Archives for category: Administrators, superintendents

NOTE: I cross-posted this piece on Huffington Post. Be sure to leave comments there too.

Two years ago, Kevin Kosar, a former graduate student of mine, conducted an Internet search for the term “failing school.” What he discovered was fascinating. Until the 1990s, the term was virtually unknown. About the mid-1990s, the term began appearing with greater frequency. With the passage of No Child Left Behind, the use of the expression exploded and became a commonplace.

Kosar did not speculate on the reasons. But I venture to say that the rise of the accountability movement created the idea of “failing schools.”

“Accountability” was taken to mean that if students have low test scores, someone must be blamed. Since Bush’s NCLB, it became conventional to blame the school. With President Obama’s Race to the Top, blame shifted to teachers. The solution to “failing schools,” according to Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, is to fire the staff and close the school.

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo recently took this idea to an extreme by saying that he wanted a “death penalty” for “failing schools.” His believes that when schools have persistently low test scores, they should lose democratic control.

They should be taken over by the state, given to private charter corporations, or put under mayoral control. In fact, none of these ideas has been successful.

Low-performing school districts in New Jersey have been under state control for more than 20 years without turning them into high-performing districts. Mayoral control in Cleveland and Chicago has been a flop. And private charters typically do no better than public schools, except when they exclude low-scoring students.

Undoubtedly there are some schools where the leadership is rotten and corrupt. In such cases, the responsibility lies with the district superintendent to review the staff and programs, and make significant changes as needed

But these days, any school with low test scores is called a “failing school,” without any inquiry into the circumstances of the school.

Instead of closing the school or privatizing it, the responsible officials should act to improve the school. they should ask:

What proportion of the students are new immigrants and need help learning English? What proportion entered the school far behind their grade level? What proportion have disabilities and need more time to learn? What resources are available to the school? An in-depth analysis is likely to reveal that most “failing schools” are not failing schools, but are schools that enroll high proportions of students who need extra help, extra tutoring, smaller classes, social workers, guidance counselors, psychologists, and a variety of other interventions.

Firing the staff does not turn around a low-performing school. Nor does handing it over to a charter chain. Nor does mayoral control. Most of the time, what we call a “failing school” is a school that lacks the personnel and resources to meet the needs of its students.

Closing schools does not make them better. Nor does closing schools help students. It’s way past time to stop blaming the people who work in troubled schools and start helping them by providing the tools they need and the support their students need.

Over the past several months, I have honored several superintendents who have stood up for their students, their staff, and their community schools.

I have identified hero superintendents in Michigan, New York, Oklahoma, Illinois, and elsewhere. We need to find them and thank them.

These are men and women who have upheld their ethical responsibility to their profession and to children.

They have spoken out boldly and fearlessly against the misuse of standardized tests to judge teacher quality and to label schools as “failing.” They have spoken in support of professional standards for teachers and for teacher and principal evaluation. They have withstood the bullying of uninformed politicians and arrogant policymakers. They have refused to bow to misguided conventional wisdom. They have been a source of wisdom and inspiration for their staff and their community.

When the superintendent is a hero, he or she enables the staff to act with dignity and professionalism.

Do you have a hero superintendent in your community?

If so, send me public statements they have made so I may highlight their courage and integrity.

If you read about education, you are sometimes tempted to think that all common sense has departed this nation, its leaders, and its mass media.

They keep looking for quick fixes, miracles, turnarounds, and magical answers as “solutions” to education problems.

Here is Ray Strabeck, a retired school superintendent in Mississippi, who reminds us that there are still people who know what they are talking about and who are willing to speak up.

He reminds his readers of the fads that came and went over his 50 years in education.

He reminds them of the limitations of standardized tests.

As for all the weeping and wailing about how “our schools are failing,” “we are losing the race to nations with higher test scores,” Strabeck has a few wise observations about the goal of “beating” other nations:

 

I find such a motivation ridiculous. Who first landed on the moon? Americans trained in American public schools. Who has orbited Earth more times than any other nation? Americans who were educated in public schools. Who has probed deeper in the sea than anyone else — maybe excluding Jacques Cousteau? Again the answer is Americans who began their learning in public schools. Solar energy, fossil fuels, electronic technologies, social programs, jurisprudence — and the list goes on and on.

If history is to be examined regarding Common Core, it is a program that might last some four to eight years. Having been involved in public education for nearly 50 years, I have watched this timeline remain fairly constant across the years: both politicians and educators finally conclude that the latest fad is not working, and something new arises they want to try.

