Archives for the month of: February, 2015

Carol Burris, a noted high school principal in Long Island, New York, writes here about the Senate hearings on the reauthorization of No Child Left Behind and the unrealistic expectations for the effects of standardized testing that some senators expressed.

 

Burris admired the clear-eyed statement of Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, who described the two worlds of education:

 

“My experience in the education world is that there are really two worlds in it. One is the world of contract and consultants and academics and experts and plenty of officials at the federal state and local level. And the other is a world of principals and classroom teachers who are actually providing education to students. What I’m hearing from my principals’ and teachers’ world is that the footprint of that first world has become way too big in their lives to the point where it’s inhibiting their ability to do the jobs they’re entrusted to do.”

 

And she appreciated Senator Lamar Alexander’s concern about federal overreach that turns Congress or the federal Department of Education into a “national school board.”

 

Most bizarre to her was Colorado Senator Michael Bennett’s statement: “In my mind if you want to cure this problem of poverty in our country, the way to do that is by making sure that people can read when they’re in the first grade.”

 

She comments on Bennett: I am glad the senator began the sentence with the phrase, “in my mind” because surely that is the only place his theory could be true. Even if there were advantage to the onset of early formal reading instruction (and there is not), to think that first-graders fluently reading would “cure poverty” is not only indefensible, it trivializes the great economic inequities that are the root cause of our nation’s greatest challenge.

 

Burris then reviews the claim advanced by many senators that annual testing is needed to close achievement gaps between children of different racial and ethnic groups. She shows that this is not true, that NCLB has not closed achievement gaps after a dozen years of trying, and that in New York, since the advent of Common Core testing, achievement gaps are actually growing.

 

Students in special education, she writes, are especially harmed by the emphasis on high-stakes tests and offers New York state as an example of this harm:

 

New York has just phased in a new non-diploma credential called CDOS for special education students. It was passed in anticipation that fewer students with disabilities will be able to meet the requirements for a high school diploma as the Common Core graduation Regents are phased in. This certificate certifies that the student has some workplace experience—but it is not a high school diploma and it cannot be used to apply for college, trade school or to enter the military. There was testimony at the hearing that before NCLB special education students were assigned to work with the janitor. Clearly, thanks to Common Core test-based accountability, it appears those days will return, at least in New York.

 

Despite the outcry of parents and teachers about the effects of high-stake testing, Congress and the administration are not listening:

 

Evaluating teachers using VAM accelerates the narrowing of the curriculum and makes some students more attractive than others to teach. When teachers begin losing their jobs based on test scores, how easy will it be to attract excellent teachers to schools with high degrees of student mobility and/or truancy? Who will want to teach English language learners with interrupted education, or students with emotional disabilities that make their performance on tests unpredictable? And yet Governor Cuomo now demands that VAM be increased to 50 percent of a teacher’s evaluation. Education Secretary Arne Duncan still defends the inclusion of test scores in teacher evaluation.

 

This continued racketing up of high stakes is demoralizing to teachers and students alike, and Burris predicts it will hurt students and public education:

 

 

This brilliant short video was created by Esther Quintero at the Albert Shanker Institute. I have never seen or read anything that so succinctly and accurately identifies what matters most in schools. She shows that relationships matter; trust matters. Yet school reform focuses on the individual: the teacher as a solitary individual who must be trained, evaluated, given a reward or a punishment for his or her solitary activity: teaching.

 

The video shows that schools are complex institutions, made up of interactions among many individuals and external groups, who influence one another: administrators, teachers, students, parents, community organizations, and others.

 

If you see the video, you will understand how simple-minded it is to give a school a letter grade. The school is a social enterprise, in which many people work together. See the school as the complex social hub that it is, rather than as a place in which individuals are rated based on test scores.

