Archives for the year of: 2013

A few days go, Professor Ira Shor posted a comment and asked if Mercedes Schneider would analyze the poll showing that 75% of AFT teachers support the Common Core standards. Mercedes Schneider saw his request in the comments section and posted her analysis. Schneider is a high school teacher in Louisiana with a doctorate in statistics and research methods.

Hart Research Associates, which conducted the poll, did not agree with Schneider. The Hart firm is a highly respected polling organization. I invited them to respond to Scneider’s review of their work, and they agreed to do so.

Their response begins here:

TO: American Federation of Teachers

FROM: Guy Molyneux, Hart Research Associates DATE: May 10, 2013

RE: Methodology for Common Core Survey

Following are some facts about the methodology for AFT’s recent survey of AFT K-12 teachers on Common Core implementation that may help to answer the criticisms and questions raised by Mercedes Schneider.

Schneider’s objections speak to two distinct questions: 1) does the survey reflect the views of AFT K-12 teachers?, and 2) if so, can the AFT results be extrapolated to all U.S. teachers? The answer to the first question is “yes,” for reasons explained below. The answer to the second question is “not necessarily.” When Randi Weingarten refers to what “teachers” think about the Common Core, she is referring to AFT teachers. This shorthand is not meant to deceive anyone; if it were, the press release and various poll materials would not have stated so clearly and repeatedly that the survey was conducted only among AFT members. (Indeed, even the quote highlighted by Schneider mentions “a recent poll of AFT members.”)

In fact, it is likely that a survey of all U.S. teachers would report results broadly similar to what we found among AFT members, for reasons explained below. However, it is true that we cannot be sure of this unless further research is done among non-AFT teachers. Such research would be welcome.

 The survey employed a standard sampling methodology, used in countless surveys by many polling organizations. On behalf of AFT, Hart Research Associates conducted a telephone survey of 800 AFT K-12 teachers from March 27 to 30, 2013. Respondents were selected randomly from AFT membership lists. This process of random selection produces a representative sample, allowing us to generalize from the survey respondents to the larger population being sampled (in this case, all AFT teachers). There is nothing unusual or controversial about this method.

 A sample size of 800 teachers is appropriate and common. Schneider notes that “AFT/Hart only surveyed nine one-hundredths of a percent of the AFT membership (.09%),” and adds for emphasis: “Please don’t miss this. AFT did not survey even 10% of its membership before forming an opinion of teacher acceptance of CCSS.” In fact, a survey sample size of 800 is reasonable and quite common: for example, most national media surveys interview between 800 and 1,000 registered voters. Moreover, researchers understand that survey samples are not properly evaluated as a percentage of the underlying population. By randomly selecting respondents, a relatively small sample can provide an accurate measurement on a much larger population. If Schneider’s 10% standard were correct, pollsters would need to interview 20 million U.S. voters to conduct a single survey of registered voters. Needless to say, not many surveys would be conducted.

1724 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20009 202-234-5570 http://www.hartresearch.com

Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, explains here why she supports the Common Core Standards and why she believes there should be a moratorium on the high stakes attached to the testing until teachers have had enough time to master them and students have had the opportunity to learn them.

Randi writes:

It’s no secret that the AFT is a big supporter of the Common Core State Standards. We believe these standards have the ability to transform the DNA of teaching and learning to ensure that ALL children, regardless of where they live, have the critical thinking, problems solving and teamwork skills and experience they need to succeed in their careers, at college and in life.

AFT members were deeply involved in the development of these standards and through Share My Lesson and the AFT Innovation Fund the AFT is working to ensure that teachers, parents and even districts have the tools and resources they need to implement these standards.

I am constantly on the road visiting schools and meeting with AFT members. I continually meet teachers who support these standards and who believe these standards hold great potential for their students and our public schools. But nearly every teacher I meet says that she is not getting the proper tools and resources to make the instructional shifts necessary—and as we have seen there’s been a rush to implement high-stakes tests before getting the implementation right.

