Archives for the month of: July, 2012

A reader states her view of Teach for America’s claim that five weeks of training is enough to make their corps members “highly qualified teachers”:

I graduated college in 1965 with a degree in education.  My first two years were liberal arts and my last two years were education classes focusing on various subjects like social studies, math, reading, etc.  In those days you didn’t need much in the way of classroom management because it was not a major issue.  My third year in college all my education classes required me to visit different schools and observe master teachers who had agreed to allow students to observe them.  We came back to class to reflect on what we saw.  We collected resources.  My last year of college required me to do 4 days a week of student teaching and one day a week in cohort to discuss our experiences.  I worked one semester in a 4th grade class in the lower east side of manhattan and one semester in a kindergarten in park slope brooklyn.  The teachers I worked with were wonderful.  They were helpful and allowed me to assist and also to teach, under their direction, lessons.
None of this, however, prepared me for the experience of having my own class.  It was overwhelming.  It took me a very long time before I thought I was worthy to be a teacher.
There is absolutely no way in the world anyone can be considered “highly qualified” in five weeks.
The suits that don’t understand that are either smoking funny cigarettes, are on someone’s payroll to push this through, or have a complete disdain for other people’s children.  Or all of the above.
I have said many times that those who would consider someone with 5 weeks training to be highly qualified should have major surgery done with someone with 5 weeks medical training.
I told that once to a TFA teacher from a charter school housed in my school building and who had been a finance major at Cornell. She told me it was different because doctors learned real skills.
I think that says it all.

This is a site to discuss better education for all, so here is a discussion about teaching.

As faithful readers know, we have had a discussion here about the Relay Graduate School of Education and its methods. It trains teachers for charter schools. See here and here and here and here.

Carol Corbett Burris objected to its narrow pedagogy. I objected to the very fact that it is a “graduate school of education” since its faculty includes no scholars, it teaches nothing other than classroom management and data analysis, it offers no courses in the foundations of education, nothing about cognitive psychology or sociology or economics or history, just one way to teach. To my way of thinking, Relay is a teaching program, not a graduate school of education. I would like to hear someone from Relay explain on what grounds they call themselves a “graduate school of education” without scholars or a curriculum. They are more akin to a trade school for charter teachers.

But I digress.

Paul Bruno, who I suppose is from Relay and who occasionally comments on this blog responded to Burris, and she responded to him.

Perhaps you will enjoy the discussion.

Valerie Strauss of The Washington Post asks a seemingly obvious question:  Should a teacher with only five weeks of training be considered “highly qualified”? The answer is obviously no..

But the question pertains to Teach for America, which has lobbied Congress to make sure that its neophytes are somehow treated as “highly qualified” under the No Child Left Behind act. The federal appeals court in California has twice said that TFA teachers are not highly qualified, and that they should not be concentrated in districts of high poverty and high disadvantage, where children actually need “highly qualified” teachers, not young college graduates with five weeks to training.

Congress is debating the issue, and TFA is exerting its muscle and lobbyists and war chest to make sure that its fresh-faced recruits are dubbed “highly qualified” by any new version of the law. As Strauss says, “Let’s see just how powerful Teach for America is with Congress.”

 

We know from studies and reports that online charter schools provide inferior education.

We know that they have lower graduation rates and lower test scores than brick-and-mortar schools.

We know that they have high attrition rates, as students enroll and leave within a year or two.

We know that children enrolled in virtual charter schools do not have the opportunity to interact on a regular basis with other children of their age or have face-to-face interaction with live teachers. We know that they will not develop the social skills that come from such interchange.

We know why they are a growing business: They make millions for their sponsors.

So why do parents continue to enroll their children in institutions with such a bad track record?

Here is the answer: The demand for virtual schools is a sure indicator of the dumbing down of the American public and the triumph of American capitalism at its greediest.

I said in a post this morning that there was “a glimmer of hope” in Florida because the state board had upheld Miami-Dade’s decision to turn down three virtual charter schools.

