Archives for category: Race to the Top

Students for Education Reform and StudentsFirst have brought pressure on the New York City teachers’ union to agree to a deal with the state to rate teachers by their students’ test scores.

But what these groups have overlooked is that the overwhelming majority of charter schools have said no. Few have turned in their teacher ratings, and most don’t intend to comply.

They say no deal. Forget about it.

The public schools should learn from the best practices of the charters and do the same.

In this video, a father tells a scary story to his little girl as he tucks her in at night.

It is about the greedy Fatcats who are trying to close Chicago’s public schools and take them private.

This is a creative use of social media to educate the public.

Andrew Hargreaves has some ideas about how education can improve and stop demoralizing those who work in schools. First, he looks for the good that Race to the Top may have accomplished. Then he looks at other nations’ experience and finds that those who are most successful are not doing anything that looks like Race to the Top. Hargreaves published two books in 2012: The Global Fourth Way: The Quest for Educational Excellence, with Dennis Shirley; and Professional Capital: Transforming Teaching in Every School, with Michael Fullan.

Hargreaves writes:

Now that the bickering and backbiting of presidential electioneering is over, we have a new opportunity to look at the future of American education with fresh eyes. Many of us, especially Diane Ravitch in this blog, have been critical of the US Race to the Top Strategy and of No Child Left Behind before it.

But suppose, at this moment, even if through gritted teeth, we concede what the work of RTTT has perhaps accomplished. The rise of charter schools has prompted many districts to question the bureaucratic hierarchies and inflexibilities that have strangled innovation and improvement in the past. The new performance-based reward agenda has undoubtedly brought teachers unions to the table to set aside some of their old blue-collar mentality and engage in different conversations about professional quality and recognition. The emergence of online alternatives for learning may be opening more teachers’ minds about the ways that technology can enhance their teaching. Suppose RTTT advocates have been at least partly right when they have insisted that the system had to be broken before it could be fixed.

What does that now mean for the next four years?

First, let’s acknowledge one of the key lessons of Change 101: in any change process, the strategies that get people to one point are rarely the same ones that will get them further. Charismatic leaders can fire people up, but they often have to be followed by more inclusive leaders who are able to distribute wider responsibility for the long-haul of change. No-nonsense leaders may be able to impose immediate order on chaos, but they usually need to be succeeded by leaders who can build collective responsibility for lasting improvement.

What does this mean for the next phase of RTTT?

Are we going to face four more years of breaking up the system into more and more charter school pieces, staffed by teachers with barely one or two years experience? Should educators be confronted with another unrelenting era of fear, threat and cut-throat competition?

In the short-term, fear and threat can create a sense of urgency and grab people’s attention. In the long-run, however, states of perpetual fear and threat just drive all the best people away. Just look at the exodus of top educators who have fled Wisconsin after their grueling battles with Governor Scott Walker.

We believe it’s time to build a new platform on which we can bring our schools back together, strengthen communities of teachers, inspire the educational profession, and keep the best young people in teaching instead of seeing them cycle in and out of the system as if it were a rapidly revolving door. This isn’t just a matter of our personal preferences and beliefs. It’s what the international evidence on high educational performance is clearly showing us.

In our new book, The Global Fourth Way: The Quest for Educational Excellence http://www.sagepub.com/books/Book235155, we describe our research evidence on some of the highest achieving schools and systems around the world such as Finland, Singapore, Alberta, and Ontario.

The first thing that is striking is what we don’t find in all these high-performing systems. We don’t find governments pushing charter schools, fast-track alternative certification programs, and salary bonuses for teachers who get the test scores up.

We don’t see systems testing all students in grades 3 through 8 on reading, writing, and mathematics with a national Department of Education setting the goals from afar, year after year.

We don’t come across governments setting up escalating systems of sanctions and interventions for struggling schools and endless rotations of principals and teachers in and out of schools that erode trust and destroy continuity.

What do we find instead?

We do find a lot of leadership stability and sustainable improvement at the system level, that establishes a platform for innovation to take off in districts and schools.