 

This video echoes what the American Statistical Association said in its report on value-added-assessment last year:

 

VAMs should be viewed within the context of quality improvement, which distinguishes aspects of quality that can be attributed to the system from those that can be attributed to individual teachers, teacher preparation programs, or schools. Most VAM studies find that teachers account for about 1% to 14% of the variability in test scores, and that the majority of opportunities for quality improvement are found in the system-level conditions. Ranking teachers by their VAM scores can have unintended consequences that reduce quality.

 

Repeat: “…the majority of opportunities for quality improvement are found in the system-level conditions.”

 

The video also is congruent with the “systems thinking” of W. Edwards Deming, the great business guru, who thought it was pointless to blame individual employees for the rise or fall of a corporation’s fortunes; if the system is designed well, individuals in the system will perform well. Blaming the frontline worker for a malfunctioning system is akin to blaming foot-soldiers for a failed offensive, or blaming assembly-line workers in an automobile plant for the loss of market share. Those who are in charge of the system are responsible for making it work so that individuals can do their jobs.

 

 

At a hearing in Albany, NYC Chancellor Carmen Farina disagreed bluntly with Governor Cuomo ‘s proposal to base 50% of teacher evaluations on student test scores and 35% on the judgement of independent evaluators, people from outside the school.

“I think 50 percent based on tests is too much,” Ms. Fariña told state legislators at a budget hearing on Tuesday, in comments that were echoed by representatives of other large school districts. “We need a human touch any time we evaluate anyone for anything.”

She also objective to the “independent evaluators.”

“Ms. Fariña said that teachers needed to be observed over time, watched for things like whether they engaged with parents or gave special attention to students who needed extra help, and that “flybys” could not replace that.”

And she added:

“There’s so many other things,” Fariña said. “I was a teacher for more than 20 years and if I was only measured in test scores, that would only have been a little bit of my work…..”

“I absolutely believe that holding teachers accountable only on test scores and outside evaluators is not a good idea,” Fariña said in response to questions about Cuomo’s plan.

Cuomo told the Buffalo News that:

“The test is really the only easy answer because it is objective numerical data and it was the same test with the same demographic,” Cuomo told a group of reporters and editors from The Buffalo News on Tuesday.”

The difference between Farina and Cuomo is that she has been a teacher, a principal, a superintendent, and now Chancellor. She is a veteran educator who knows teaching and learning. Cuomo has no experience in education but insists that he knows how teachers should be evaluated.

It is clear that he is over his head. He doesn’t know that most teachers don’t teach tested subjects. How does he propose to evaluate teachers of the arts, physical education, foreign languages, teachers of K-2, and high school teachers. It is a shame that he is unfamiliar with the extensive research on test-based accountability and VAM.

The Néw York Times posted a blog debate about how to “fix” NCLB.

I was one of the contributors. My view is that the best way to fix the law is to remove its testing and punishment mandates. Testing is a state function.

The National Assessment of Educational Progress tests national and state samples of students. It reports state-to-state comparisons. It disaggregates data by race, English language learners, gender, disability status. It reports on achievement gaps. In effect, it audits learning in every state.

Restore ESEA (aka NCLB) to its original purpose: Equity. Sending money to poor kids’ schools. Helping the neediest children.

I don’t often respond to people who criticize me. At my age, I can’t waste time looking back. I try to keep my eyes on the future, not on my back.

Fortunately there is Mercedes Schneider, who has my back.

 

The other day, Peter Cunningham wrote a post criticing me for switching from pro-testing to anti-testing. Peter used to be Arne Duncan’s assistant secretary for communications and was referred to by admirers as “Arne’s brain.” Now he is off on his own as a consultant or public relations guy or something like that. He received $12 million from the Walton, Broad, and Bloomberg foundations to start a blog called “Education Post,” supposedly to promote civility. This was his platform for criticizing me. It has also been a site for attacking other critics of corporate education reform, like Carol Burris.

 

Mercedes Schneider offered Peter some advice. She recommended that he read my book “Death and Life of the Great American School System: How Testing and Choice Are Undermining Education.” The answers to all his questions are there, Mercedes points out.

EduShyster reports on a new study of college completion rates in Boston. It includes a comparison of Boston public schools vs. charter schools. http://edushyster.com/?p=6326

 

Students who attended public schools were more likely to get a college degree than their peers who attended charter schools.

 

“The report compared members of the respective classes of 2007 from the city’s high schools and five of our local academies of excellence. Fifty percent of the BPS students had scored a college degree within six years vs. 42% of their charter peers. Now I know what you’re thinking. That equals a difference of eight percent, and eight rhymes with *hate* and also *overstate.* Which is why it’s time to look at the numbers behind those numbers. The 2007 class of Boston high school grads consisted of 1700 students, of whom some 850 have now attained their post-secondary attainment. The 2007 class of Boston charter high school grads, from a total of five charter high schools, consisted of 80 students, of whom 33 have scored their sheepskin.”

 

Wow.

Steve Lopez of the Los Angeles Times reports on the vile tactics that the charter lobby is using in hopes of defeating school board incumbent Bennett Kayseri in the approaching election.

The issue of the moment is the unbridled proliferation of charter schools in LA. Kayser has been a charter critic. The California Charter School Association would like to defeat Kayser and replace him with a friend of charters.

CCSA and allies have been handing out a flyer smearing Kayser as an anti-Latino bigot.

Lopez writes:

“The flier essentially calls him a bigot.

“BENNETT KAYSER TRIED TO STOP LATINO CHILDREN FROM ATTENDING SCHOOLS IN WHITE NEIGHBORHOODS.”

“That’s the screaming headline on a vile, two-page missive in Spanish and English, and the flier includes a lovely photograph of five Latino children sitting forlornly on a curb, as if their world has been crushed by the cruel Caucasian board member.

“Kayser condemned the ad, calling it garbage.

“Character assassination and bullying have no place in our school district; these people should be ashamed of themselves,” he said in a statement his staff sent me Thursday evening.”

The charter supporters play rough. And dirty.

Indiana may be a textbook example of legislative meddling in education. Every legislator went to school (presumably), so they all know how to solve education problems. Certainly, they would not allow educators to be involved in such weighty matters!

 

At the top of their agenda is their determination to eliminate State Superintendent Glenda Ritz’s job, even though she still has the title. They seem sure to pass bills that removes all authority from her elected position and transfers it to the state board of education, which was appointed by Governor Mike Pence. They are also intent on passing legislation to cripple teachers’ unions. Although they repealed the Common Core adoption in the last session, they have not yet decided what to do about new standards and assessments. This would normally be an issue that would be resolved by the State Superintendent and the Department of Education, but the Indiana legislature has decided to make these decisions by themselves.

The school board of Montgomery County, Maryland, did not renew Superintendent Joshua Starr’s contract. This is a letter from John Mannes, the student member of the school board, published in the student newspaper.

Dr. Starr’s Contract and the Inner Politics of the BOE

[
Dr. Joshua Starr is no Dr. Jerry Weast. Dr. Weast was not a communicator, he benched the Board and made three pointers with only a few misses for the vast majority of his 12 years as school system superintendent. With the fiscal handcuffs on Montgomery County Public Schools for the foreseeable future, taxpayers and students need Joshua Starr and the Board of Education to be on the same page in order to navigate the complex problems of one of the largest school districts in the nation.

Dr. Starr has done his homework with the elites in education reform and has taken away from it his own brand of reform, one where statistics do not mean everything. He understands above many others that statistics do not often elucidate the behavioral components that drive performance. As PARCC and Common Core was implemented, Dr. Starr fought for a moratorium on standardized tests. This was not about building a national reputation, it was about doing what made sense.

Weast got MCPS to the moon, now Starr must get MCPS to Mars, but the same strategies that got us to the moon will not get us to Mars, as Starr says often. After a certain point, ramping up the same successful strategies of allocating even more money to struggling schools and pushing students harder to accelerate into more challenging classes that got us to the moon will become counterproductive in our attempts to get to Mars. We have seen this already with unprepared students being tracked into Algebra 1 by 8th grade. Dr. Starr prophetically asserted that communication and learning will pay high dividends in developing new long term strategies.

