Archives for the month of: April, 2015

Peter Greene was not happy with Nicholas Kristof’s column saying that–after twelve years of trying–school reform hasn’t worked out and it was time to pay attention to the youngest children, where research was clear and there was bipartisan agreement.

Here is a snippet of Greene’s outrage:

“Look, I believe there are a handful of reformsters who know better, and I’m sure plenty of them mean well. But this is just too much. I’m pretty sure that I read Kristof more often than he reads me. But I have a message for him anyway.

“Dear Mr. Kristof:

“Does a decade seem like a long time to work at education? Does working at education seem hard? While we’re at it, have you noticed that water is wet?

“This– this “well this has been difficult, it’s time to move on”– THIS is why from the first moment reformsters showed up on the scene, teachers across America rolled our eyes, squared our shoulders, and turned away. Because we knew that the day would come when the tourists decided they wanted to pack up and leave. Because you were not in it to get the job done.

“Reformsters were never the white knights or the saviors of education. The vast majority of reformsters were the people who swept into a home, pulled all the furniture out from the wall, burned the drapes (because you don’t want these old things) and started to tear the floor up. Then somewhere around day three, you declare, “Man this is hard, and this couch doesn’t fit against that wall (which we had told you all along)” and so you pack up, drive away, and leave the residents to put things back together.

“You think twelve years was a long time? I’ve been at this for thirty-six, and I have plenty more to go because there’s still work to do, and as long as I can do it, I will. Plenty of my colleagues have done and will do the same. You think educating in the face of poverty and lack of resources and systemic inequity is difficult? Many of my colleagues have been doing it for decades. But reformsters have been so sure that they didn’t need to listen to the locals. They and their giant balls knew better than any stupid teachers.

“Doing the education thing takes a lifetime. In fact, it takes more than a lifetime– that’s why we’ve constructed an institution that provides continuity above and beyond what we could get from any single human being.

“You think that the education thing is hard, “a slog,” after just a decade! You amateur. You dabbler! You tourist! Has the education reform movement “peaked”? Well, guess what! Education has not. We are still working at it, still striving, still doing our damnedest. When reformsters have moved on because it’s hard and challenging and a slog and not just as fun as it was a whole ten years ago, we will still be here, doing the job, educating students and doing it all in the midst of the mess created by a bunch of wealthy well-connected hubristic tourists with gigantic balls.

“You think education is hard? What the hell do you think dedicated teachers across this country are doing with their entire adult lives?!!

“So get out. Go. Move on to the next big opportunity and screw around with that until you’re all distracted by the next shiny object. Education is not the better for your passing through.

“Education needs people who will commit, people who are in it for the marathon, not the sprint, people who are willing to dedicate their whole lives to teaching because that’s the minimum that it takes. Students and communities need schools that are permanent stable fixtures, not temporary structures built to long as a reformster’s attention span.”

What happens if a tornado or a severe storm disrupts the calm atmosphere needed to administer tests? What if a tsunami strikes without warning? The possibilities are numerous and frightening.

Fortunately someone has thought about this problem and established protocols. Please share these rules with teachers, administrators, and students.

(My grandson read this blog and added a few sentences. He tried to insert a video of himself responding to the blog, but I said no, absolutely not!)

A few weeks ago, I went with my eight-year-old grandson to Philadelphia with a friend of his who is the same age. Four grandmas, two grandsons. We visited the Liberty Bell, Constitution Hall, the Science Museum, and the Reading Market. A wonderful weekend.

I asked him what he was doing in school, and he said they were learning how to fill in bubbles to take a test. He said, without my prompting, “this is a really stupid way to find out what I know. If I don’t fill the bubble in correctly, my answer is wrong. If I color outside the lines, the computer marks it wrong. I am not good at coloring in tiny spaces. And I know so much more than they ask.”

Then came testing time, and I asked him if he would be taking the tests. This child, you should know, is a voracious reader who retains everything he reads and is passionately interested in animals, dinosaurs, and everything to do with science. He has a prodigious vocabulary. He told me that he was not taking the tests. I asked why. He said, “I don’t mind taking tests. I like taking tests. But I think it is wrong to evaluate my teacher by how I answer questions on the tests.”