The AFT wanted to match what we were hearing on the ground with real scientific data. The AFT takes our obligation to serve our members very seriously. That’s why we worked with Hart Research, the polling firm we’ve used for more than two decades, on a poll of AFT teachers to gauge their support of the Common Core and their concerns about the implementation.

Honestly, I was surprised to see some bloggers and others question the results of a scientific study using standard polling research measures used by nearly every reputable polling firm the U.S. I was also troubled to see anti-union organizations being cited and used as a way to discredit the AFT and the poll.

The AFT publicly released this poll, a detailed polling memo and a powerpoint presentation on the findings. We also held a media availability during the Education Writers Association conference last week with our pollster to discuss the poll and its findings. The AFT and our pollster would have been happy to answer any questions about our poll had we been asked.

I asked Guy Molyneux of Hart Research Associates to address Mercedes Schneider’s post and you can read his memo outlining the strong methodology of the poll and its representative sample of AFT members. (Guy Molyneaux’s memo will be posted in a few minutes).

There may be disagreements on the importance of the Common Core but as a community of educators we should respect the scientific process and the dignity of one another.

Much of the discussion around the AFT poll has focused on the 75 percent of AFT teachers who support the standards. But the poll also brought to light many concerns teachers have about the implementation of the Common Core.

• 74 percent of teachers are worried that the new assessments will begin—and students, teachers and schools will be held accountable for the results—before everyone involved understands the new standards and before instruction has been fully implemented with the standards.

• Just 27 percent said their school district has provided them with all or most of the resources and tools they need to successfully teach the standards.

• 53 percent said they have received either no training or inadequate training to help prepare them to teach to the standards.

• 76 percent said their school district has not provided enough planning time for understanding the standards and putting them into practice.

• 58 percent said their district has not done enough to have a fully developed curricula aligned to standard available to teachers.

• 54 percent said their district has not done enough to have assessments aligned to the standards.
• Just 33 percent, are very or fairly satisfied with the amount of teacher input in developing their district’s plans for the Common Core standards.

• And half, or 51 percent, said there have not been enough opportunities for teachers to practice with students to ensure they are learning key concepts and principles.

Again, we may have disagreements on the importance of the Common Core. But these standards were adopted by 45 states and D.C., teachers are being expected to teach to these standards and teachers and children are being assessed based on these standards. It is clear that teachers are not getting the tools and resources they need and that they do not believe their voice is being heard. These are serious concerns and instead of fighting over polling data, I hope that we can work together to ensure that every teacher is prepared to teach to these standards. That’s what our teachers and students need and deserve.

Randi Weingarten
President, AFT

At a panel discussion in New York City, Bridgeport Superintendent Paul Vallas made a startling admission. He said that the efforts to develop a teacher evaluation metric was a huge mess and that no one understands it.

He said:

“The Bridgeport, Conn. superintendent — who has served stints in Chicago, Philadelphia, and New Orleans and earned a reputation as a turnaround consultant for struggling districts with big budget gaps — said reforms he backed were at risk of collapsing “under the weight of how complicated we’re making it.”

“We’re working on the evaluation system right now,” Vallas said of Bridgeport. “And I’ll tell you, it is a nightmare.” Vallas went further and said: ““We’re losing the communications game because we don’t have a good message to communicate,” he said. In separate comments, Vallas criticized evaluations as a “testing industrial complex” and “a system where you literally have binders on individual teachers with rubrics that are so complicated … that they’ll just make you suicidal.”

A nightmare, yes. A testing-industrial complex, yes.

Professor Audrey Amrein Beardsley at Arizona State has written extensively about teacher evaluation and in her most recent study–not yet published–she reports the results of a 50-state survey. Not a single state has figured out how to use the value-added data to help teachers, and–get this–in every state the formulae are so complex that no one understands them other than those who created them. And the billions invested in this nutty endeavor are supposed to improve education!

David Coleman, as is his wont, was provocative. “Coleman was perhaps the night’s most outspoken panelist, at one point suggesting that those who believe that poverty is an insurmountable obstacle to improving student achievement should offer to cut teacher salaries and redistribute those funds to the poor.”

Why would he suggest cutting teachers’ salaries to reduce poverty? Why not start with the billionaires? I don’t understand this comment or his logic at all. Do you?