One of the biggest efforts of Dr. Starr, has been instilling a sense of “grit” not only in MCPS students in terms of learning, but in MCPS employees in the sense of working against the tide in battles that appear unwinnable. Dr. Starr has grit. He has a drive to accomplish politically complex and unsavory goals. He has demonstrated his competence in this over and over again, fighting race to the top and the influence of standardized testing in teacher evaluations.

In short, Starr is an academic with the grit to shake things up without having to use blunt authority to do so. He built a strong board, strong superintendent system structure, in contrast to Weast’s old way of using authoritative leadership to accomplish goals. In my experience, Dr. Starr’s openness has been misinterpreted by a handful of board members. I found Dr. Starr to be very open, we met one-on-one numerous times. I always felt listened to and often saw my comments finding their way into school system strategies. I say this after having spent only one year on the board, with limited voting rights and little political bully pulpit. When I hear suggestions that Dr. Starr has “ failed to forge strong relationships with some board members” and has a “brusque or distant manner,” I know there is more to the story.

When new board members attend the system’s orientation with the board staff, each is handed a copy of National School Boards Association’s, “The Key Work of School Boards.” This guide describes the eight key school board action areas ranging from establishing “vision and standards” to ensuring “alignment, collaboration, and continuous improvement.” During my time in office, I witnessed a variety of behavior incongruent with these professional guidelines. On occasion, board members would, without reason, throw the superintendent under the bus by making inflammatory statements when they could have been discussing real solutions. I witnessed board members having meetings with union officials over controversial issues, jeopardizing work being done by others by not coordinating with board staff, officers, and the superintendent. I understand that board members can become frustrated with their role: it is not one where an individual can make sweeping changes to the school system, as much as many of us would like to. Rather it is a high level role where vision and communication are key. Political actions have driven an unnecessary wedge between the board and the superintendent. These issues, ingrained in organizational culture, did not manifest under the leadership style of Dr. Weast. But the board cannot have this both ways. If they enjoy Dr. Starr’s more inclusive leadership, they have to accept the disagreement that actual discussion inevitably allows.

Perhaps the board could use some of Dr. Starr’s grit, learn from the failures the school system has made over the past few years and re-focus on students and teachers rather than politics. Dr. Starr has a lot of work to do in this county, but in a world where grit and aptitude weigh equally, Dr. Starr has had a successful term with MCPS. The only reason I can think of that would explain a decision to not pursue a contract renewal as superintendent of perhaps the best public school system in the nation is if he felt so inhibited by the inner politics of the board and so unwelcome by some members that he could no longer do his best for the teachers, students, parents, community stakeholders and employees of Montgomery County Public Schools.

Guest contribution by John Mannes, former Student Member of the Montgomery County Board of Education and founder of the MoCo Student

Ever since the state of Louisiana began its voucher program, allowing students to attend religious schools with public funds, the program has gone from one embarrassment to another. The school that won the most vouchers was a small rural church school; it was thrown out if the program for financial errors. Some schools taught creationism. The state court ruled that the state could not fund vouchers by taking money from funding dedicated to public schools.

And now this. Danielle Dreillinger reports in the Néw Orleans Times-Picayune that 1/3 of the state’s voucher students attend low-performing schools.

“One third of Louisiana’s voucher students are enrolled at private schools doing such a poor job of educating them that the schools have been barred from taking new voucher students, according to Education Department data. The schools include four in Jefferson Parish, eight in New Orleans and six in Baton Rouge.

“The Louisiana Scholarship Program lets children from low-income families attend participating private schools at taxpayer expense if they have been at C-, D- or F-graded public schools or are entering kindergarten. Now in its third year, the program has been threatened by local and federal lawsuits, but total enrollment continues growing, from 6,775 in 2013-14 to 7,362 students this year.”