And he doesn’t read my blog.

Mike Miles took charge of the Dallas Independent School District on July 1, 2012. He came from a district with 10,000 students to one with 150,000. His background was in the military, then a stint at the unaccredited Broad Superintendents Academy, where he learned the importance of top-down reform. He introduced himself to thousands of staff members at a shindig where he danced with a student group, then spoke inspiringly of the “disruptive transformation” that he would lead.

Being a Broadie, he immediately set out his quantified goals:

By 2020, he says, the graduation rate will be up to 90% from the 2010 rate of 75%.
By 2020, SAT scores will jump by 30%, and 60% of students will achieve at least a 21 on the ACT.
80% of students will be workplace ready, as determined by assessments created by the business and nonprofit communities.
He will create a new leadership academy to train principals in one year, based on what sounds like NYC’s unsuccessful one.
Teachers will be observed up to ten times a year, and these observations will factor into a pay-for-performance plan.
All classroom doors must be open all the times. so that teachers may be observed at any time, without warning.
Principals will have one year “to demonstrate that they have the capacity and what it takes to lead change and to improve the quality of instruction.”
Miles did not say how he intends to measure whether principals have this capacity.

By August 2015:
“At least 75 percent of the staff and 70 percent of community members agree or strongly agree with the direction of the district.

At least 80 percent of all classroom teachers and 100 percent of principals are placed on a pay-for-performance evaluation system.At least 60 percent of teachers on the pay-for-performance evaluation system and 75 percent of principals agree that the system is “fair, accurate and rigorous.”

Of disruption there has been an abundance. Of transformation, not so much. In the past (nearly) three years, he has been a polarizing figure, often in hot water with teachers, administrators, parents, and the school board. There has been a significant departure of teachers, unhappy with his “my-way-or-the-highway” style. He placed nearly two dozen young alumni of Teach for America in high-level administrative positions. Before Miles’ arrival, there were 111 administrators paid more than $100,000; the Dallas Morning News discovered that the number of administrators earning that much increased to 175 within two years after Miles took the job. He has fired many principals. He called the police to evict a school board member who was visiting one of the schools in her district. He became so controversial that he moved his family back to Colorado to ensure their safety. From time to time, the school board debates whether to fire him, yet he has thus far survived every attempt to oust him.

The last blowup with the school board occurred in February, when it was revealed that the 30-year-old director of human resources (a TFA alum who had been hired by Miles at age 28 and was earning $190,000) had sent a series of instant messages disparaging her co-workers and making inappropriate comments about their race, religion, and age. Miles fired her and paid her $79,000 in a separation agreement.

Most recently, he selected six schools with low test scores and designated them part of his ACE program (Accelerating Academic Performance). He replaced the principals and many of the teachers, and he pledged that there would be significant academic gains by December. The teachers are eligible to win stipends of up to $12,000 yearly over their salary.

These are the changes Miles is imposing on his six low-performing schools:

Students will receive at least 90 minutes of homework every night. The schools will stay open until 6 p.m. for those who wish to finish their work on campus. Dinner will be provided.
Failing grades will not be accepted. Students will have to redo assignments until they get passing scores. Saturday school will be offered to students who need help.
Parents will be required to sign a “contract” that details those expectations. Parents who object can send their children to another school, and transportation will be provided.
Each teacher must agree to spend an additional three hours a week — before or after school or on Saturday — supporting additional instructional time or monitoring student homework time.

Read the comments following the above article to see the bitter feelings for and against Miles.

Now Miles is engaged in some more disruption, since as we all know, disruption is a constant in the world of reform these days. A popular principal of a successful elementary school has been informed that she will be removed from her post at the end of the school year.

Rosemont Elementary School is considered a neighborhood gem in North Oak Cliff, boasting everything a Dallas ISD campus aspires to have: strong academics, passionate students and devoted parents. Those parents credit Anna Brining, Rosemont’s principal of 15 years, for that success.