Here is the absurd consequence of the terrible ideas that have dominated education policy in the US. for the past 20 or so years.

The governor and legislators in Michigan have stripped more than a billion dollars from the public schools even as they better test scores. Now, as they plan to cut public school budgets even more, they want to tie teachers’ salaries to test scores.

The fact that test-based incentive have failed and failed and failed does not have any bearing on the state’s policymakers. No doubt they can claim they are marching in step with Arne Duncan, who believes that test scores must be a significant part of teacher evaluation.

The formula of slash and burn is not good for children, not good for schools, and not good for the quality of education. The tests will rule every decision. I wonder how many of the legislators could pass the tests that will determine the reputations and lives of teachers.

Rebecca Poyourow, parent activist, wrote a terrific op-ed calling on Governor Corbett to stop the cuts that are devastating the schools.

In 2011-12, the governor cut $1 billion from the schools, and the cuts hurry Philadelphia the most. Class sizes soared, parents chipped in to replace staff, after-school programs were eliminated, even basic supplies had to given to the school.

While parents and teachers are pinching pennies, the state-appointed school reform commission continues throwing away money, she says. “We know that our actions, while laudable, will amount to very little if our schools are persistently and pervasively underfunded. We also know that our efforts to support our kids’ schools are undermined every time the School District and the School Reform Commission make spending decisions that squander what resources Philadelphia does have on charter expansion ($139 million last year), a questionable new cyber charter venture ($15 million proposed), and new contracts with testing companies ($11 million), as well as other contracts and programs that add little benefit to our children’s education.”

Read more at http://www.philly.com/philly/opinion/inquirer/20130510_Education_cuts_taking_a_toll.html#K57glBaz413ITu3S.99

David Kirp, professor at the University of California at Berkeley and author of “Improbable Scholars,” describes here the ruinous consequences of high-stakes testing.

Everything associated with the corporate reform movement is failing. How much longer will the hedge fund managers and the federal government continue to fund failing strategies?

He begins:

“It’s a terrible time for advocates of market-driven reform in public education. For more than a decade, their strategy—which makes teachers’ careers turn on student gains in reading and math tests, and promotes competition through charter schools and vouchers—has been the dominant policy mantra. But now the cracks are showing. That’s a good thing because this isn’t a proven—or even a promising—way to make schools better.

“Here’s a litany of recent setbacks: In the latest Los Angeles school board election, a candidate who dared to question the overreliance on test results in evaluating teachers and the unseemly rush to approve charter schools won despite $4 million amassed to defeat him, including $1 million from New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and $250,000 from Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp. Former Atlanta superintendent Beverly Hall, feted for boosting her students’ test scores at all costs, has been indicted in a massive cheating scandal. Michelle Rhee, the former Washington D.C. school chief who is the darling of the accountability crowd, faces accusations, based on a memo released by veteran PBS correspondent John Merrow, that she knew about, and did nothing to stop, widespread cheating. In a Washington Post op-ed, Bill Gates, who has spent hundreds of millions of dollars promoting high-stakes, test-driven teacher evaluation, did an about-face and urged a kinder, gentler approach that teachers could embrace. And parents in New York State staged a rebellion, telling their kids not to take a new and untested achievement exam.”

When the Louisiana Supreme Court handed down a crushing 6-1 defeat for Bobby Jindal’s voucher plan, State Superintendent John White immediately declared victory. The court said it was not ruling on the merits of the case but on its funding: the state may not spend money dedicated to public schools to pay for vouchers and course choice (eg, K12, Connections, and other for-profit providers).

This may seem puzzling to those of who do not live in Louisiana but the locals understand.

Crazy Crawfish worked at the Louisiana Department of Education, and he explains it here for you. Johnn White has adopted a slogan called “Louisiana Believes” (every bold program must have a new slogan).

As CC explains, John White believes in completely denying reality. White has dual credentials: TFA and Broad. That helps explain his commitment to spinning whatever he doesn’t like and, as he once put it, “muddying the narrative.” When you do that, no one knows what to believe.

Governor Andrew Cuomo likes to say that the problems in New York are not about money, because the state spends enough already.