What, then, assures good schools and higher student achievement? Economics, pure and simple. Find me a good school, and nine times out of 10 there will also be found a flourishing economy in that school community.

Our plea that good schools bring good industries is a misnomer, a case of getting the cart before the horse. Make sure that parents have good jobs, that small businesses are flourishing in the neighborhood and that people take pride in where they live and one of the unfailing outcomes is good schools.

And he adds:

If we would spend the money currently being spent on Common Core on economic development and sustain that kind of effort for, say, four or five years, we would soon see “good” schools emerging. 

Please read the whole article.

 

 

 

George Wood is superintendent of Federal Hocking School District and an articulate supporter of public education in a state where public education is under siege by the governor and legislature. How can schools function in an atmosphere of constant turmoil and interference by politicians? Here are his thoughts about the state’s new report card for schools:

 

A perspective on the State’s new report card by Dr. George Wood, Executive Director of The Forum for Education and Democracy

Below is a statement regarding the State’s new report card released by Dr. George Wood. Dr. Wood is the Superintendent of Federal Hocking School District and the Executive Director of The Forum for Education and Democracy. His perspective is worth a read.

 William Phillis
Ohio E & A 

Response to New State Report Card

George Wood, Superintendent, Federal Hocking Local Schools

August 23, 2013

 

            With the release of the new state school report cards we are again being led down a dead-end road. There is no evidence that the way the state reports on student achievement, or school performance, primarily by using standardized test scores, helps children learn or our teachers teach. The ‘new’ report card simply continues this attempt to grade our schools with tools that are not up to the job.

            In the Federal Hocking District we are pleased that our schools received an “A” on the one measure that really matters-graduation rate. Our schools have one of the highest graduation rates in Ohio, and we have some of the highest standards for graduation in the state (including requiring that graduates earn more credits than the state minimum, pass all state tests, and produce a senior project and a graduation portfolio). It should also be noted that among those students that graduated in 2013, and were FHHS students for four years, 87% of them are going on to higher education having been admitted to Ohio University, Marietta College, Middlebury College, New York University, and Ohio State.

            Unfortunately, most of the new state report card is based upon the standardized tests students take. These tests have never been shown to have a positive effect on students after they leave school; be it in college, the workplace, or the military. While they are one measure that helps us identify some strengths and weaknesses in our program, they should not be the sole measure of the success of our children.

            Further, the new report card continues a history of Ohio constantly changing the rules and standards for schools without sound reason or research to make such changes. Over the past two decades we have had a myriad of state programs and mandates on testing, teacher evaluation, and curriculum. In fact, by my count, in the past eighteen years Ohio has instituted, dropped, changed, and added over three dozen mandated standardized tests at virtually all grade levels. As the new report card is issued schools are grappling with a new mandated curriculum (known as The Common Core), a new teacher evaluation system (the Ohio Teacher Evaluation System), soon to be released new high school end-of-course tests, the Third Grade Reading Guarantee, and new health and safety regulations.

            The constant changing of the rules almost seems to be designed to make our schools look bad. All over Ohio schools that have had positive report cards in the past saw their scores tumble. One of our schools went from being rated “Effective” by the state last year to having an “F” grade in achievement-how is that possible?

            It should also be noted that these new programs are more of the ‘unfunded mandates’ for which the State is so well known. There are no additional dollars directly provided to districts to implement these mandates (you can apply for grants, but even if you do not get one you still have to carry out the work). For most districts, such as ours, the current state budget has continued the trend of reduced or flat funding. We have now seen in the past two decades more than half a dozen school funding plans and have yet to see any of them carry out the Ohio State Supreme Court’s order to fix school funding.

            Yet while state funding goes down or is static, their attempt at controlling our schools goes on. At Federal Hocking the state provides around 52% of our budget, but through the new state reporting system and the new state mandates they are attempting to control 100% of our agenda.

            While we will use the new state report card as one measure of our work, we will not rely upon it as a sole or even the best measure of what we are doing. In fact, it would be short sighted for us to focus solely on test preparation, as it would have a negative effect upon our children limiting the range of educational experiences we offer them in our schools.

            Our agenda will be driven by a set of progressive operating principles put together by our staff and approved by our school board in the true spirit of local control. Experience tells us that the state will, in the blink of an eye, change the rules we face again and again. (In fact, as I write this the rules for the testing of high school students for graduation are so unclear they are not even posted on the Ohio Department of Education web site.) In order not to keep trying to dance to the tune played in Columbus we will focus on what is best for our kids. We may not get the best grades on the state report card, and we may be singled out for additional scrutiny by the state. But we will continue to keep our focus on the most important standard of all, providing our families with the schools and classrooms that move our children on to graduation and a productive life after school.

Paul Thomas here describes how Mick Zais, state superintendent of South Carolina, misleads the public about the condition of education in his state, about how schools succeed, and what is needed to help them improve.

Having found a high-poverty district that has higher-than-expected test scores, Zais uses this district to push the corporate reform agenda: Success is all about merit pay and “no excuses.”

A great teacher can supply 18 months of “knowledge” in only one academic year, as measured by standardized tests, which we know are great ways to assess “knowledge.”

This is the usual reformy nonsense, which has never stood up to scrutiny.

Paul Thomas taught high school for 18 years in South Carolina and is now preparing teachers at Furman University in South Carolina.

He is an amazingly prolific scholar, and his deep experience informs his scholarship.

 

David Gamberg is superintendent of the Sourhold district in
Long Island, Néw York. He
understands something
that state commissioner John King
does not. Children are different. They develop in different ways
and at different rates. They have different strengths and
weaknesses. Experienced educators know this. The standard for high
achievement in mile-long races is 4 minutes. Runners tried for
years until 1954, when Roger Bannister
broke the barrier
. Now many runners have, and it is the
standard. Does that mean you are a failure if it takes you 9 or 15
minutes to run a mile? No. Should all children score “proficient”
on a test that was deliberately made so hard that only 30/35% would
“pass”? What about the kids who are gifted artists and musicians?
What about those who can fix things and are great at solving
practical problems? What about those who are English language
learners? Should they “fail”? Should they be denied a high school
diploma? Sure, it is necessary to test kids periodically to see how
they are doing, but tests should be used to help kids and teachers,
not to punish them.

This petition was written by supporters of public education in New York State called the Coalition for Justice in Education.

They object to King’s insistence on high-stakes standardized testing, especially the Common Core testing that recently led to a collapse of student scores across the state.

They seek a commissioner who cares about public education, cares about the quality of education–not just test scores, and cares about children.

I agree, which is why I wrote a post calling on John King to resign.

He may have the confidence of the Board of Regents, but he has lost the confidence of the parents and educators of New York State.

If you agree with their petition, sign it.

Jersey Jazzman reports that Chris Cerf has selected an inexperienced young man, age 32, formerly on Cerf’s staff in New York City, to take charge of the Camden, New Jersey, public schools.

Paymon Rouhaniford graduated from college ten years ago. He worked on Wall Street for Goldman Sachs. He worked for the New York City Department of Education, mainly in developing new charter schools.

For the past 10 months, he has been the “Chief Strategy and Innovation Officer” in Newark, which translated, means charters and privatization.

Notice that aside from his two years in TFA teaching sixth grade, he has never been a principal or a superintendent.

He probably has no licenses to teach or administer in the state of New Jersey, although Cerf may have abolished all such requirements by now.

This is truly innovative, selecting an inexperienced young man who has never run a school to run a district of very poor kids.

Here is what Chris Cerf said:

“Every child in New Jersey, regardless of zip code, deserves access to a high-quality education, and I’m confident Paymon Rouhanifard is the right person to make this goal a reality,” said Christie. “Paymon has a proven track record of improving the lives of hundreds of thousands of students in Newark and New York City, and brings innovative leadership that Camden needs moving forward. He has shown a deep commitment to working with parents and teachers to put students at the center of all decisions. Under his leadership, I know Camden’s schools will improve on the progress of these last few months.”

Cerf does not specify what he means by a “proven track record.”

 

 

Yesterday I called for John King’s resignation.

This teacher says John King should be fired.

Here are her reasons:

“A New York Teachers Letter on the Failed Leadership of John King

I am dismayed by the leadership provided by John King, Education Commissioner of the State of New York. He is deliberately creating a testing and curriculum that penalizes children – especially children with emotional illnesses and learning disabilities. I have spent my summer working with students who cannot graduate because they have not passed one of the five required Regents or RCT exams. These students have met all other local requirements and have passed the other four required Regents/RCTs – and would have passed the last remaining exam had the cut scores not been raised recently.

“Certainly, it is a lofty goal to want all HS graduates in NY State to achieve superior academic performance at the A+ level. I have been teaching HS English for 30 years and each year I hope that this will be the year that each of my students achieves an A in my course. It has never happened. Until we can eliminate emotional illness, learning disabilities, poverty, and other sources of family strife, this is unrealistic.

“I am dismayed by the changes made to the current HS Regents exams and the proposed Common Core Regents exams. Labeling 70% of our elementary students as failing is atrocious. BUT, preventing students from earning a HS diploma is shameful. This spring, the cut scores were raised on the Comprehensive English Regents. This shift resulted in failing grades for a number of students who would have passed the exam a year earlier.

“Simultaneously, the questions were more difficult and the readings were more complex than on previous exams. This shift was unannounced and therefore unfairly penalized hundreds of children and also prevented many of them from earning a diploma. In addition, the US History and Global Studies readings have also increased in difficulty. I might not object if the tests were more difficult in Social Studies content, but the tests are more difficult in reading complexity. The result is that students who have passed the English Regents or RCTs are failing the US History and/or Global Studies Regents or RCTs because they do not read well enough – not because they don’t understand Social Studies concepts. One of the first things I learned in my education courses is to determine what it is I am trying to assess and then to create a question that assess the appropriate learning. My students are weak in vocabulary and reading comprehension – yet they have all passed the Regents and/or RCTs in HS English. Why must their score on the US History exams be based on their documented disability in reading?

“The newest proposed version of the English Comprehensive Regents will be given in June of 2014. John King proudly announced that this exam is modeled after the AP exam in English Language and Composition. Really? The AP test is our new benchmark for college and career readiness? The AP test is the bar for our graduation requirements? Why?

“I used to believe in the integrity of the Regents exams. I no longer believe that the NY State exams are valuable, worthwhile, or educationally appropriate. The new Common Core curriculum – along with the modules and activities crafted by Odell Learning (promised – but not delivered) – is not a curricular improvement. None of this is best practice. None of it relies on current research. None of it has been field tested. None of it is proven. It is all snake oil. I am ashamed to be part of this sham. Commissioner King is not only overseeing this disaster; he is proud of the fact that 70% of our students will be labeled failures.

“I am no longer interested in “building a plane in mid-air.” I want to teach children. I want to expose them to fiction. I want them to be creative and engaged. I want them to fall in love with learning (preferably through literature) the way that I love learning. I, however, do not love this new way of learning (and teaching.) I do not love watching kids cry. I do not love hearing them as they call themselves stupid after failing a Regents for the third time. I will not love making the phone calls later today that inform children and parents that they have failed a Regents – again”

Susan Murphy Oneonta, NY

New York’s Commissioner of Education John King should resign.

The job of state commissioner is to support and strengthen education and educators, not to undermine them.

In his short tenure, King has used his position to wreak havoc on the state’s education system.

He has demoralized educators.

He has imposed an evaluation scheme that no one understands, but which he famously described as “building a plane in mid-air.” He doesn’t realize that no one wants to ride on a plane that is being built in mid-air—not students, not teachers, not principals, not parents, not superintendents.

More than one-third of the principals in the state bravely signed a letter warning King of the negative, punitive consequences of his ill-conceived evaluation plan. Typically, he didn’t listen.

But now he has gone too far.

He has hurt children.

In his zeal to inflict punishment on students across the state and prove what a tough guy he is, he imposed testing that was developmentally inappropriate, that did not provide enough time for many students to finish, and that had no curriculum to support it.

Many months ago, he predicted that proficiency rates would plummet across the state by at least 30%, and he engineered the result that he predicted. He made it happen by design.

Students and teachers across the state have been obsessed with testing and test prep in recent years. Now they learn that despite their best efforts, their test scores dropped precipitously.

The students and teachers didn’t fail.

John King failed.

King chose passing marks aligned to NAEP achievement levels, which was wrong. Students who are proficient on NAEP have demonstrated superior academic performance. NAEP proficient is not “grade level,” yet King is using it as a passing mark, dooming the majority of students to “fail” because of King’s inexperience and statistical ignorance.

If we are to judge teachers and principals by the rise or fall of student test scores, as King wishes, then so too should he be judged.

As the state’s highest education official, King is not above accountability. On his watch, he devised and caused a massive test score decline, causing unnecessary anguish and discouragement to students, parents, and teachers in every school in his care.

If he were a business CEO and his actions caused the stock price of his company to fall by 30% overnight, the shareholders would force him out at once.

By his actions, he abdicated his responsibilty to students and to the state’s education system.

He was hired to be the steward of the state’s children, not a mean-spirited boss of the state’s educators and students.

He should resign.

Contact the Néw York State Board of Regents if you agree. Will they have the courage and integrity to defend our state’s children?