We do find educators who have gone through excellent university-based preparation programs that are also backed up by extensive practice in schools, and who study research and bring a stance of inquiry to the work they do with their students every day.

We do find a highly respected profession along with a public that lets and expects these trusted professionals to bring their collective talents to bear in their work.

We do find testing that is applied in a couple of grades, not all of them; or to a representative sample of students rather than an unnecessary census of everyone.

And we do find turnaround strategies that rely on connecting struggling schools with higher performers who are tasked with helping them, rather than on parachuting in intervention teams from the top.

In high-performing systems, there is a strong teaching profession backed by powerful and principled professional associations that are in the forefront of educational change. These professional associations are not afraid to challenge government when necessary or to collaborate with them whenever they can. Over 50% of the resources of the Alberta Teachers’ Association, for example, goes to professional development for its members; whereas just 5% or so of teacher union budgets are currently allocated for these purposes in the US.

If you want to improve as a teacher, it’s important to learn from teachers who are doing better. If you are trying to turn around as a school, look to a higher performing school that can give you clues about the best way to proceed. The same is true for the US and other nations.

If, like the US, you are languishing far below the leaders in the international rankings of student achievement, then look, with open eyes and no excuses, at what the highest performing countries are doing instead. Their path is clearly the opposite of what has been pushed on American schools.

Let’s concede that districts and unions may have needed shaking up a bit, if America’s education system was to move forward. But shaking things up isn’t the same thing as improving them. Real and lasting improvement, rather than a few triumphant turnarounds here and there, is going to need something else. High performing counterparts from around the world provide some of the best ideas about what this might be.

If the United States is going to be the world-leader in education that the country’s national wealth and international status lead everyone to expect, what might it do in the next four years to move to the next level? Here are five big changes that can make a huge difference based on the international evidence:

  • Test prudently, in two or three subjects in a couple of grades, not pervasively in almost every single grade all the way up to Grade 8.
  • Shift the focus from fast track programs into teaching itself, to strong pathways that retain the best teachers in the profession.
  • Redirect half of the resources from top-down intervention teams whose impact is temporary at best, towards strategies for schools to assist each other in raising achievement results across district boundaries and even state lines.
  • Commit everyone to exploring how technology can enrich teaching wherever it is truly needed, rather than insisting it replace teachers at every opportunity.
  • Invest more resources in public services as a whole – in housing and infant care, for example – so that educators don’t always have to pick up the slack.

It’s time to look elsewhere for inspiration again. America has always learned from other countries. It adapted Harvard College from Cambridge and Oxford in England, imported the kindergarten from Germany, and adopted the Suzuki method of violin instruction from Japan. The same spirit of curiosity and inventiveness that has served Americans so well in the past can and shoud serve the nation once more.

A teacher in California writes:

I am just about finished with your book The Death and Life of the Great American School System, and as a public high school teacher of 22 years, I would like to thank you for your eloquent defense of public education. My wife is also a public school teacher, and we have made it a point to send our two sons to our neighborhood public schools. This means that as teachers and parents we have been eyewitnesses to the injustices that are being done to public schools in the name of “reform.”

A particularly egregious story comes from our sons’ elementary school, Toyon Elementary, in San Jose, California. The school was designated Program Improvement under the terms of NCLB some years ago, and struggled hard to escape the designation. This is not an easy thing to do: the school where I teach is also laboring under the PI designation (and stigma), and my experience suggests that it’s a bit like quicksand: the more you struggle to get out, the more you get sucked in.

Still, through hard work and determination and no small amount of heroism on the part of its teachers, Toyon Elementary managed to escape the quicksand of Program Improvement a couple of years ago. It was a wonderful thing to see. We likely disagree on this, but I believe that the shortcomings in NCLB are no mere design flaws, but in fact a very conscious attempt to destroy the public schools. So to see a school actually beat the devil that is NCLB was for us a sight to behold.

But soon after the school got out of PI, we received a letter informing us that Toyon was now designated “Low Performing,” under the terms of Race to the Top. It seems that the effort of some in our state to qualify for Race to the Top funds–particularly state senator Gloria Romero–had given us and our children whole new categories under which to be called “failures.”

So there you have it: public schools in this era are not even allowed to take satisfaction in their success–especially success as defined by their adversaries. Since its true goal is annihilation of the public schools, the beast of reform will not countenance even the slightest defeat; in such an emergency, it will merely change the rules and declare victory.

Sincerely,
Martin Brandt

Jere Hochman, superintendent of the Bedford schools, has written an eloquent plea to President Obama.

He supported President Obama.

Now, he says, its time to put the brakes on the testing frenzy that is enveloping students, teachers, and schools.

He begins:

I do not doubt that your intentions and those of Mr. Duncan and others are sincere. I do doubt the intentions of those attempting to profit from education and oppressing authentic learning of our most vulnerable children. You do not lead with “rear-view mirror thinking.” Please do not lead with “good intention blindness.” Mr. President.

Please read the link.

We are all aware of the destructive policies that are being pushed into the schools, despite any evidence for their value and considerable evidence that they do harm.

The good news is that parents and educators are pushing back, in city after city and state after state. The resistance to overtesting, to attacks on educators, and to privatization is growing, as Mark Naison reports here

Next year, it will blossom and grow.

If you are part of a grassroots group supporting your public schools, please send me the name of your group and website.

We will continue the pushback.

Newsday on Long Island ran an article about the exorbitant cost of new teacher evaluation programs mandated by the state to comply with its Race to theTop grant.

The editorial board of the newspaper opined in favor of the unproven, heavy-handed plans to judge teachers and principals by student scores.

The superintendent of the Southold, Long Island, schools wrote a wise response to the editorial:

What is the true cost of the new teacher and principal evaluation systems?

“Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted.”
-Albert Einstein

When we look at the cost of principal and teacher evaluation (Newsday Editorial, Teacher evaluations usually not ‘unfunded’ 11/27/12) there is a temptation to look at the numbers and come to the conclusion that the benefits of a new system are worth it, except for the complaints coming from educators. Beyond the dollars and cents lurks a far greater cost for something that is bereft with many untested variables. The public at-large rightfully demands a sound return for their investment in taxpayer dollars—whether local property taxes, or precious resources at the state level. Dig just beneath the surface of the new evaluation system and discover the true hidden costs.

Both large and small school districts face the same dilemma regarding the effective design of their respective educational systems. This is true whether we look at establishing a vigorous curriculum, defining the proper role and use of educational technology, determining how we should preserve school infrastructure, as well as what are effective means to monitor and evaluate all facets of the educational enterprise? Examine any public or private initiative or undertaking and you will find both effective and efficient ways to measure what works; you will also find cumbersome, over-intrusive, and costly designs for such systems of measurement.

The presumption that what works in one sector applies equally to others using the same or similar metrics which renders a determination of where quality lives may in fact be shortsighted at the very least, and detrimental to an organization’s mission at worst. The educational establishment is not, and should not be, exempt from scrutiny, or effective means to evaluate results. The current system, well underway, is not such an effective or efficient means to conduct such an evaluation.

The personal and professional opinions of citizens, policymakers, legislators, and practitioners run the gamut when it comes to a prescription for what ails the educational system. Look in one school and you find a drop out rate that should alarm everyone for what it portends in the way of the true cost to society in the years ahead (reliance on social service support, possible incarceration, let alone the human travesty of lives that go unfulfilled). Look elsewhere and you may see aspiring artists, musicians, and the like being nurtured in their respective school community. The aspiration for career and college readiness is not, and will not be, enhanced with an agenda that over tests and under engages students. Measuring the outcomes under a single banner that accounts for all variables would be difficult at best.

The true cost comes not in what we gain from this new system but what we lose with its narrow focus of effectiveness despite an expansive investment of time and energy to render judgments on what that effectiveness may look like. This time is equatable to dollars, but worse, it drains resources from the true mission of public education—to imbue a clear and compelling sense of purpose for the ideals of our American democracy, our entrepreneurial spirit, and a commitment to preserve our past and find our future. This prescription for measurement would leave the most ambitious and innovative private company ill equipped to compete with a more nimble and creative enterprise that does not find itself in a misguided mode of compliance.

Rather than champion the broad brush approach that is presently being administered throughout every schoolhouse in the state, the editors of Newsday would be well served to critically examine the net effects of this rush to judgment by looking at examples the world over that produce excellent results in school. Countries like Finland and Canada do not use a similar means of evaluation to arrive at an unequivocal definition of success. In fact in some cases you need look no further than right here on Long Island.

David Gamberg
Superintendent
Southold School District

Parents and teachers have organized a telephone campaign to register their objections to the Race to the Top program, which has led to more testing and more school closings and more disruptions for students and teachers.

Here is the campaign message:

Contact the White House weekly at 202-456-1111  

Message: Give all students the same education your girls are getting! Abandon Race to the Top and stop privatizing public schools.

MONDAY
1. Alabama
2. Alaska
3. Arizona
4. Arkansas
5. California
6. Colorado
7. Connecticut
8. Delaware
9. Florida
10. Georgia 

TUESDAY
1. Hawaii
2. Idaho
3. Illinois
4. Indiana
5. Iowa
6. Kansas
7. Kentucky
8. Louisiana
9. Maine
10. Maryland 

WEDNESDAY
1. Massachusetts
2. Michigan
3. Minnesota
4. Mississippi
5. Missouri
6. Montana
7. Nebraska
8. Nevada
9. New Hampshire
10. New Jersey 

THURSDAY
1. New Mexico
2. New York
3. North Carolina
4. North Dakota
5. Ohio
6. Oklahoma
7. Oregon
8. Pennsylvania
9. Rhode Island
10. South Carolina 

FRIDAY
1. South Dakota
2. Tennessee
3. Texas
4. Utah
5. Vermont
6. Virginia
7. Washington
8. West Virginia
9. Wisconsin
10. Wyoming
11. Washington, D.C.

What is “Race to the Top”? 

RttT is an initiative from the Obama administration that allows states to extend the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) mandate that ALL children be working at grade level by the 2014. States that accepted RttT agreed (along with many other things) to evaluate teachers using student test scores as part of the evaluation and provide more charter schools as a parent “choice”. Just these two provisions have resulted in high stakes testing impacting America’s children and tax dollars being removed from traditional public schools to fund charter schools. A “not so coincidental” byproduct of just these two actions is a decline in the quality of education in our public schools AND corporations lining up to write tests, new curriculum, and open charter schools. If continued, RttT will ultimately destroy public schools as we now know them and continue to provide a way for the monies designated for public education to go to the accounts of corporations that are joining the education bandwagon. Not all children are accepted at charter schools. Education will become a commodity for a select few children and the rest others will be “trained” to be docile employees (google Common Core Standards for more info). Parents must speak out now! Teachers and administrators must speak out now! America must speak out now! STOP THE RACE TO THE TOP!

In another smart column, Rick Hess dissects Thomas Friedman’s fawning praise for Arne Duncan.

What puzzles me is why so many knowledgeable commentators continue to speak of Duncan’s great success in Chicago. I get confused about whether it was Paul Vallas or Arne who “saved” Chicago. Despite a string of saviors, Chicago remains un-saved.

In this column, Hess has it both ways, simultaneously praising Arne’s run in Chicago and pulling it apart.

Whatever: he remains the reigning iconoclast of the right.

Thomas Friedman of the New York Times thinks that Arne Duncan should be the next Secretary of State. He would like to see Race to the Top applied to our international relations.

Readers have reacted. Leonie Haimson in New York City suggested that Arne could close embassies that can’t end wars and conflicts.

Here is another good idea:

He could start an innovative new trend of “Charter Embassies.” They would be U.S. embassies that are publicly funded, but cheaper to maintain and not beholden to rules of international law.

Actually, if you take it to its logical conclusion, every embassy would have its own foreign policy.