Governor, please read this analysis by Bruce Baker.

Despite years of promises, New York State has one of the most inequitable school finance systems in the nation.

We may be spending enough, but the funding is highly inequitable.

And the state’s neediest children have the least funding and the largest class size.

These disparities are inexcusable.

Bill Gates gave a TED talk. I confess I didn’t watch. Happily, others did and produced a transcript.

Jersey Jazzman called Bill’s central assertion (that 98% of teachers get a one-word evaluation, “satisfactory”) ridiculous. If you link to JJ’s blog, you cn watch Bill explain how to fix the evaluation problem.

The one time I saw Bill Gates was at Davos in 2006. He spoke then with the same sense of absolute certainty. He knew exactly what was needed to cure all the ills of American education: small high schools with rigor and relevance. He spoke assuredly. He did not admit that the foundation’s evaluations were not so rosy as his description. Two years later, he dropped the small school as panacea.

I don’t know how he approaches software issues, but from his actions, he is the kind of guy who needs to have One Big Powerful Idea. And he won’t give up on that One Big Idea because no one around dares to tell him he is wrong.

Fixing teacher evaluation is his current idee fixe:

Everyone needs a coach. It doesn’t matter whether you’re a basketball player, a tennis player, a gymnast or a bridge player. (Laughter)

My bridge coach, Sharon Osberg, says there are more pictures of the back of her head than anyone else’s in the world. (Laughter) Sorry, Sharon. Here you go.

We all need people who will give us feedback. That’s how we improve. Unfortunately, there’s one group of people who get almost no systematic feedback to help them do their jobs better, and these people have one of the most important jobs in the world. I’m talking about teachers. When Melinda and I learned how little useful feedback most teachers get, we were blown away. Until recently, over 98 percent of teachers just got one word of feedback: Satisfactory. If all my bridge coach ever told me was that I was “satisfactory,” I would have no hope of ever getting better. How would I know who was the best? How would I know what I was doing differently? Today, districts are revamping the way they evaluate teachers, but we still give them almost no feedback that actually helps them improve their practice. Our teachers deserve better. The system we have today isn’t fair to them. It’s not fair to students, and it’s putting America’s global leadership at risk. So today I want to talk about how we can help all teachers get the tools for improvement they want and deserve.

Let’s start by asking who’s doing well. Well, unfortunately there’s no international ranking tables for teacher feedback systems. So I looked at the countries whose students perform well academically, and looked at what they’re doing to help their teachers improve. Consider the rankings for reading proficiency. The U.S. isn’t number one. We’re not even in the top 10. We’re tied for 15th with Iceland and Poland. Now, out of all the places that do better than the U.S. in reading, how many of them have a formal system for helping teachers improve? Eleven out of 14. The U.S. is tied for 15th in reading, but we’re 23rd in science and 31st in math. So there’s really only one area where we’re near the top, and that’s in failing to give our teachers the help they need to develop their skills.

Let’s look at the best academic performer: the province of Shanghai, China. Now, they rank number one across the board, in reading, math and science, and one of the keys to Shanghai’s incredible success is the way they help teachers keep improving. They made sure that younger teachers get a chance to watch master teachers at work. They have weekly study groups, where teachers get together and talk about what’s working. They even require each teacher to observe and give feedback to their colleagues.

You might ask, why is a system like this so important? It’s because there’s so much variation in the teaching profession. Some teachers are far more effective than others. In fact, there are teachers throughout the country who are helping their students make extraordinary gains. If today’s average teacher could become as good as those teachers, our students would be blowing away the rest of the world. So we need a system that helps all our teachers be as good as the best.

What would that system look like? Well, to find out, our foundation has been working with 3,000 teachers in districts across the country on a project called Measures of Effective Teaching. We had observers watch videos of teachers in the classroom and rate how they did on a range of practices. For example, did they ask their students challenging questions? Did they find multiple ways to explain an idea? We also had students fill out surveys with questions like, “Does your teacher know when the class understands a lesson?” “Do you learn to correct your mistakes?”

And what we found is very exciting. First, the teachers who did well on these observations had far better student outcomes. So it tells us we’re asking the right questions. And second, teachers in the program told us that these videos and these surveys from the students were very helpful diagnostic tools, because they pointed to specific places where they can improve. I want to show you what this video component of MET looks like in action.

(Music)

(Video) Sarah Brown Wessling: Good morning everybody. Let’s talk about what’s going on today. To get started, we’re doing a peer review day, okay? A peer review day, and our goal by the end of class is for you to be able to determine whether or not you have moves to prove in your essays.

My name is Sarah Brown Wessling. I am a high school English teacher at Johnston High School in Johnston, Iowa.

Turn to somebody next to you. Tell them what you think I mean when I talk about moves to prove. I’ve talk about —

I think that there is a difference for teachers between the abstract of how we see our practice and then the concrete reality of it.

Okay, so I would like you to please bring up your papers.

I think what video offers for us is a certain degree of reality. You can’t really dispute what you see on the video, and there is a lot to be learned from that, and there are a lot of ways that we can grow as a profession when we actually get to see this. I just have a flip camera and a little tripod and invested in this tiny little wide-angle lens. At the beginning of class, I just perch it in the back of the classroom. It’s not a perfect shot. It doesn’t catch every little thing that’s going on. But I can hear the sound. I can see a lot. And I’m able to learn a lot from it. So it really has been a simple but powerful tool in my own reflection.

All right, let’s take a look at the long one first, okay?

Once I’m finished taping, then I put it in my computer, and then I’ll scan it and take a peek at it. If I don’t write things down, I don’t remember them.

So having the notes is a part of my thinking process, and I discover what I’m seeing as I’m writing. I really have used it for my own personal growth and my own personal reflection on teaching strategy and methodology and classroom management, and just all of those different facets of the classroom.

I’m glad that we’ve actually done the process before so we can kind of compare what works, what doesn’t.

I think that video exposes so much of what’s intrinsic to us as teachers in ways that help us learn and help us understand, and then help our broader communities understand what this complex work is really all about. I think it is a way to exemplify and illustrate things that we cannot convey in a lesson plan, things you cannot convey in a standard, things that you cannot even sometimes convey in a book of pedagogy.

Alrighty, everybody, have a great weekend. I’ll see you later.

[Every classroom could look like that]

(Applause)

Bill Gates: One day, we’d like every classroom in America to look something like that. But we still have more work to do. Diagnosing areas where a teacher needs to improve is only half the battle. We also have to give them the tools they need to act on the diagnosis. If you learn that you need to improve the way you teach fractions, you should be able to watch a video of the best person in the world teaching fractions.

So building this complete teacher feedback and improvement system won’t be easy. For example, I know some teachers aren’t immediately comfortable with the idea of a camera in the classroom. That’s understandable, but our experience with MET suggests that if teachers manage the process, if they collect video in their own classrooms, and they pick the lessons they want to submit, a lot of them will be eager to participate.

Building this system will also require a considerable investment. Our foundation estimates that it could cost up to five billion dollars. Now that’s a big number, but to put it in perspective, it’s less than two percent of what we spend every year on teacher salaries.

The impact for teachers would be phenomenal. We would finally have a way to give them feedback, as well as the means to act on it.

But this system would have an even more important benefit for our country. It would put us on a path to making sure all our students get a great education, find a career that’s fulfilling and rewarding, and have a chance to live out their dreams. This wouldn’t just make us a more successful country. It would also make us a more fair and just one, too.

I’m excited about the opportunity to give all our teachers the support they want and deserve. I hope you are too.

Thank you.

(Applause)

__,_._,___

The National Education Policy Center is an invaluable resource. It keeps tabs on the half-baked research that pours forth from advocacy groups pretending to be think tanks.

Its latest report reviews ALEC’s “report card” on the states.

You will not be surprised to learn that he states with the highest scores are those with vouchers, charters, and unregulated home schooling.

Its ratings are similar to those of Michelle Rhee. The “best” states are not the ones with the best education, but the ones that match ALEC’s ideology. The highest marks go to states that are abandoning public education for a free-market model of private providers.