitterMathCamp, a collection of teachers who traveled from around the country (plus two Canucks!)…during their vacation…and paid out of pocket…to discuss how best to introduce proportions and whether slope always requires units.

We need to stop focusing on the teachers who are doing it wrong and instead recognize the ones who are doing it right: the Frank Noscheses and the Kate Nowaks; the Sadie Estrellas and the Sam Shaws; the ones who spend their time trying to become better to make someone else’s kids smarter.