But now they fear the school is in jeopardy. They learned Wednesday that Brining was told that her contract will not be renewed after this school year. And they believe it’s in retaliation for their activism.

Parents have been outspoken about their opposition to the overemphasis on testing, and they confronted Superintendent Miles with their concerns at open meetings. Afterwards, the principals got more visits from central administrators and was written up for minor infractions.

Just this past February, three of the school board trustees–after the scandal in the human resources department– wanted to discuss Miles’ future with the district. But they are a minority of the nine-member board. The Dallas Morning News reviewed the academic record of the district in the past three years and found no significant gains or losses. Disruption, yes. Transformation, no.

A post today describes how BASIS charter schools screen out low-performing students. This comment refers to a similar practice in Néw Hampshire. This is the exact opposite of what charters were supposed to do: the original intention, long forgotten, was to enroll the neediest students and to help public schools by finding new ways to help struggling students succeed:

“We have a charter school here in NH called the academy of science and design that does the same thing. They state on their website that if you are not in the gifted program at your public school and a participant in first robotics or destination imagination you will most likely not succeed at their school. They also ask you to take an entrance exam. If you don’t score an 80 or above, your parents must meet admin for counseling. If parents refuse counseling they must sign something saying they refused. What a joke. They defend these practices by saying that it’s all part of the school’s mission. Why are they allowed to cherry pick like this? Of course, they have the highest test scores in the state which makes the ignorant masses think charters are superior to public schools.”

Stephanie Santagada, a high school English teacher, wrote this little essay and dedicated it to Governor Andrew Cuomo:

“There is a man in Albany, who I surmise, by his clamorous paroxysms, has an extreme aversion to educators. He sees teachers as curs, or likens them to mangy dogs. Methinks he suffers from a rare form of psychopathology in which he absconds with our dignity by enacting laws counterintuitive to the orthodoxy of educational leadership. We have given him sufferance for far too long. He’s currently taking a circuitous path to DC, but he will no doubt soon find himself in litigious waters. The time has come to bowdlerize his posits, send him many furlongs away, and maroon him there, maybe Cuba?

She added:

I’m not supposed to say this, but all these insanely hard words appeared on the 4,6, and 8th grade tests last week.

Pearson has a long history of errors in its textbooks and tests. Sarah Blaine, a parent and lawyer in New Jersey, discovered an error in a textbook and a Pearson representative apologized and promised to correct the error in future editions.

What if this had happened on a high-stakes test, Blaine wondered. Children would puzzle over the choice of answers and lose time on a timed test. They would lose points for choosing the correct answer. Suppose Pearson refuses to release the test questions–which is now its protocol–and no one finds out that the question is absurd (remember “The Pineapple and the Hare” question?), or the language was confusing, or the answer was just plain wrong. No one will know if there is no transparency. That is why parents must continue to insist that the tests be released for public review after they are administered. And that is why parents should show their opposition to this secretiveness by refusing to let their children take the tests.

If a large corporation is going to have the power to judge the child’s worthiness, parents and teachers should have the right to check the worthiness and accuracy of the testing instrument and catch errors. No one can catch errors if the tests are not made available for public review.

BASIS, an Arizona charter chain known for its intense academic standards, plans to open five charter schools in Louisiana. BASIS expects all students to complete AP courses and work very hard to reach its high standards. It accepts everyone, but loses large numbers of students who can’t keep up with the school’s academic pressure.

 

BASIS is ranked high on lists of “the best schools,” because it gets top test scores after booting most of its students.

 

This is so far from the original conception of charter schools in the late 1980s. They were promoted by Albert Shanker, the president of the AFT, as schools that would recruit the lowest performing, least motivated students and develop innovative ways of reconnecting them with school. They would share whatever they learned with the public schools. They were intended not to compete but to help public schools by discovering better ways to help the reluctant learners.

 

BASIS, by contrast, is an exceptionally competitive school that appeals to high performing students and drops the reluctant learners.

 

Here is what Louisiana will get: This. This. And this.

 

Keep the best, get rid of the rest.

The Néw York Times has barely covered the historic parent Opt Out movement. Before the testing began, it ran a story about parents who decided not to opt out for fear their children would suffer. When the opt out was making news across the nation, given the huge numbers, the Times did not deign to report the story. Then, at last, the Times wrote a story about how teachers’ unions had fomented the opt out, with no attempt to explain why nearly 200,000 parents from across the state might take orders from the unions.

But there was more trivialization and dodging. On Friday the Times published a story about districts that follow a “sit and stare” policy for children who opt out. It quoted several superintendents who disapproved of the opt outs, but not one of the superintendents who were sympathetic.

The parent-educator group that led the Opt Out movement published a letter to the editor asking why the Times has been dismissive of their hard work.

Here is the letter:

LETTER

Parents’ Role in the New York Test Protest

APRIL 24, 2015

To the Editor:

From “Teachers Fight Tests, and Find Diverse Allies” (front page, April 21), readers would never know that the 185,000-plus students who opted out of the state English Language Arts test last week did so because of more than three years of organizing by a genuinely grass-roots movement of public school parents.

This year parent groups held more than 100 forums across the state; rallied, protested and raised thousands of dollars for billboards promoting test refusal; and engaged tens of thousands more parents via Facebook and Twitter. Sadly, this article epitomizes the media’s preference to portray every education story as a battle between the teachers unions and their opponents.

NANCY K. CAUTHEN
New York

The writer is on the steering committees of New York State Allies for Public Education and Change the Stakes.

Andy Smarick is a reformer with a low opinion of public schools, like other reformers. But in some of his writings, he has shown a willingness to challenge the formulaic party line of corporate reform.

In this post, he disagrees with his fellow reformers who scoff at parents who opt out. As he shows, the reformer party line is that parents who opt out are white suburbanites who fear accountability for their children and their teachers and don’t care about closing the achievement gap.

Smarick says that the opt out movement is a test of reformers’ humility. Will they stop scoffing at parents long enough to hear them?

Smarick writes:

“I don’t want to infer too much about these individuals’ [reformers] intentions. But I’m worried that such statements, when taken together, give the impression that education reform believes that the opinions of white or middle-class families should be viewed with skepticism or antipathy.

“Non-poor, non-minority families love their kids and have every right to participate in the public debate about public education. I’m a strong supporter of assessments and accountability, and I wouldn’t opt out. But I think it’s unfair to discount the views of those who disagree, and it would be untoward to suggest they don’t care about other kids or are insensitive to issues of race and income.

“My reading of the situation is that a significant number of American families have misgivings about what’s happening in their public schools. Most of the issues about which they have concerns—whether it’s standards, assessments, teacher evaluation, or something else—are policies developed at the state or federal level.

“Had these policies been created locally, families could petition their local school boards for redress. But now, unable to change decisions made by faraway state and federal policymakers, these families are employing a kind of civil disobedience. They are using the power they do have—to decline participation in state tests—to demonstrate their frustration with the status quo.”

I salute Smarick for recognizing that opt out parents are not tools of the unions, racists, dolts, or helicopter parents. He deserves credit for acknowledging that parents who opt out have no other way of making kmown their opposition to the status quo of high-stakes testing. When these decisions are made by politicians who would be unable to pass the tests they are imposing, it is doubly galling.

It would be good if reformers showed understanding of what is happening on the ground. Children as young as eight take tests in reading and math that may require 7 or 8 hours. Does that seem right? Why should a test in basic skills require so much time? Many adults would find it hard to sit for so long being tested.

Many teachers have reported that the tests are two grade levels above the students’ actual grade. This guarantees a high failure rate?

Teachers also criticize test questions with more than one plausible answer or passages that are confusing.

Do reformers agree with the testmakers’ demand that test questions never are released, that neither teachers or students are allowed to discuss the tests? Do they think it is reasonable that the tests report a score but release no individual report about what the student got right or wrong?

Why is it valuable to have a score for every student but nothing more? How can these scores, when aggregated, improve curriculum or instruction or help students?

I appreciate Andy Smarick’s willingness to listen. I hope he continues to do so.