But Florida parent leader Rita Solnet wrote to correct me. She attended the state board meeting, and she says the state board offered no glimmer of hope, as I thought, because the Puppetmaster was behind the curtain, pulling the strings. The state board overturned the decision of the Palm Beach County school board to reject four charter applications. It is startling to realize–as Solnet mentions below–that the city of Miami already has 122 charter schools!

Thanks to Rita Solnet for reminding us that nothing will change until there is new leadership in the state of Florida, leadership that is willing to stop the rampant privatization of the state’s public schools.

At that same meeting, the State Board of Ed over-turned Palm Beach County’s decision to deny applications for four (4) charters.

One must understand that Jeb Bush owns Miami. He runs the FL BOE. He controls the Ed Commissioner. The education staff are hand-picked loyalists of Jeb. If Jeb wanted the Miami-Dade charter approved, they would have been approved.

Did I mention that Miami-Dade already has 122 charter schools?  122!

I attended this meeting. I’m an optimist at heart. I missed the glimmer of hope.

Instead I heard impending doom.  A lengthy discussion on blended learning which is the Jeb Bush method of introducing more reliance on virtual charters. (ease them into it)

I heard scripted questions come flowing from board members with a purpose during a masterfully well-orchestrated Agenda..

I heard the Digital Learning speaker, Deirdre Flynn, discuss 270 students and 6 teachers in blended learning classes. (Oh, did I mention Flynn is Deputy Director for Jeb’s Foundation? No, the Board didn’t mention that either.)

I heard FL BOE member Chartrand request “a McKinsey study to see if we are doing this blended learning thing right.”  (Former McKinsey education leader, Michael Barber, is the Pearson Education Adviser.)

I heard BOE member Chartrand ask to inject language into a new vision/mission statement which specified “highly effective teachers” only.

Later I spoke at length with FL Commissioner Robinson.

No, not yesterday. I saw no glimmer of hope at the FL BOE meeting. Sorry to be the bearer of bad tidings but yesterday was not a hopeful day. Yesterday reinforced how much work we have ahead of us.  Yesterday reinforced that we need a new regime at the top.

 

I am reposting this because I forgot to include a link to the study, its title and the names and affiliations of the authors in the first posting. Pretty awful oversight. Actually inexcusable on my part. I apologize to my readers and to the authors of the study.

We have known for some years that the scoring of state tests is easily gamed. In fact, proficiency rates don’t tell us much, because state officials may raise or lower the passing score for political reasons. It happened in New York for years, when the proportion of students passing the state tests went up and up until it collapsed in 2010 as a result of an independent investigation. The state officials enjoyed their annual press conferences where they announced annual too-good-to-be-true gains. And they were too good to be true. They were fake. When the fraud was revealed, there was no accountability. No one admitted having done the dirty deeds. No heads rolled. Accountability is for “the little people,” as real estate queen Leona Helmsley once said about paying taxes. In education, the little people are teachers and principals. At the top–at state departments of education–heads don’t roll. They crown themselves and use their exalted position to blame those who are far, far below them. Think “Yertle, the Turtle.”

An important new study  by Professors Adam Maltese of Indiana University and Craig Hochbein of the University of Louisville sheds new light on the validity of state scores. This study found that rising scores on the state tests did not correlate with improved performance on the ACT. In fact, students at “declining” schools did just as well and sometimes better than students where the scores were going up. The study was published in the Journal of Research in Science Teaching. Its title is “”The Consequences of ‘School Improvement’: Examining the Association Between Two Standardized Assessments Measuring School Improvement and Student Science Achievement.”

Consider the ACT an audit exam.

Consider the state tests an invalid way of measuring student achievement and an invalid way of judging students, teachers, and schools. Consider them an invalid way of closing schools and awarding bonuses and firing people.

When students are prepped and prepped and prepped to pass the state tests, they aren’t necessarily better educated, just prepared to take a specific test. Too much prepping distorts the value of the test.

When your measure is invalid, don’t use it for rewards and punishments.

Perhaps if we used these exams appropriately, just for information, they might begin to have some value. As high-stakes, their validity is corrupted, as Campbell’s Law predicts.

Michigan Governor Rick Snyder has his own plan to hack away at the foundations of universal, free public education.

He is vying to be one of the national leaders of the education reform movement.

Like Bobby Jindal, his Southern counterpart in the far-right of the Republican Party, Snyder would love to offer vouchers but the Michigan state constitution doesn’t permit it (neither does the Louisiana state constitution, but who cares when you are a reformer?). Leaving constitutional niceties aside, Snyder wants to promote, encourage, expand, and fund with taxpayer dollars anything that is not a public school.

Governor Snyder wants to reshape the state’s school finance system so that public money “follows the child,” instead of just automatically going to public schools. This is part of the rightwing agenda to defund public education, cloaked in alluring terminology. The governor has created a panel to figure out how to make this happen.

He won’t come right out and say (reformers never do) that public education is bad, instead he will parrot Michelle Rhee’s absurd claim that public education is rigged to support “adult interests,” not the needs of children. I think what that means is that people who work in public schools get paid for doing so, which shows how selfish they are.

Far better, in the eyes of this education reformer in Michigan, to allow public money to go to for-profit corporations who put children first or anywhere else where there are no unions.

This is one of the peculiar views of the reformers in Michigan. It released a memo saying “the existing School Aid Act of 1979 generates $14 billion for public education, but the group believes that the existing law “serves the interest of legislators and representatives of the educational interests who control the education system, it is generally inaccessible to the general public.”

See the reasoning: That $14 billion now spent on public schools for all is controlled by “the educational interests” who “control the system” and it is not really for “the general public.” Get that: the money spent for public education is not for the public.

So if you follow the logic here, what is needed is more school choice, with money not targeted to any particular district or any particular school. No student would be assigned anywhere, and any choice the student or family made would be accompanied by state funding. Needless to say, that includes online learning and charters. Be it noted that Michigan has a very large for-profit charter sector; somewhere between 70-80% of its many charters operate for profit.

The governor wants funding to be allocated to “proficiency-based funding instead of “seat time” requirements,” which means that testing will be the sole criterion of education value. This again is a green light for the online corporations, because students can pass the state tests on computers and won’t need to go to a brick-and-mortar school at all.

And of course, we can’t have “reform” without “innovation.” In this case, the governor wants “A system that embraces innovative learning tools and reflects changing from a static approach to education delivery to one responsive to individual learning styles.” There we go again: code words meaning that we don’t want public money to pay for the current status quo system of public education, which is “static,” but to pay for online delivery system where the computer can adjust to “individual learning styles.” Apparently that is something that individual teachers, mere human beings, can’t possibly do. Only computers can do that.

And most certainly the governor wants to allow “nonpublic and homeschooled students maximum access to public education resources within the constraints of the state constitution.”

There you have it, folks, Governor Rick Snyder’s plan to reform public education by funding everything other than public education.

Last night, I watched the PBS Frontline program and saw “Fast Times at West Philly High.” It is a wonderful documentary about the teachers and students at this inner-city high school who entered an international competition to create a hybrid car. It follows them as they build their models, then take them to the competition. Theirs is the only team of high school students. All the others in the competition are adults, and many are professionals.

This is real reform, unlike the phony schemes to privatize public schools and hand them over to for-profit entrepreneurs. This is real curriculum, instruction, teaching and learning, where students are eagerly learning and applying what they learn. This is real teaching, where the teachers are fully invested in what they are teaching and respect their students as partners in the learning.

When people ask why it is so hard to motivate high school students to care about their work, tell them to watch this documentary. These students are highly motivated. They are learning the “soft skills” that employers say they want. They are learning self-discipline, teamwork, cooperation, initiative, responsibility, and hard work. They show up on time. They care. They are using computers. They are learning and practicing reading, math, science, technology and engineering.

The title of this post is ironic. I bet these same students would be turned off if the same amount of time was devoted to test prep for the next state exams.

Yet in this endeavor, they are all super stars.

And so are their teachers.

PS: A reader points out that the Chicago Board of Education recently killed the automotive tech program at Lane High School. Perhaps Mayor Rahm Emanuel or Board member Penny Pritzker might arrange a showing of “Fast Times at West Philly High” for the members of the Board.

What are the similarities between Mitt Romney and Rahm Emanuel? True, they have different party labels but their education policies are eerily alike. A writer in Chicago showed the contradictions in this brilliant and hilarious article.

Historians in the future (the future meaning maybe later this year or next, now that we live at warp speed and last week seems like 50 years ago) will puzzle out why President Obama decided to build his education program (Race to the Top) on the crumbling foundation of No Child Left Behind. They will also have to figure out why he decided to throw teachers and their unions (arguably his most ardent supporters in 2008) under the bus. And they will probably trace the trail to campaign contributions to Wall Street, which is likely to abandon him in 2012.

It’s not too late for him to change course. He could re-renergize his base. He could rekindle the love of teachers in a millisecond if he could stop the flawed ideas embedded in Race to the Top: that teachers should be judged by the test scores of their students, that federal programs created to help the poor should be turned into competitions, that public dollars should be handed over to private management as often as possible, that the federal government needs to create a data base for every student from cradle to grave, and that the best way to help students is to test them at the earliest possible age.

I get emails every day from teachers who say they are puzzled, they are angry, they are outraged by the Obama policies. They can’t vote for Romney, because he openly hates them and their unions.

Mr. President, if you or your staff read this, please take heed: Drop the Republican education policies. They haven’t worked for the past decade. They are ruining education and demoralizing teachers.

We have a tendency in the U.S. to think only of ourselves or to look enviously abroad to wonder what some other nation is doing that we should copy (another way of thinking only of ourselves).

Part of this is national narcissism but also incredible naiveté. As Yong Zhao has written in his books and blogs and articles, we look enviously at the test-driven schools of China at the same time that the Chinese wonder how to be more creative and entrepreneurial like us.

We can always learn from the experiences of other nations. One reader asked the question, what will happen when the “reformers” have passed so many punitive laws that no one will want to teach? A reader in The Netherlands responded:

When schools ‘suffer’ from a shortage, they will hire unqualified ‘teachers’ to fill up the vacancies. They will keep silent about that, and since the government is their best accomplice, they will keep silent about it too.In The Netherlands there is a big shortage of qualified teachers, for about 15 years. Even though we have lowered the qualification norms (you can be a teacher here if you can’t divide 4 by 0,5, or if you believe that the Second World War was some fight between Germans and Americans), still one out of every three secondary teachers is unqualified. Parents don’t know this, pupils don’t know this. It is a fact admitted by the Education Department, but they don’t do anything about it. Their main concern is that ‘someone’ is teaching, whoever it is, and whatever their capability. In short, teaching as a job is sold out by employers and the government.Some context: public education in The Netherlands consist of 99% charter schools and 1% private schools. All schools get an equal sum of money for every student. School boards receive a lumpsum every year; a big bag of money that they can spend any way they like, as long as students make ‘sufficient’ progress. ‘Sufficient’ is not an absolute norm but a relative one: school boards must make sure that their schools don’t get in the bottom 10%. When a school gets in the bottom 10%, directors usually leave the school and get better paid positions at other schools. No one is accountable exept for the ‘interim manager’ who receives a high fee for getting the school on track and in the ‘upper’ 90%.The economic prosperity 1990-2008 has led to a huge expansion of management, consultancy and bureaucracy in education. In contrast, the economic adversity 2008-present has led to increasing class size, canceling of educational programs for deprived children, more teaching hours per teacher, and teachers’ wages being frozen for four years.It seems like employers don’t care that there is a huge shortage of qualified employees. I can’t think of any other profession with such a phenomenon. Just imagine a shortage of medical doctors, lawyers, policemen etc. – and employers silently hiring tens of thousands unqualified people to fill up the vacancies!