A reader with the name “Sad Teacher” wrote the following comment:
“My problem is that I cannot follow the Marzano rubric and continue to get excellent test scores. I’ve been told for many years what to teach, but now we are being ordered how to teach it. It is almost against the law now for a teacher to go to the dry erase board and explain the strategies to solve a proportion. That is called direct instruction, and it is a bad word in my district, thanks to the Marzano model of the teacher evaluation system.
“I was actually told by my evaluator that I needed to teach the highest kids in my classroom how to properly solve a proportion – and then they would teach the rest of the class in small groups, of course. It is my job to just walk around the classroom and look up at the ceiling (facilitate their learning they call it) and, of course, TEST LIKE CRAZY! I can’t teach this way! It has all gotten so ridiculous that I can’t stand the stress anymore. I love my students dearly, but all they have is a kind teacher with dark circles under her eyes with a sad smile on her face looking at the calendar on her desk to see the next assessment deadline. They deserve so much more.”
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Sad teacher, Dawn Neely-Randall, and several other teachers recently have been expressing a lot of what I have been feeling. Loads of credit and kudos to those who can endure carrying on, including some of my friends, but for my own part, the toxicity has led me to retire from teaching at the elementary school level a few years earlier than originally planned. I have posted a video on youtube to vent (also dedicated to courageous educators everywhere):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJzFNcncBMKesns=em (Common Core: Din-Din Retires)
Among other writing projects, am picking away at something to juxtapose personal experience (including feedback received several years later from former students) with what I have been reading professionally.
It says the video is unavailable.
In the last few years we teachers have been subjected to PD’s featuring the “Guide on the Side” as opposed to the ” Sage on the Stage,” paradigm as if direct teaching were somehow self-centered or arrogant. Nonsense. All strategies work – direct teaching, peer tutoring, small groups, large groups, individualized instruction. There always seems to be a need, undoubtedly supported by publishers, to throw out the old and bring in the new. All of it works and none of it works. Depends on the sage.
Just checked and also saw it unavailable. Try:
Just checked: very strange. If you google: Common Core: Din-Din Retires you can get to it that way.
This is just what is happening in my district also, direct instruction is a dirty word .We are to walk around and be a facilitator. NO DIRECT INSTRUCTION this is crazy.
Fits into the future plans— one device loaded with individualized instruction with a facilitator—not an educator.
By device, do you mean a book?
You very well know, TE, that there is a vast difference between content delivered by books and most content on the Internet, much of which is spoon-fed and doesn’t require a lot of sustained effort or thought.
Threatened,
There is no spook feeding in books? All books require sustained efforts?
The internet is vast and no doubt has terrible sources and wonderful sources. Do you think this site ( http://mathoverflow.net), for example, spoon feeds?
Sad teacher. I am trying to discern what grade you are teaching and whether you are teaching only math or other subjects. I am also wondering if the consequences would be worse if you just keep trying to deal with stuff or started looking for something better.
In the meantime, try some off-the-record venting. I suggest you work on a letter to Marzano. Describe how that system is being used in your school. Write down the specific rubrics that your administrators are using to restrict your professional judgment.
See if there are other teachers in your school who are feeling the same combination of sadness and frustration for the same reasons. Take some time to breathe.
Your anger and sadness in palpable. This blog has allowed you to express that and Diane is trying to wave red flags and ask bloggers with any wisdom to offer some help.
There is not much comfort in knowing that many, many teachers are feeling the crush of unrelenting and often contradictory requests or demands.
Until you have a clear plan…and that is something you will have to work through… take a look at the Marzano protocol again and see if that is really a big piece of the problem or not.
I can tell you this. I have looked at the Marzano protocol and if it is being used without any modification, then your administrators are probably as close to going bonkers as you are.
That protocol is a tool intended to micro-manage the work of teachers. Same for the Danielson protocol.
Both of these observation schemes insist on individualizing instruction for students. Both both are also intolerant of the idea that teachers also require individualized mentoring and support rather evaluations based on one-size-fits all checklist.
Both protocols are doing damage to the profession of teaching. They are disrespect the independent judgment of teachers.
Exactly! The superintendent micromanages the principal who micromanages the teacher! My principal was anal-retentive so the micromanaging was ratcheted up to the hundredth degree. The atmosphere of the school was highly stressed. He did not start to relax until he saw our test scores. But this is the result of the crazy teachers who he drove nuts. 12 teachers left this year. 12! He had to struggle to find teachers to fill the slots. They don’t know what they are walking into. Schools are nut factories now!
Sad indeed. Polly
I changed careers to become a teacher. I am Special education teacher and I teach every science offered at our high school. As I learned “teaching” I was shocked to discover the lack of evidence for the many “best practices” that are foisted upon teachers and students. Very, very few educational theories have been subjected to rigorous investigation. Other disciplines, such as business, have also contributed to the educational “fad of the year”. There are a variety of ways of teaching, as there are a variety of ways of learning. There has been no investigation which supports the notion that direct instruction is an evil.
Teachers in Dallas ISD are being told not to do direct instruction.
Our worthless superintendent is Floyd Mike Miles, from the Broad Academy.
I hate that my Dallas tax dollars pay for his salary!!!
I know.
Our school board is the worst.
I wish the rephormers would at least get their story straight. It seems like just yesterday that teachers were all supposed to be “teaching like champions” a la Doug Lemov. And if that isn’t direct instruction, I’m the Queen of England.
I found this talk by Eric Mazur to be very interesting and informative. I have played with his way of doing a large class a little, but I don’t really have any direct experience. The talk is very long, about 80 minutes.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WwslBPj8GgI
This sounds like another misinterpretation of constructivism. What is the purpose of reformers totally trashing progressive methods in public education, which DO include intentional teaching, aka direct instruction, a la Vygotsky, when the private schools most of them send their own children to are implementing the genuine version, where teachers serve as both guides and sages?
More evidence that the Common Core and related tests, including teacher evaluation programs, dictate curriculum and instruction, strip teachers of autonomy and doom them to failure. And more components of the business plan to privatize public education across this country.
I’ve said it before but DEVO got it right in the 80s, we are definitely devolving. Education is going straight backwards and it’s not the teachers doing it.
http://soaznewsx.com/The-Fat/ID/5823/How-does-Common-Core-math-work
Here is an example of how we are taught to teach. It appears to be with a whiteboard and direct instruction, but the concepts put like this is more confusing to me than just memorizing. Why do we want our students to be comfortable? …but then our district teachers are evaluated through Danielson’s and in order to be scored the highest, you could not teach like this model is demonstrating, but rather how “sad teacher” says. We are no longer teachers, only classroom facilitators.
Go to http://www.deliberatedumbingdown.com. Listen to what Charlotte Iserbyt has to say about Common Core. Also, http://www.americandeception.com
My one and only negative evaluation in 18 years of high school teaching came from an assistant principal who had been in the classroom 3 years and had not even finished his first year in administration. I did a demonstration to the students. He said I should have divided the class into groups and let students demonstrate to each other. However, my demonstration required equipment and supplies, that I could not afford to duplicate to several groups.
I told him I had a restricted budget, and could not afford the equipment and supplies for multiple demonstrations. He said, “I know you have budget restrictions but you should have done it anyway.”
I refused to sign the evaluation, and ask that he come in for a second time. I did the “dog and pony show” he required, it was the stupidest lesson in the world, but the students were “teaching each other” while I walked around. I received a good evaluation after that.
Yeesh!!
I quit soon after and went into higher education.
American Educator Spring 2012
Article: The Case for Fully Guided Instruction
Here’s the link to the PDF. Copy the article and give it to anyone who requires or suggests that you use already debunked (see 37 endnotes) constructivist/discovery methodologies. This is a great article for supporters of direct instruction. Good luck Sad Teacher. Time to become Mad Teacher.
Click to access Clark.pdf
It looks like a ruse to me. Those behind the push for these bastardized versions of progressive education are many of the same folks who insisted ten years ago that only direct instruction was scientifically based. Then they required drill and kill in Reading First and, when it didn’t have the effect they wanted, they scapegoated teachers for poor implementation.
Don’t be surprised if this is all just a prelude to the same folks claiming they have now officially tried a Constructivist approach (albeit the teacher’s role is nothing like what Vygotsky would recommend) and thus proven that the learner does not construct knowledge. Hence, they can declare that students must be drilled by teachers who are required to follow Behavioral scripts, as they do in no-excuses military-style charter schools.
Please forgive my “blasphemy,” but I see Marzano as more of an entrepreneur than a researcher. Although “Sad Teacher” focuses on Marzano’s model of teacher evaluation, from (at least) a research perspective, I find him disingenuous.
Alfie Kohn’s September, 2006 Phi Delta Kappan article “Abusing Research” takes issue with Marzano as well. (Btw, my concern here is research ethics, not the issue of homework itself). Consider the following from Kohn (2006):
“PHANTOM FINDINGS”
“It’s bad enough when op-ed columnists and politicians claim that ‘research proves’ homework raises student achievement, teaches self-discipline, and so on. It’s more disturbing when researchers and the authors of serious publications about education make claims about specific studies on the subject that turn out to be false.”
“Consider the popular book Classroom Instruction That Works: Research Based Strategies for Increasing Student Achievement by Robert Marzano, Debra Pickering, and Jane Pollock.[32] The subtitle immediately caught my attention, as did the fact that a full chapter was devoted to arguing for the importance of homework. The authors acknowledged that a prominent research review (namely, Cooper’s) provided scant support for the practice of giving homework to elementary school students. But they then declared that ‘a number of studies’ published in recent years have shown that ‘homework does produce beneficial results for students in grades as low as 2nd grade.’ This statement was followed by five citations, all of which I managed to track down. Here’s what I found.”
“Study 1 was limited to middle- and high-school students; no younger children were even included in the investigation.[33] Study 2 looked at students of different ages but found no positive effect for the younger children – only a negative effect on their attitudes. (This is the same Cooper et al. study whose results I charted above.)[34] Study 3, conducted in the 1970s, listed a number of practices employed by teachers whose students scored well on standardized tests. Among them was a tendency to assign more homework than their colleagues did, but the researchers made no attempt to determine what contribution, if any, was made by the homework; in fact, they cautioned that other, unnamed factors might have been more significant than any of those on the list.[35] Study 4 measured how much time a group of students spent on the homework they were assigned but didn’t try to determine whether it was beneficial to assign more (or, for that matter, any at all). Even so, the researchers’ main conclusion was that ‘high amounts of homework time did not guarantee high performance.’[36] Finally, the subjects of study 5 consisted of exactly six children with learning disabilities in a classroom featuring rigidly scripted lessons. The researcher sought to find out whether sending them home with more worksheets would yield better results on a five-minute test of rote memory. Even under these contrived conditions, the results were mostly negative.”[37]
“I was frankly stunned by the extent of misrepresentation here. It wasn’t just that one or two of the cited studies offered weak support for the proposition. Rather, none of them offered any support. The claim advanced vigorously by Marzano and his colleagues, that homework provides academic benefits for younger children, actually had no empirical backing at all. But readers who took them at their word, perhaps impressed by a list of five sources, would never know that. (Nor is this the only example of problematic citations in their book.)”[38]
[Kohn’s footnote # 38 was particularly interesting]
“38. In another chapter, for example, Marzano and his colleagues (pp. 137-38) write: ‘Although the discovery approach has captured the fancy of many educators, there is not much research to indicate its superiority to other methods. Indeed, some researchers have made strong assertions about the lack of effectiveness of discovery learning, particularly as it relates to skills. For example, researchers McDaniel and Schlager (1990) note: ‘In our view, discovery learning does not produce better skill’ (p. 153).’ ”
“That would indeed be a ‘strong assertion’ – albeit from only one pair of researchers – if the sentence in question ended there, as Marzano and his colleagues imply that it did. But here’s what McDaniel and Schlager actually wrote: ‘In our view, discovery learning does not produce better skill at applying the discovered strategy during transfer.’ On the other hand, they add a few sentences later, ‘The benefit of discovering a strategy seems to be that it encourages the development, practice, and/or refinement of procedures that aid the learner in generating searches for new strategies’ (See Mark A. McDaniel and Mark S. Schlager, ‘Discovery Learning and Transfer of Problem-Solving Skills,’ Cognition and Instruction, vol. 7 [1990], p. 153).”
“Marzano and his colleagues’ decision to quote only the first part of the sentence in question (without acknowledging that fact) leads readers to conclude inaccurately that these researchers share their own dim view of discovery learning. As for the more general assertion that ‘there is not much research to indicate its superiority to other methods,’ everything depends on how one defines the ‘discovery approach.’ If this term is understood to mean learning that is inquiry-based, open-ended, process-oriented, or otherwise designed so that students play an active role in constructing meaning, then Marzano et al.’s statement is demonstrably false, and their omission of the numerous studies demonstrating the benefits of this approach is as misleading as their cropping of the comment by the only researchers they do cite” (Kohn, 2006).
I also remember reading the late Elliot Eisner’s “The Arts and the Creation of Mind” (2002) where Eisner was highly critical of the standards-based reform promoted by Marzano’s McREL Laboratory and their manufactured lists of thousands of benchmarks and standards provided for grades one through twelve. Eisner didn’t believe teachers were likely to find these kinds of lists very useful. Plus Eisner criticized these lists for including only performance standards and not content standards.
All Marzano et al. did for “What Works” was retrieve selected meta-analyses and compare their reported effect sizes (usually Cohen’s d). I particularly take issue with Marzano et al. comparing a group of meta-analyses that included comparisons of effect sizes from a 1982 meta-analysis by Kulik & Kulik (published in the AERJ) on grouping SECONDARY students, as well as a 1987 “best evidence synthesis” – combining “features of meta-analysis and narrative reviews” – by Slavin (published in RER) on grouping ELEMENTARY students. Each meta-analysis focused on studies that pertained to different populations (secondary vs. elementary). So drawing conclusions from a larger effect size in Slavin’s meta-analysis versus the smaller effect size of K&K’s is silly.
Upon retrieving some of those meta-analyses myself, I also found information in Marzano’s cooperative learning chapter of “What Works” that should have included a citation, but did not. Marzano mentions the history of grouping going back to the W.T. Harris plan in St. Louis in 1867. HOWEVER, Marzano does not cite Kulik and Kulik (1982) for this information. His language matches that in K&K’s article almost verbatim. Upon looking the K&K article again, it appears as though K&K are citing a source of this information as well, so a secondary citation would have been in order at the very least. But Marzano cites no source and simply states it as if HE discovered it. Plagiarism.
Although useful, the limitations of a meta-analysis need to be considered. While criteria are used to include and exclude studies for a meta-analysis, I believe it is necessary to look beyond a meta-analysis and to actually retrieve and familiarize oneself with the individual research studies that were included. Otherwise we are blindly accepting the findings of a meta-analysis.
Marzano’s McREL company produces and sells many training products to school systems. They can be rather expensive too, and administrators spend the money. When the “brand” is Marzano/McREL, it seems to be presented (without question) as if it is automatically of high quality. I have my doubts.
Exactly. Only 0.13% of these “meta-analyses” are peer reviewed.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2014/08/21/a-shocking-statistic-about-the-quality-of-education-research/
Thanks for your comment Jen. I should mention though that the 0.13% has to do with replications, not peer review. Both the Kulick and Kulick (1982), as well as the Slavin (1987) meta-analyses were published in peer reviewed journals (American Educational Research Journal, and Review of Educational Research respectively). My issue wasn’t with the meta-analytical studies themselves, but with Marzano’s (mis)use of them.
Thanks for providing that link too! I just received my copy of Educational Researcher yesterday, and read the article about replications. I’m impressed that the lack of replication is being talked about in the media.
Yeah, that article is not about meta-analysis, which is basically a comparison of similar studies, so attempts at replication would be included in them. It’s not about peer-review either. It’s solely about replication. I would love to know how many of the education studies conducted by economists, which are driving so much of education policy today, have been replicated by educational researchers.
Reteach,
It is standard practice in economics to make data and code from publications freely available, and replication of published work is often assigned to graduate students as exercises. As I recall, Dr. Ravitch and a professor of education at Arizona State University were talking to Dr. Chetty about replicating his estimates in the forthcoming AER articles. Perhaps Dr. Ravitch could post an update on how the project is going.
Thanks Joe and Jen.
What gets obscured in all this mess is that even Marzano quietly acknowledges that — even employing all his strategies and methodologies — the teacher effect on student’s test score is quite small.
Still, he’s got some products to sell.
Connecticut teacher wholeheartedly agrees with NY teacher’s hot tip (above) in the AFT Spring of 2012 publication. It was written by three educational psychology profs – all very well-known in their discipline. Allow me to quote just one paragraph from this article – which in my mind, says it all….
“Research has provided OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE that, for everyone but experts, partial guidance during instruction is significantly less effective than full guidance,” said the article.”
This paper also noted that very bright students may do well in this group-based learning, but other students may simply disengage, or copy what the bright students are doing. In conclusion, the article said,
“Findings … suggest teachers should provide their students with clear, explicit instruction rather than merely assisting students in attempting to discover knowledge themselves.”
If you wish to read the 12 page original study by the same authors, here is the information:
EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGIST, 41 (2), 75-86
Copyright ©2006, Lawrence Erlbaum, Associates, Inc.
Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching
Methodological disputes in education are often not much more than posturing about this or that ideology with a bit of research to bolster the credibility of this or that claim.
The subjects most often referenced for proofs of the efficacy of a teaching method are math and reading, maybe science, perhaps social studies and rarely learning in the arts. Most claims about a “best practice” method of teaching are based on gains in scores on standardized tests in reading and math. I cringe when I hear the phrase “best practice.” It is a red flag that someone wants to sell you a training program.
The branding of a method as Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, or Inquiry-Based or Direct Instruction is also a problem. These terms are not really useful as guides to teaching methods. They are too broad, too abstract. If they are translated into a set of recommended practices, it is unlikely that the methods have been studied to find out if teachers have understood and acted upon the finer points and major principles.
Methods of teaching differ in their “purity” and fidelity to recommendations of the originators. You can see this in disputes within the Montessori community. Methods have histories and appropriators of this or that part of a larger proposal. You see that in the free recycling of methods advocated by John Dewey circa 1900–reinvented across the years.
Given the federal demand for evidence-based practice and other “accountability imperatives” of the day I think it is fair to say that easy-to-test and tried-and-trued curriculum structures are over-represented in the research literature and these studies tend to favor one-size-fits-all teacher evaluation schemes or a limited repertory of easy to name techniques that become emblems of being up-to-date.
Teachers are, and probably should be, masters of “informed methodological eclecticism.” That’s a mouthful, I know, but it also acknowledges that the real work of educating students–inspiring them to do more than they ever thought they could accomplish–is not steady-state and predictable and compliant with the slogan of “continuous improvement” or any one-size-fits all protocol, including the widely used checklists and rubrics galore in the Danielson and Marzano protocols.
Teachers are gifted scavengers of ideas from multiple sources, they should be, and they should also be skeptical of brands, hype, and hot stuff, fads, fashions, and junk–especially junk science like trying to selling one grand formula for “effective” teaching.
Experienced professionals have a variety of tools that are used when needed. Experienced professional know how to bring together the sum total of experience and training and to apply this in the classroom. This is no longer happening. During my career I have observed two things that may be contributing. One is that teachers have been little by little giving up professional autonomy. The other is that the qualifications for administrator are quite meager. In my state of Idaho an individual needs only 4 years of classroom related experience to become an administrator. Then they go on to supervise instruction and to evaluate teachers. More often than not, these are the administrators who have gone to a training session or two and come back with what the author of this post is describing.
Four years of classroom experience would be considered very experienced here in NY as some of our administrators have as little as one year of teaching under their evaluative belts. Many earn their certification through fast-track programs as well. And they are mostly mercenaries, jumping from district to district, uncommitted, and unashamed.
So agree – what other field does this? An experienced teacher will have a full toolbox from which they can pull. Depending on the lesson – sometimes you might start with direct instruction or you might start with something more exploratory- your professional judgement will guide you. To swing from construction to instruction and back at the whim or the latest ed fad is frustrating. It is not a choice of one or the other – if you have taught for awhile, you have seen the extremes of both. We are professionals – meaning our judgement should be trusted. I would like to see the qualifications for adminstration increase. I think seven to eight or even ten years of classroom experience would be about right. I would guess this is what is at least required in Asian and European countries.
Hello all – same Connecticut teacher that just posted (above). To the extent that you are interested – and I believe many are – somewhere around Thanksgiving, I am coming out with my book titled:
Why the Common Core is Cognitively / Scientifically Unsound.
It’s about 95% done and it looks like it will be approximately 350 pages long. Because of its length, I realize most people will not read such a lengthy treatment of this subject, no matter what the quality is. As such, I am going to release a 1 page version (included in my next posting within moments of this one); a 10 page version; an approximate 25 page executive summary; and of course, the full length version.
This book will NOT be an emotional rant against the Common Core – as I know that I will quickly lose most of my audience…even among the most like-minded of educators.
What it will be, is a science-based…and in very many cases…neuroscience based treatise on this subject. To beg the point, the entire book is based on research. Actually, I think you will be impressed. FYI – it will be electronic only – no physical hardcover and/or paperback.
Another FYI…I have a Master’s degree in psychology, just granted in January of 2014, even though I am 64 years old. In earning that Master’s, I unofficially concentrated in children’s cognition as well as the psychopathology of childhood – so hopefully I know a little bit of what I write about. My job is that of an AP Psychology teacher (three out of five classes) and two classes of Introductory psychology.
Right now I am looking around for publishers, including self-publishing companies. Have been doing lots of research on this – especially on pricing. The nice surprise – based on research on pricing – is that it looks like like it will sell for only $3.00. Yes, you read that right…three dollars. Anybody got any suggestions on publishers – self publishing and pricing?
Okay, thanks for reading this. My one page version is coming up in my next post – in a couple of minutes.
Thanks,
Terry from Connecticut
Connecticut teacher here again. Here is my one page version of my new book on:
Why the Common Core is Cognitively / Scientifically Unsound:
What is wrong with the Common Core? (all in one page)
1. Common Core standards – in K–6, and especially in the K-3 years – are developmentally inappropriate in substantial ways. Psychologists are concerned that the Common Core does not seem to understand that children are not miniaturized adults who are capable of accomplishing all things called for at various grade levels.
2. The Common Core is an upwardly spiraling staircase of abstract / conceptual / intuitive thinking…a mode of cognition that (at most) 30% of the population does naturally.
3. One size does not fit all. In addition to the above, the Common Core directly contradicts well-grounded research on how most people think and achieve – as well as environmental influences on these processes. Examples are the sequence, pacing, dynamics, and especially the diversity in their cognitive abilities.
4. For those parts of the Common Core which cognitive research has not yet contradicted (above point), there is no evidentiary research to support its claims going forward, e.g., “college and career ready”. Such research would be a vast undertaking – taking decades. States going forward with the Common Core’s great experiment on America’s children will be engaging in educational malpractice.
5. The Common Core is most probably unconstitutional at the Federal level. Control of school curriculum in any capacity is not a right given to the Federal Government by the U.S. Constitution. For example, in 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against one segment of the Affordable Care Act because Congress had overstepped its authority when it told the States they would lose existing Medicaid funding if they did not comply with ObamaCare’s requirement to expand Medicaid. Likewise, neither Congress nor the Obama Administration, with its Race to the Top, can attach coercive conditions to money it gives to – or takes from – the States for education.
Thank you CT Teacher! I too have an M.A. in Psychology, and am an elementary teacher. When I broach these topics I get the strangest looks. Clearly these people, including my administrators, never heard of Piaget. They have no clue, or they have a vested interest in engineering failure for all. I hope your book finds a wide audience and congratulations.
Thanks for that. My book is almost done. If you want to stay in touch, my e-mail is as follows: psychman328@gmail.com
I truly believe our students are not defined by their scores, so neither are you! Do what you know is best for kids- continue to lead and inspire……continue to TEACH. Don’t let them take that away from you!!!!
Sad Teacher, Joe Nashville, David Taylor, unheardofwroter, and others echo a a point I’ve been making for quite some time: one of the big problems in public education is administrative leadership, or lack thereof.
There are far too many superintendents and principals who are short on teaching experience (some frightfully so), and long on dictate. Too often they are deficient in a fundamental understanding of the science of learning. They simply follow the latest consultancy fad, from DuFourian PLCs (eye roll) to Marzano and Danielson and Pearson and STEM and “standards” and “rigor.” The vast majority of them could not – on their very best day – do what they mandate for teachers.
Too, most of these “leaders” have no earthly idea what the primary mission of public schooling should be. Ask them and they’ll regurgitate “for college and careers.” Some of the true sycophants will toss in “global competitiveness.” They are not interested in democratic citizenship because they do not and likely could not actually practice it as “leaders.”
These are top-down people. And they identify with the Common Core.
It’s got all the stuff in it that they’ve deemed important. The NEA and AFT and PTA and ASCD and the national associations of superintendents, and secondary and elementary principals, have all endorsed it.
In public education, one the biggest obstacles to genuine reform is its “leadership.”
There is some truth to democracy’s point. Check out THE AUTHORITARIANS, by Bob Altemeyer, which explores in some depth the research into authoritarian behavior, and how many people become susceptible to its influence. It can become so tempting to think, “If I could just control what everyone else does, have them behave more like I do, the world would be a better place,” and for people put into positions of power over others, that temptation can become overwhelming, with the result being certain people saying to others (as I heard on more than one occasion) “Get on board or get out.” This is not to say I also did not work with some fine administrators and specialists who celebrated the special uniqueness of what each teacher brought to the table, and/or who at least evidenced they were troubled by what they were mandated to do.
I do share Diane Ravitch’s optimism that in the long run, there will be a return to sanity in public education, but getting there is going to require people continuing to speak out on what they have been experiencing and what the evidence is actually showing.
@David:
see my lengthy comment below.
Yes, this is how your district operates (I know who you are – but no worries).
Ask teachers who are teaching SpringBoard. I’m surprised there aren’t more comments about it on this blog.
We were told what to teach, from what page, on what day. (Elementary teachers have also faced this in this district, and more. Many schools had principals who told teachers they must leave their doors open so the principal could walk down the hall and hear them all teaching the same thing at the same time. They might not be on the same sentence, but it had better be reading from/directing the same given source material. You cannot make this stuff up.)
If kids improved, you could be sure it was because of SpringBoard (by David Coleman’s College Board). If not, you could be sure it was because of teacher lack of “fidelity” in teaching it.
They own the media, so they have set it up so they can’t lose. Teachers are going to have to make enough noise to at least let people know what is really going on.
The bottom line is:
Teachers can scream all they like but NO ONE CARES and NO ONE is LISTENING. (NO ONE meaning the 1% who own America & their followers).
This blog is preaching to the choir. America has the highest CHILD ABUSE, PRISON, and CHILD MENTAL ILLNESS of any industrialized nation and its growing….and NO ONE CARES and NO ONE IS LISTENING! the 1% are not capable of empathy or guilt.
It’s time to stop preaching to the choir and put that effort into a movement that can wake people up. That means educating the masses who have been indoctrinated for too long.
De Mause studies are used in university classes and may be too advanced for mainstream non scientific thinking, but its time to educate the masses:
http://www.psychohistory.com
Sadly, I had to laugh out loud when I read about the “new” teaching practices that “Sad Teacher” is required to follow. In the early 19th century Joseph Lancaster introduced a system for teaching large numbers of poor, working class students cheaply. Known as the Monitorial System or Lancasterian Monitorial System, the method required one teacher to teach a group of older students who then became the monitors teaching other students. This system was introduced in the days when a hundred or more students of various ages crowded into one large classroom. William Bentley Fowle introduced this system into Boston’s public schools during the 1820s. His first monitorial school served children regarded as too poor and too ignorant to continue into grammar schools, those who would later attend intermediate schools, a forerunner of the junior high school. Although Fowle’s students performed better than expected on their assessments of student learning, this remained a relatively short-lived educational reform. Everything old is new again!
Dear Sad Teacher:
That is how I felt and it that feeling lead to be taking my district’s early notification of resignation/retirement. I did not sign on to have administrators and auxiliary personnel to push all sorts of “research based” instructional strategies on me when I knew how to teach. My principal shook my confidence when he reassigned me to another grade where I had NO EXPERIENCE of teaching. Then I was expected to get stellar test scores dealing with curriculum I was not know. I had a semi-supportive team a couple who were there over 12 years with which I planned, only to find that they did something different from what we agreed on. The politics of the school atmosphere is treacherous. I have retired because the stress of doing my job, managing students who come to the grade unprepared to learn, loads of testing prep material along with the actual curriculum of the district which was to be taught with “rigor” and an IB World curriculum. Too many different and conflicting demands caused the job to become too stressful! I hear ya! Hope you can hang but if you can’t remember there are other ways to work with students.
@David Taylor:
I’m biased, but I’d say there’s more than “some truth” in what I wrote above. And that’s not to say that there are no good superintendents or principals. There are. But they are the exception and not the rule.
Virginia and its localities are a prime example. Take, for instance, Fairfax County, perceived to be one of the finest – and also one of the most affluent – public school districts in the country.
Fairfax is all-in on Advanced Placement courses. But the research on AP, produced by the College Board – a key developer and proponent of the Common Core – is more than a little sketchy. In fact, the research on AP can be summed up thusly:
* AP courses and tests are a “mile wide and an inch deep” and they did not comport with well-established, research-based principles of learning (National Research Council, 2002);
* “close inspection of the [College Board] studies cited reveals that the existing evidence regarding the benefits of AP experience is questionable,” and “AP courses are not a necessary component of a rigorous curriculum” (Klopfenstein and Thomas, 2005);
* “Students see AP courses on their transcripts as the ticket ensuring entry into the college of their choice…there is a shortage of evidence about the efficacy, cost, and value of these programs” (Sadler, 2010);
* AP has become “the juggernaut of American high school education,” but “ the research evidence on its value is minimal.” AP may work well for some students, especially those who are already “college-bound to begin with” (Klopfenstein and Thomas, 2010)
* “You’re not trying to get educated; you’re trying to look good;” and, “The focus is on the test and not necessarily on the fundamental knowledge of the material” (various students over time, on AP courses).
Is there ANYbody in Fairfax who is sharing this research with students, parents, teachers and the broader community?
Fairfax recently hired Karen Garza as its new superintendent. When Garza was an asst. superintendent in Houston, she led the development of ASPIRE, a merit-pay program, that was funded (in part) by the Broad, Gates and Dell foundations, the very same groups that fund corporate-style “reform” and that support the Common Core. And while researchers and test experts cautioned against the use of value-added models to evaluate teachers, Garza called value-added models “proven methodology” that are both “valid and reliable.”
When Garza’s hiring was announced, the Fairfax school board chair said she wowed the board with “the things she has been able to achieve in various school districts, it’s her vision in leadership.” Republican board member Elizabeth Schultz said Garza’s arrival represents “the beginning of a sea change in Fairfax.”
democracy,
I wish I could honestly say things are much better where I was than in Virginia, but they are not, which is why I took a somewhat early exit. And unfortunately, I would also have to concede that excellent principals and administrators are, for now, more the exception than the rule. Together with several other things read recently, your three part response is a damning indictment of the state of affairs in childhood education.
But am still hopeful, going on the premise that the optimist and the pessimist are both going to end up at the same destination, but the optimist will have more fun getting there.
David,
I wish I was as optimistic as you….but when the AFT and NEA sell their members down the river, and when groups like the PTA and ASCD – which has promoted people like the DuFours without a hint of shame – and the national associations of secondary and elementary principals endorse corporate “reform,” then it sure does seem to me that the future is bleak.
I hope fervently that I’m wrong…..
Democracy,
I think AP classes and exams can be very valuable, especially in districts that are not rich or large enough to have specialized qualified admission high schools like Thomas Jefferson High in Fairfax County (which offers courses that go well beyond any AP class). The exams are helpful because they allow students to prepare in a variety of ways, not simply by taking classes in the high school.
As for the classes being a mile wide and an inch deep, that may well describe the introductory level classes that students get credit for by doing well on the AP exams.
Teachingeconomist:
The research is what it is, and it’s decidedly not favorable to AP.
And the students know the game; load up on AP or you won’t likely get into your “selective” school of choice.
As the research shows, AP has become “the juggernaut of American high school education,” but “ the…evidence on its value is minimal.” AP may work well for some students, especially those who are already “college-bound to begin with” (Klopfenstein and Thomas, 2010).
As to what college intro courses are like, if they are a mile wide and an inch deep, and if AP courses are modeled on them (which they are….), then……
Democracy,
The AP exam I am most familiar with is the AP microeconomics exam. It was a little narrower than the finals I write for that class, but not a lot different. I do think that AP classes are used as a signal for colleges, but when the top 10% of the graduating class has a GPA between 3.87 and 4.00 the grade point becomes pretty useless.
The AP exams also allow students to certify their knowledge of a subject even if they have not taken a class. My middle son found that useful given the relatively small number of AP classes offered at the high school he was assigned to attend.
Part 2
Or consider Albemarle County, Virginia, which touts itself as ‘innovative.” The superintendent there forced PLCs on teachers and morphed the high schools into STEM (science, technology, engineering, math) magnet schools. Yet, all the research shows that we already produce three times as many STEM grads as there are jobs.
The superintendent in Albemarle forced a badly-flawed technology software program on teachers. It was to be used to track student test scores, though it was sold as an “instructional” innovation. After more than $2 million and years of problems it was dumped. SchooNet was sold to Pearson. The superintendent — who was named to the state council for higher education (SCHEV) by disgraced former governor Bob McDonnell — is still withholding 268 SchoolNet-related emails from public scrutiny.
A few years back, when the central office in that locality instituted a survey – ostensibly on “leadership” – teacher comments provided some eye-opening information, which the superintendent tried to shield from a freedom on information act request, saying through the school board attorney that they were “privileged.” Virginia case law proved otherwise.
The comments were overwhelmingly negative, especially in the areas culture (climate) communication, and respect. Teachers said things – again and again – like the following:
* “Albemarle County Public Schools does not listen to teachers…”
* “ACPS does not ask what people think before it accepts major policies…”
* “…teachers are not listened to…our opinions have been requested and ignored…”
* “…when I offer my opinion, i has been dismissed.”
* “…leaders seek input, but then usually, disregard the opinions of those not in agreement with the administration…decisions are made top-down before input is received.”
* “decision making is so top-down — stakeholders are seldom consulted…”
* “…decisions have already been made…”
* “…teachers feel that their professional judgment is not valued…”
* “most Albemarle administrator are arrogant…and remove themselves with any type of collaborative dialogue with teachers.”
* “…they do not want to hear complaints, or you are labeled as a troublemaker…”
* “the county asks its employees for input but these requests are superficial…the decision have already been made by the people ‘downtown’…”
* “you ask people to think critically but we must toe the party line…”
* “We are not asked what we think…it is common knowledge here that you are not allowed to address concerns that may be negative…”
* “I see few examples of teachers being involved in decision making.”
* “…my opinion is not important or honored.”
* “…often I feel I have little input…”
* “…our opinions are disregarded.”
* “Nobody really listens.”
* “ACPS needs to be more in touch with what teachers and students want and need.”
*..”Albemarle county schools leaders seem to be increasingly inept and far-removed from the day-to-day realities of public education, Worse, they do not actively seek teacher input, and when they do get teacher input it is repeatedly ignored.”
* “No one in the administration really wants to hear what the issues and problems are.”
* “I believe it would be important to develop an atmosphere where employees could feel comfortable expressing opinions that are not shared by the leaders and not feel marginalized for doing so.”
* “I’ve never been asked “What do you think?” I don’t know of anyone who has…”
* “The asking seems to come after the decisions are made.”
* “…teachers have very little voice.”
* “Honesty, integrity and fairness are lacking.”
This comment probably sums up well what teachers – overall – think:
“…this is the worst leadership the county has ever had.”
Part 3
The Democratic governor recently appointed a new state superintendent. He’s been hailed as innovator because when he was a division superintendent he created “magnet programs in math, science and technology” and “a charter school program.” He was also – for the last two years – the head of the Virginia Association of School Superintendents (VASS).
VASS sells “partnerships” for $15,000 a year. One of its partners is Achieve 3000, whose mission is to help school divisions “meet the standards set by Common Core…to be prepared for college and career.” Its chief product officer was formerly a VP at Houghton Mifflin Harcourt and a marketer at Pearson. It’s chief operating officer (COO) was formerly the COO at Pearson US School Group. Achieve 3000 partners with Teach for America and the Northwest Evaluation Association, which is also a VASS partner.
The Northwest Evaluation Association produces the Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) program. Like the College Board, which claims that all of its flawed products (the PSAT, SAT, and Advanced Placement program) are now “aligned” with the Common Core standards, the Northwest Evaluation Association says that it has developed “a set of MAP assessments aligned to the Common Core.”
There’s a serious problem though. The MAP program is largely worthless. A Department of Education study noted that “Although the MAP program is used extensively in school districts across the United States, there is no experimental evidence on its impact on student outcomes.” In its evaluation of MAP the DOE study concluded that “MAP teachers were not more likely than control group teachers to have applied
differentiated instructional practices in their classes. Overall, the MAP program did not have a statistically significant impact on students’ reading achievement in either grade 4 or grade 5.”
This is the state of “leadership” and “innovation” in public education in Virginia. Is it really much different elsewhere?
As I noted at the outset, The NEA and AFT and PTA and ASCD and the national associations of superintendents, and secondary and elementary principals, have all endorsed Common Core and the “vision” of “reform” it embeds.
In public education, one the biggest obstacles to genuine reform is its “leadership.”
I’m on my lunch time right now. I wish to thank everyone who wrote comments in Diane’s blog in support of me and everything teachers are going through right now in the classroom. I love Diane’s blog so much, and it has helped me cope tremendously with the stresses of how our profession has changed. “Just a teacher” – if you know who I am, please know that I dearly love my school district and deeply appreciate my employment. I do not blame my school district in any way. They are just carrying out laws imposed by John Kasich and Ohio lawmakers. I sincerely feel badly for what all Ohio teachers, Ohio principals, and Ohio superintendents are going through presently in Ohio. Again, God Bless everyone for your words of encouragement. Thank you so much, Diane!
Please, DO make sure parents know that you are being forced to teach this way. They would be horrified and they will fight back on your behalf! This does not serve any kid well. It’s a nightmare for math instruction to be done this way.
Dear PA Parent, Thank you so much for your comments. I continue to use good ole direct instruction along with my awesome Smart Board. I do use group activities from time to time, but I could never give up my step by step approach for Math instruction. I know it is how my 2 children learn the best too, and it is how I learned all of my Math concepts the best too. It has all gotten so crazy. I know teachers will continue to do what is best for their students. We are all they have. Thanks again for your comments. (: