Archives for category: Teachers and Teaching
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Report: Shocking Loss of Teachers in Louisiana Due to State Incompetence

By dianeravitch
March 22, 2014 //
17

Rodolfo Espinoza reports that Lafayette, Louisiana, is experiencing a major exodus of teachers who have resigned because of confusing and conflicting directions from the state bureaucracy. Espinoza is president of the local teachers’ association.

He writes:

Lafayette is in a crisis of employee resignations and early retirements. Changes in state policies spearheaded by unqualified state leaders, combined with the failure of our local district to advocate for its employees have left teachers overwhelmed and frustrated.

Since 2012, 556 teachers have left our system. Resignations are far outpacing retirements with 343 teacher resignations compared with 184 retirements since 2012. In 2012 alone, teacher resignations doubled from 81 to 164.

Bureaucracy created by the current data-driven accountability system is a major source of teachers’ frustrations. The state and districts are consumed by a school letter grade, the formula for which constantly changes under State Superintendent John White and BESE. For example, high schools are now judged on the ACT scores of all students, regardless of whether or not they are going to attend college. We now require students to take not only the ACT but also the “Practice ACT” plus hours of ACT test prep. This numbers game does little to help struggling students academically or emotionally. It is yet another mandate that allows adults sitting in offices to say they are helping “the kids” and holding schools accountable, while Johnny still can’t comprehend what he’s reading. This year in Lafayette, a typical sophomore will take 25 district and state standardized tests, consuming 25 percent of the school calendar for the sake of “data.”

The outcome: A predictable school letter grade that punishes schools and the personnel who serve at-risk populations.

 

At some point, even Louisiana has to worry how they will replace the teachers who have retired and resigned. And who will want to become a teacher when working conditions are so poor and teachers are treated so poorly by the state education department.

Categories Education Reform, Louisiana, Teachers and Teaching

Linda Darling-Hammond Testifies in Vergara Trial

By dianeravitch
March 22, 2014 //
33

A friend who observed the proceedings in the Vergara trial sent me the following notes, based on the testimony of Stanford professor Linda Darling-Hammond. She is probably the nation’s leading expert on issues related to teacher recruitment, preparation, retention, and support. Her testimony, based on many years of study and experience, was devastating to the plaintiff’s case.

Linda Darling-Hammond’s testimony

Overview

Yesterday, expert witness Linda Darling-Hammond, a renowned scholar and Stanford professor, has refuted the main arguments of the plaintiffs’ lawyers.

Darling-Hammond, whose insights come from both research and experience, stated that measures based on student test scores do not identify effective teachers, that two years is enough time to identify teachers who should be counseled out of the profession, and that extending that period beyond two years would harm students.

Excerpts

On what a good evaluation process looks like.

“With respect to tenure decisions, first of all, you need to have – in the system, you need to have clear standards that you’re going to evaluate the teacher against, that express the kind of teaching practices that are expected; and a way of collecting evidence about what the teacher does in the classroom. That includes observations and may also include certain artifacts of the teacher’s work, like lesson plans, curriculum units, student work, et cetera.”

“You need well-trained evaluators who know how to apply that instrument in a consistent and effective way.

“You want to have a system in which the evaluation is organized over a period of time so that the teacher is getting clarity about what they’re expected to do, feed back about what they’re doing, and so on.

In California – note related to the tenure decision, but separately – there is a mentoring program that may be going on side-by-side; but really, that does not feed into the tenure decisions. It’s really the observation and feedback process.”

On the problem with extending the tenure beyond two years

“It’s important that while we want teachers to at some point have due process rights in their career, that that judgment be made relatively soon; and that a floundering teacher who is grossly ineffective is not allowed to continue for many years because a year is a long time in the life of a student.

“So I think that having the two-year mark—which means you’re making a decision usually within 19 months of the starting point of that teacher – has the interest of allowing a – of encouraging districts to make that decision in a reasonable time frame so that students aren’t exposed to struggling teachers for long than they might need to be.”

Other reasons why two years is enough

“My opinion is that, for the first reason I mentioned earlier—the encouragement to make a judgment about a grossly ineffective teacher before many years go by is a useful reason to have a shorter tenure period – or pre-tenure period.

“But at the end of the say, the most important thing is not the amount of time; the most important thing is the quality and the intensity of the evaluation and support process that goes on for beginning teachers.

On the benefits and importance of having a system that includes support for struggling teachers

“Well, it’s important both as a part of a due process expectation; that if somebody is told they’re not meeting a standard, they should have some help to meet that standard.

The principal typically does not have as much time and may not have the expertise in the content area that a mentor teacher would have. For example, in physics or mathematics, usually the mentor is in the same area, so the help is more intensive and more specific.

“And in such programs, we often find that half of the teachers do improve. Others may not improve, and then the decision is more well- grounded. And when it is made, there is almost never a grievance or a lawsuit that follows because there’s ben such a strong process of help.

“The benefits to students are that as teachers are getting assistance and they’re improving their practice, students are likely to be better taught.

“And in the cases where the assistance may not prove adequate to help an incompetent teacher become competent, the benefit is that that teacher is going to be removed from the classroom sooner, if, sort of, they allowed the situation to just go on for a long time, which is truncated by this process of intensive assistance….

“The benefits to districts are that by doing this, you actually end up making the evaluation process more effective, making personnel decisions in a more timely way, making them with enough of a documentation record and a due process fidelity, that very rarely does there occur a problem after that with lawsuits; which means the district spends a little bit of money to save a lot of money and to improve the effectiveness of teaching for its students.

On peer assistance and review (PAR) and other mentoring programs

“A PAR program and other programs that mentor teachers typically improve the retention of teachers; that is, they keep more of the beginning teachers, which is where a lot of attrition occurs. But they do ensure that the teachers who leave are the ones that you’d like to have leave, as opposed to the ones who leave for other reasons.”

On firing the bottom 5% of teachers

“My opinion is that there are at least three reasons why firing the bottom 5 percent of teachers, as defined by the bottom 5 percent on an effectiveness continuum created by using the value-added test scores of their students on state tests, will not improve the overall effectiveness of teachers….

One reason is that, as I described earlier, those value-added metrics are inaccurate for many teachers. In addition, they’re highly unstable. So the teachers who are in the bottom 5 percent in one year are unlikely to be the same teachers as who would be in the bottom 5 percent the next year, assuming they were left in place.

“And the third reason is that when you create a system that is not oriented to attract high-quality teachers and support them in their work, that location becomes a very unattractive workplace. And an empirical proof of that is the situation currently in Houston, Texas, which has been firing many teachers at the bottom end of the value-added continuum without creating stronger overall achievement, and finding that they have fewer and fewer people who are willing to come apply for jobs in the district because with the instability of those scores, the inaccuracy and bias that they represent for groups of teachers, it’s become an unattractive place to work.

“The statement is often made with respect to Finland that if you fire the bottom 5 percent [of teachers], we will be on a par with achievement in Finland. And Finland does none of those things. Finland invests in the quality of beginning teachers, trains them well, brings them into the classroom and supports them, and doesn’t need to fire a lot of teachers.”

Categories California, Teacher Evaluations, Teacher Tenure, Teachers and Teaching

David Berliner Testifies at the Vergara Trial

By dianeravitch
March 20, 2014 //
15

The distinguished education researcher David Berliner testified yesterday at the Vergara trial in Los Angeles. The issue is whether teachers should be permitted to have tenure; the plaintiffs say that job protections for teachers deny the civil rights of children. Last week, the teacher of the lead plaintiff testified; he does not have tenure. He has never had disciplinary proceedings or any negative evaluations. The case seems ludicrous on its face since Vergara’s teacher, who allegedly violated her civil rights, has never had tenure.

This is what David Berliner said, according to a source who was in the courtroom (I have no link; if I can get Berliner’s testimony in full, I will post it):

Yesterday, David C. Berliner, Regents’ Professor Emeritus of Education at Arizona State University, took the stand. He spoke at length about the out-of-school factors that impact in-school performance. He said,

“The public and politicians and parents overrate the in-school effects on their children and underrate the power of out-of-school effects on their children.” He noted that in-school factors account for just 20 percent of the variation we see in student achievement scores.

He also discussed value-added models and the problems with solely relying on these models for teacher evaluation. He said,

“My experience is that teachers affect students incredibly. Probably everyone in this room has been affected by a teacher personally. But the effect of the teacher on the score, which is what’s used in VAM’s, or the school scores, which is used for evaluation by the Feds — those effects are rarely under the teacher’s control…Those effects are more often caused by or related to peer-group composition…”

Categories Teachers and Teaching

Shocker! North Carolina Does Not Deserve Duncan’s Congratulations for Improving Teaching

By dianeravitch
March 20, 2014 //
13

As I reported earlier today, Arne Duncan reviewed the results of the $4.3 billion competition called “Race to the Top,” and he lauded four states for making the most progress: Hawaii, Delaware, North Carolina, and Tennessee. Note that two of the four states are controlled by legislatures and governors that are to the far-far-far right: North Carolina and Tennessee. The commissioner of education in Tennessee is Kevin Huffman, ex-husband of Michelle Rhee, who spent two years in Teach for America, and has been pushing hard to expand enrollment in privately managed charter schools. Huffman’s egregious indifference to the views of experienced educators has provoked rebukes, including a letter to the governor signed by about 40% of the state’s district superintendents in opposition to Huffman’s tin ear. North Carolina has, frankly, been a tragic state in the conscious effort of its legislature and governor to demoralize teachers, authorize vouchers, expand charters, and allow for-profit charters. It is one of the worst states in the nation to be a teacher; teacher pay is 46th in the nation. The governor has responded to teachers’ complaints by raising teachers’ salaries–but only for new teachers, which will benefit the large cohort of Teach for America that he is importing. Governor McCrory’s senior education advisor is Eric Guckian, an alum of TFA.

For the record, the most widely read post in the history of this blog came from Kris Nielsen, a teacher in North Carolina, who wrote “I Quit.” Kris’s post went worldwide. It was viewed 323,000 times on this blog alone, and it was reflagged many other places.

On February 10-11 of this  year, I was invited to participate in a major state-wide forum in Raleigh, where state leaders of both parties, civic leaders, education leaders, nearly 1,000 people met to discuss education in North Carolina.

One of the major concerns of the conference (if not the legislature) was the ongoing, alarming exodus of experienced teachers from teaching and from the state.

Before I spoke, John Merrow moderated a panel in which six experienced and very articulate teachers explained why they quit. The common theme was that they could not afford to live in North Carolina because of the low salaries paid to teachers. No raises since 2008. One teacher said she moved to Maryland, immediately got a job, and her salary was $20,000 more than in NC.

Others talked about how much they loved teaching, but the onerous conditions created by the legislature and the governor made it impossible to stay.

I was the keynote speaker on February 11. Drawing on the extensive reporting by Lindsay Wagner at NC Policy Watch and the research of Helen Ladd of Duke and her husband Edward Fiske, former education editor of the New York Times, and news reports from across the state, I gave the speech that was recorded here by the conference organizers. It is only 34 minutes long. Watch if you have time.

The idea that Duncan would single North Carolina out for its stellar improvement during the past few years is beyond my understanding.

Was he misinformed? Does he think that the erosion of teachers’ job stability is the right way to go? Does he think that the flight of experienced teachers is a mark of progress? Is that an accomplishment for Race to the Top? Sound like Race to the Bottom or Race to Oblivion.

This one beats me.

Categories Education Reform, North Carolina, Teachers and Teaching

Bill McDiarmid: North Carolina’s Legislature Is Destroying Public Education

By dianeravitch
March 20, 2014 //
8

Only days before Arne Duncan hailed North Carolina as one of the stars of the Race to the Top, Bill McDiarmid, dean of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, warned that public education was in dire peril in the state. 

Although North Carolina was once renowned as the most forward-looking state in the south, known for fundings its schools and for promoting statewide early childhood education under previous governors, the current governor and legislature seem determined to obliterate the common schools of North Carolina. The mantra of the legislature–echoing Arne Duncan, Bill Gates, Michelle Rhee, Joel Klein, and the rest of the false reformers, is that “our schools are broken.”

Their solution: charters and vouchers; Teach for America; flunking third graders who don’t pass a reading test, and other punitive actions. At the same time, they enacted generous corporate tax breaks. The shift of public funds away from public schools to the private sector will exacerbate racial segregation. When the radical extremists took control of the legislature, they made sure to gerrymander their own districts to maintain a majority.

McDiarmid writes:

Concerns about the direction of education in the state are widely shared. Researchers at UNC-Wilmington recently conducted a poll of 2,350 state residents. They found that 94 percent of the respondents believe that education is now headed in the wrong direction in the state. Large majorities disagreed with recent policy decisions: 85 percent disapprove of vouchers for students to attend private schools; 81 percent believe that the state should provide scholarships to talented high school students to attract them to teaching via the Teaching Fellows Program; 96 percent disagree with cutting the salary incentive for teachers to pursue master’s degrees; and 75 percent disagree with eliminating tenure. In sum, probably a very significant majority of North Carolinians disagrees with the current policy direction.

The bad news for those concerned about where we are headed is that a number of key folks in the General Assembly are in “safe seats.” This tends to make legislators less responsive to the concerns of the public. These lawmakers are highly unlikely to be turned out this fall — or perhaps for several elections to come. In 2010, the Republican majority in the Legislature controlled redistricting. They were able to create for themselves election districts that virtually ensured their re-elections and the dominance of their party throughout the decade. Certainly, a number of these folks in the majority are open to conversation and debate about educational policy and attend to non-partisan research. Some who hold key leadership posts appear committed, however, to an agenda intent on replacing public schools with private schools.

Equally discouraging are the changes to the tax code. The majority passed legislation rolling back corporate and individual taxes. A flat 5.8 percent tax on incomes replaced the almost century-old graduated tax schedule. The cost to the state of these changes? Over $1 billion annually. At this rate, North Carolina is well on its way to meeting Grover Norquist’s goal of shrinking the size of government to “where it can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.” As the largest expenditure category in the state budget, education is already fighting for air.

Absent from much of the debate about the move toward privatization is attention to the role of public schooling in a democratic society. Our schools trace their origins back to 19th century public school advocates. Recognizing that an educated citizenry is essential to maintaining a democracy, they believed that mixing of children from all social classes in free “common schools” would lead to a stronger sense of shared civic purpose.

Due to persistent residential segregation, North Carolina failed to achieve the goal of schools where all our children – regardless of social class, race, or family circumstances – learn together. Yet, for many children, school remains the one place where they rub shoulders with others who differ from themselves socially, linguistically, and culturally. Like it or not, they must learn to get along with these “others” – arguably a critical attitude in a diverse democratic society such as ours.

Categories Charter Schools, Education Industry, Education Reform, North Carolina, Privatization, Teachers and Teaching, Testing

Peter Greene: Duncan Hails North Carolina for Improving Teachers (Really)

By dianeravitch
March 20, 2014 //
10

Peter Greene noticed in his scan of reports from Arne Duncan that Duncan singled out the super stars of his Race to the Top.

Most surprising of all was that North Carolina won a gold star for improving the teaching profession.

To call this startling is an understatement.

Don’t take my word for it: Read what Duke University Professor Helen Ladd and former New York Times education editor Edward Fiske wrote about the appalling attacks on teachers and on public education in recent years in North Carolina.

Teachers are bailing out of North Carolina because salaries are so low and have not increased since 2008.

The legislature has passed law after law stripping teachers of any and all rights and privileges.

Teachers can no longer get a raise for earning an advanced degree (just shows you what the legislature thinks of education).

The legislature killed off its successful North Carolina Teaching Fellows, which produced well-prepared teachers who made a career of teaching, yet found $5-6 million to bring in Teach for America, guaranteed not to stay in teaching.

North Carolina has one of the worst climates for teachers in the United States, and it has gotten progressively worse over the past three years since hard-right Republicans took control of the legislature and the governorship.

What exactly did Arne find admirable about teaching conditions in North Carolina?

Was he misinformed or does he approve of the war against teachers by the state’s extremists in the legislature and its governor?

The bottom line is that Race to the Top was a waste of $5 billion that might have been used for the arts, for reducing class sizes in needy schools, for opening health clinics, for doing what was actually needed by students and teachers and communities. It could have been a national competition to reward the districts that produced actionable plans for racial integration. Instead, it piled on more testing, demoralized teachers and principals, added tons of paperwork, and rewarded consultants, entrepreneurs, and snake-oil salesmen.

Categories Education Industry, Education Reform, North Carolina, Privatization, Race to the Top, Teachers and Teaching

Titanic, 2014?

By dianeravitch
March 17, 2014 //
21

A reader, Karen Taylor, sent the following reflections about her life as a teacher today:

Titanic, 2014

I am finishing the eighth week of my twenty-seventh year of teaching in public schools.

Today I had a startling insight- that somehow I have been given the task of saving the sinking Titanic. Public schools are the Titanic, run aground against icebergs of state-mandated test scores and the failing family structures of our children.

I’m instructed, prodded, encouraged, and held responsible for saving all the students who may have little or no support. And there certainly aren’t enough life rafts or life preservers to meet their needs. There are no other sturdy crafts nearby to rescue them.
I alone am responsible for this future generation.

And the band plays on deck with strains of, “No Child Left Behind”, “Higher Order Thinking Skills”, Hands-on Learning,” and “Data Driven Instruction.” I hear “Key Academic Vocabulary” and “Learning Objectives” played between each set.

And though I hum and sing and dance with all the rhythms, the deck still capsizes. Children are still struggling to hang on until I can reach them.
Believing that “all children can learn” is our lighthouse. All children can learn, as the beam pronounces. Yet as it circles I remember……they can’t all learn in the same way or on a state-mandated timeline.

The lives I save are measured by “my scores”, while in reality, the scores are very faulty life-preservers for our children. Those scores reflect a single moment in time, like a tiny ripple in the ocean of their lives. And many children perform unbelievably well when the reality of their tsunami-riddled lives are filled with abuse, neglect, alcohol, drugs, and hunger, with very little room left over for worry about a test score.

But they hang on, and they try to hum and sing and dance and move, except for when they are distracted by the memory that their dad gets out of prison next week and their mama needs them to babysit tonight because she has to work late.

So I inflate their little life vests with a hug, a joke, a smile. I give them a pencil and read them a book and we laugh, and for a moment, the ship is stable. And they read a book in English for the first time, and we celebrate, and I pretend that the iceberg has melted and we will sail again.

Because I love this big old ship and all the passengers it holds, and I treasure the message of the lighthouse. But the reality of the iceberg is not just sinking our ship. It is bruising and battering those of us who serve it and seek to save our children.

Categories Students, Teachers and Teaching

An NBCT Listened to Bill Gates and Reacts Here

By dianeravitch
March 15, 2014 //
82

Bill Gates lectured the Nationally Board Certified Teachers on Friday about the joys of Common Core and why standardization unlocks creativity. Not being a NBCT, I was not there to hear him, but this teacher was there.

She writes:

“As a high school English teacher, one of the first things I taught my 11th grade students was to know their audience when speaking and writing; knowing about the expertise, hopes, fears, vision, etc. of the audience is essential for getting one’s message across and engaging in dialogue that can foster learning and evoke meaningful change.

“As an NBCT who came to the Teaching and Learning Conference to engage in meaningful dialogue to evoke change in the teaching profession, I was insulted to see that Bill Gates did not seem to “know” the expertise represented in the audience.

“I didn’t need to hear a history of, or plug for, Common Core standards. I know them backwards and forwards. The standards are actually pretty good – the demoralizing high-stakes strings attached, and the reason they came to be, not so much.

“I didn’t need to hear more about the miracles of the Khan Academy. I saw the TEACH film during the pre-conference where it was plugged plenty. I get it: technology is a useful teaching tool. Duh.

“I didn’t need to hear more about what a flipped classroom was. That’s called Tuesday in room 741.

“What I *needed* was a flipped-conference in which NBCTs could broadcast *their* expertise out to people like Bill Gates.”

Categories Common Core, Gates Foundation, Bill Gates, Teachers and Teaching

Mercedes Schneider Takes Bill Gates to the Woodshed

By dianeravitch
March 15, 2014 //
22

Mercedes Schneider was not at all pleased that Bill Gates lectured teachers about teaching at the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards annual conference. He has never taught but he thinks he knows how to teach. Messing with education is his hobby.

Why was he invited? Schneider thinks he bought the platform by donating millions to the NBPTS.

She takes him to the woodshed and gives him a talking to or a paddling, I am not sure which.

Categories Common Core, Gates Foundation, Bill Gates, Teachers and Teaching

How Testing Regime Drives Out Our Best Teachers

By dianeravitch
March 14, 2014 //
47

Wherever I go, I hear stories about the exodus of teachers from the profession. The same story is told everywhere: I am sick of the non-stop testing. I didn’t become a teacher to administer tests, I became a teacher to make a difference in the lives of children, I became a teacher because I love history and want to share my love. The testing regime is crushing my kids and crushing me too.

Our nation is losing talented and experienced teachers. They are literally being driven out of the profession by federal and state mandates attached to No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top. Many states now administer tests not to measure student progress, but to measure teacher “effectiveness,” despite the fact that there is no research base for this practice.

Why would any nation want to drive teachers out of a profession that is under-paid, under-respected, and constantly criticized by non-educators? Enrollments in education programs are dropping. The federal government, abetted by extremist legislatures and governors, are literally attacking the teachers of our nation. Who will take their place? Certainly not Teach for America. It sends 10,000 young, inexperienced, ill-trained college graduates to teach for two years, into a profession of more than 3 million teachers.

Does anyone think that the teaching profession is getting better as a result of the relentless attacks on teachers?

The modal year of teacher experience dropped dramatically in the past generation from 15 to 1 (see page 10). Do we want most of our doctors and airline pilots to be novices?

Here is the story of one teacher, Ron Maggiano, an award-winning Virginia teacher who quit after 33 years.

Valerie Strauss wrote about him here. She wrote:

Ron Maggiano is a social studies teacher at West Springfield High School in Fairfax County. In 2005, he won the Disney Teacher Award for innovation and creativity, and in 2006, he won the American Historical Association’s Beveridge Family Teaching Prize for outstanding K-12 teaching. Now, after a 33-year teaching career, he is resigning, just four years away from full retirement.

Why? He’s had enough of the high-stakes testing obsession that he believes has undermined public education.

Maggiano wrote:

I have taught history at West Springfield High School for the past 19 years. I have been a successful classroom teacher for more than thirty years, but now I have had enough. As a result of the obsessive emphasis on standardized test scores in FCPS and across the educational landscape, I have decided to retire at the end of the current academic year. I have made this decision, because I can no longer cooperate with a testing regime that I believe is suffocating creativity and innovation in the classroom. We are not really educating our students anymore. We are merely teaching them to pass a test. This is wrong. Period.

As for myself, I won the Disney Teacher Award for innovation and creativity in education in 2005 and the American Historical Association’s Beveridge Family Teaching Prize for outstanding K-12 teaching in 2006. I am four years away from full retirement, so my decision to retire was not made lightly. It will cost me. Our school newspaper, The Oracle, just ran a story on my retirement and why I am leaving the classroom and the job that I love.

The student newspaper wrote an article about his retirement. Maggiano told the student writer:

“I don’t think I’m leaving the education system. I think the education system left me,” said Maggiano.

In another article, he wrote:

It was a difficult decision, but I am confident that it was the correct one. For me this was a moral choice. I believe that our current national obsession with high-stakes testing is wrong, because it hurts kids and deprives students of an education that is meaningful, imaginative, and relevant to the demands of the 21st century.

Research shows that today’s students need to be prepared to think critically, analyze problems, weigh solutions, and work collaboratively to successfully compete in the modern work environment. These are precisely the type of skills that cannot be measured by a multiple-choice standardized test.

More significantly, critical thinking skills and analytical problem solving have now been replaced with rote memorization and simple recall of facts, figures, names, and dates. Educators have been forced to adopt a “drill and kill” model of teaching to ensure that their students pass the all-important end-of-course test. Teaching to the test, a practice once universally condemned administrators and educators alike, has now become the new normal in classrooms across the country.

If teaching to the test was wrong 30 some years ago when I first entered the classroom, it is just as wrong today as I leave my classroom for the final time. The fact is that we are not really educating our students. We are merely teaching them how to pass a test.

And we are not preparing them for success at the college level or in the workplace. If we were, colleges and universities would not have to require remediation courses for incoming freshmen, and businesses and corporations would not have to spend millions to reteach skills their employees should have mastered after twelve years of education.

Categories Teachers and Teaching, Testing
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »