It’s clear that people feel strongly about the topic of education. We are dealing with the single most important factor in parent’s lives: their children. Non-parents also have perspectives about education, as employers, community members, and stakeholders in other ways.
At the Alliance for Education our agenda is about supporting a public school system in Seattle that can effectively address the needs of a diverse population and help all students graduate ready for college, career and life. It’s that simple.
I will answer a couple of the questions you’ve brought up here, but for other questions I’ll point you to the web, or invite you to call us directly.
Educational Investments:
Our investments are listed on our web site, with a few updates needed (we’ve been without a communications manager, but that position is filled and he will be starting soon). We currently support academic investments such as Readers and Writers Workshops, a highly successful literacy program, and local college readiness programs that have not previously had consistent support, training, or outreach materials. We also invest in long-neglected infrastructure needs, such as the performance management system. This tool will be used to help teachers better understand student needs, principals better understand teacher and individual school needs, and for central office staff to direct resources to the areas that need additional support, starting in the classroom.
These are a few of the investments, but more are listed on our web site and in our report to the community:
http://www.alliance4ed.org/investments/
http://www.alliance4ed.org/docs/Promises%20to%20Keep.pdf
There are also new investment initiatives that take place regularly, for example one that is not currently listed is supporting leadership development for principals and central office staff. To Charlie’s point from a previous thread, this might be a place to talk about the chain of accountability.
Teaching Quality
There has been a lot of conversation about the recently released NCTQ report, in schools and in the community. We’re hearing about conversations taking place in the teacher’s lounges, some positive, some not. We’re excited because that’s where we need to start.
Charlie’s point about defining teacher quality is an important one. It’s a conversation that needs to take place between teachers, administrators, community members and others. There are many definitions out there already, but it is up to us as a community to learn about the context here and have the discussion here in Seattle. And we absolutely need teachers at the table, as they are the ones that know the challenges and barriers firsthand.
Here are some thoughts to start the conversation:
One definition lists five primary factors of teaching success: www.nbpts.org/index.cfm?t=downloader.cfm&id=594
· Teachers are committed to students and their learning
· Teachers know the subjects they teach and how to teach those subjects to students
· Teachers are responsible for managing student learning
· Teachers think systematically bout their practice and learn from experience
· Teachers are members of learning communities
But this is just the beginning of the conversation. As with all complex issues, working through an issue like defining teacher quality brings up more questions. For example, if a teacher has the ability and skills to engage students successfully in learning how do you measure that? And how do you measure that equitably across student populations, with vastly different resources and individual school challenges, e.g. leadership? Clearly it is difficult to address all of the pertinent issues, but our suggestion is not that we back away from the challenge, but take it on.
On a personal note, my older daughter went to Seattle Public Schools graduating from Garfield a few years back. She had fabulous teachers. She still talks about many of them, keeping in touch with Mr. Acox, and wondering where Mr. Cerquitella went. My younger daughter started middle school this year at Eckstein. Many teachers there have been there for years. It’s been a wonderful transition at a really difficult age for kids.
From my perspective, the vast majority of teachers have been incredible: supportive, pushing the kids, and going the extra mile when the kids need help. On a personal level, I have no complaints about my kids’ experiences. But I don’t face the barriers that many people face in our communities in supporting and advocating for their children. And our schools have low teacher turnover and strong leadership. That’s great for my kids. But I want that for the other kids too.
I’m sure in the context of addressing the societal challenges of supporting all students in our schools, we will not all agree. But let’s start from the place that matters: the students, the children in our communities. Our commitment is to them. And I invite you to come to the table to talk about what we can all do to improve opportunities for all kids in the system.
Karen,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the link to the National Board suggestions as to good teaching. I note that there is no correlative measuring system. The Board requires teachers to pass rigorous steps to achiece Board certification...but once a teacher is Board certified, who's to say what they do in the classroom?
The five points: Teachers are...committed to students/learning, know the subjects/how to teach them, are responsible for managing student learning, think systematically about practice/learn from experience, are members of learning communities...
Don't seem to lend themselves to evalution in a quantifiable sense. This speaks to evalution by their administrators, said evalution not based on test scores but on observed practice.
Karen,
ReplyDeleteYou write that:
"We also invest in long-neglected infrastructure needs, such as the performance management system. This tool will be used to help teachers better understand student needs, principals better understand teacher and individual school needs, and for central office staff to direct resources to the areas that need additional support, starting in the classroom."
Could you tell us more about how this works?
What exactly IS performance management? Whoe performance? How is it managed?
Good morning Seattle Citizen,
ReplyDeleteYou're right that it is difficult to think of qualitifiable measurements for some of the criteria suggested. However some come more easily measured. For example, teacher content understanding could be easily measured, and likely better than principal evaluation, particularly in areas in which principals might not have a deep understanding of the subject matter.
In terms of your questions about performance management, it is intended to be used to understand performance at all levels, starting with student, but also teachers and principals. In particular there are developed school reports that show information on individual schools, goals and progress. They segment schools to address the different challenges in different schools. For this report, schools have two scores, one which is about performance and the other about growth. Some schools may be low on performance but experiencing rapid growth in performance. And other schools may be high in performance and not seeing additional growth. Those are both important to consider.
In addition there is a tool for principals to more deeply understand what is happening in the classrooms in their schools. If there are wide variances between the progress from one classroom to another this gives them the opportunity to see that and investigate further. It doesn't necessarily mean it's a teacher issue, but it gives the tool to see what the differences are.
There is more informaiton on the tools on the district's web site if you're interested in looking at the draft reporting tools.
I appreciate the questions and as we've said previously, please feel free to contact directly if you wish.
Karen,
ReplyDeleteIn your post to start this thread, you wrote, referring to your childrens' schools, that "our schools have low teacher turnover and strong leadership."
I think this can be said for many schools. I Also think that one way to reduce teacher turnover is to stop the national trend towards quantifying teaching and education. GOOD teachers go into the profession not to be mere purveyors of information, but to be mediators between information, the world, and the student. This is often times unquantifiable: No teacher wants people peering over their shoulder all the time, clikcing little counters for every word spoken, noting every second's efficacy. Teaching can be an art, and when it is you might not be able to to anticipate every outcome.
Certainly there are some outcomes we want, but the trend seems to be towards measuring every movement, critiquing, maybe even paying per GLE or something...But who wants that, as a teacher?
Teachers want administrators who are not after their hide, but are observant and helpfully critical, ready to assist while also standing back and watching the magic when it happens.
If we continue on this trend, towards the industialization of education, we'll get product and the good teachers will quit in droves. We will be left with production line workers, clocking in and clocking out.
I'm a bit afraid that without a meaningful - meaning measurable - definition of teacher quality, we're going to fall into a tautology in which we measure/define good teaching as "that which improves student test scores" and then prove it by showing that good teachers - defined this way - improve student test scores.
ReplyDeleteWhile we can talk about teacher quality in the abstract without defining it, we certainly cannot take any action on it without defining it in a mutually acceptable measurable way. So we must, pretty early in the process, stop playing around with the abstract and get down to the real work of forging a mutually acceptable definition that can be measured objectively.
In that definition we need recognize that no one style of high quality teacher will work for every student. Even high quality teachers will have students who fail to learn. And vice versa - some students will learn despite a low quality teacher.
In that definition we need to recognize that some teachers may be highly effective with some populations but not necessarily effective with other populations. Just because a teacher is effective with high performing, well-supported middle class students doesn't mean that the teacher will be effective with under-performing, poorly supported students from low-income households. The teacher who is successful at Bryant may not be successful at Brighton - and vice versa. So we need to be a bit more nuanced about our idea to re-assign effective teachers to challenging schools.
I'm all for measuring and rewarding teacher quality. In fact, I think I'm more for it than that people who claim to be for it. I'm ready to move on to the parts we need before we can act on it, but they seem reluctant to start that work. They seem satisfied to continue to talk about it in the abstract.
Yes, Charlie, we need to define "quality" before we can measure it.
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that given your statement that "[j]ust because a teacher is effective with high performing, well-supported middle class students doesn't mean that the teacher will be effective with under-performing, poorly supported students from low-income households"
we run into an irreducible fact that because classrooms are varied (they're not homogenous) then some students will more learn more in any given classroom than others. This implies that teachers will always have students in the classroom that might not learn as well given that teacher's style and the student's style or ability.
This suggests that, like in the past, we either have to accept that some students won't be learning as well at certain times; OR we simply reduce education to a bare set of styles and expect all students to come up to it.
It's ridiculous, in my opinion, to expect teachers to be able to teach in every style, to teach to all "sorts" of students, while also covering the content to the level we would like. I teacher would have to reteach and differentiate so much that ther would be little time for scope and sequencing.
This is not to say that teachers shouldn't be "quality" and that they shouldn't be evaluated, but that to expect, as seems the current drive, all teachers to teach all students to the same degree is a fallacy. It's a dangerous fallacy when it suggests that teachers differentiate and meet all cultural and stylistic pedagogies while covering specific content: It leads directly to the simplified "teach to the test scores" that is a gross narrowing of the true depth and value of education.
Charlie suggests that before we can talk about the merits or design of a teacher quality (TQ) assessment instrument, we first need a "mutually acceptable definition [of teacher quality] that can be measured objectively."
ReplyDeleteI would argue that BEFORE we try to craft a consensus definition of teacher quality, we first need to answer four questions.
Whether we even need an objective, quantitative TQ asessment instrument depends on the answers to these four preliminary questions.
Here are the quesions:
1) How would you define authentic student success?
2) Do you have at hand a student assessment instrument that is statistically valid, which is to say, has statistical explanatory power for authentic student achievement as defined in answer to Question 1?
The next question cannot be asked until the answer to Question 2 is "yes."
3) Of all the factors within the District's control, what are the most cost-effective changes the District could make that would lead to
a) increased average score of SPS graduates on the instrument identifed in Question 2 and
b) closing of the racial gap in SPS student performance on the instrument identifed in Question 2.
4) Is having an objective quantitative measure of how much a teacher is contributing to or detracting from aggregate authentic student achievement (as measured by the instrument identified in Question 2) an essential part of any one of the cost effective measures listed in Question 3?
If the answer to Question 4 is no, then we have established that that there is no need for a quantitative TQ instrument.
If the answer to Question 4 is yes, then we have established that we need to come up with a valid TQ instrument.
A TQ instrument is only valid if teacher scores on that instrument have "statistical explanatory power" for student scores on the student achievement instrument.
Our state and our district already hold that a student's score on the state-mandated standardized exam is a valid index or measure of authentic student success.
(Is it not true that in our state and district, a passing WASL scores is the de facto definition of authentic student success?)
With student success so defined, it IS WHOLLY appropriate to use scores from these exams, and year-over-year score gains, to derive Teacher Quality scores for individual teachers.
In order to justify the use of these TQ scores for making decisions about teachers (firing, tenure, promotion, pay, etc), the State and District still need to show that the TQ scores have explanatory power for student scores on the student achievement instrument.
Hmm,
ReplyDeleteI follow your logic, Joan...IF we go along with the state-defined measure of "success" (WASL)
And perhaps there might be some TQ test out there that would show that the TQ scores have explanatory power....BUT: what about classes not related to WASL? WASL only tests Reading, Writing, Math and Science (and only to the tenth grade level on each)
Seattle Citizen - your comment proves that you understand my logic.
ReplyDeleteIf I were to give my answer to #1, you would see that I do not believe that a passing score on a narrow=scope standardized exam is a sufficient definition of authentic success. A test score might be for some students one piece of their assessment portfolio, but shouldn't be all of it.
For me, and in part for the reasons you give, the WASL in its current form is not an adequate instrument for assessing student achievement and school success (under NCLB) in SPS.
So my answer to #2 --for SPS--- is "No.", unless someone can show me a test that is free of any bias (especially cultural, racial, and gender), for which scores are highly correlated to success in life, and for which there is accomodation for students that are having a bad test day, or who don't do well on such tests.
So in my mind SPS does not yet have a situation that justifies a TQ assessment and/or teacher pay (etc.) that is determined on the basis of students' scores on standardized exams.
What do you think, Seattle Citizen? Am I making good sense?
(Are you suggesting that there might be a justification for a TQ Asessment, even if we don't have valid student achievement assessment instrument? I think the answer is yes: Written Parent and Principal evaluations - let these be the basis for getting rid of poor teachers or issue performance bonuses. (This proposal has the added benefit that it treats teachers like professionals.)
We have all seen the report that concludes that if a student has an "effective" teacher that student's achievement is boosted, if the student has an "effective" teacher two years in a row, the student's achievement is slingshot forward. The same study also concludes that if a student has an "ineffective" teacher, the student's progress is slowed, and if the student has an "ineffective" teacher two years in a row the student's progress is permanently damaged. Or something like that.
ReplyDeleteProponents of teacher quality initiatives (such as the Alliance and NCTQ) love this study. First, can anyone direct us to the study. Second, how does the study define and measure teacher quality or effectiveness? Third, how does the study define or measure student achievement?
For myself, I am willing to accept standardized tests in core subjects as measures of student achievement. I know that they are narrow measures - I don't deny that deficiency. This is a complex and multi-dimensional outcome, so there is no single measure nor simple set of measures that is going to capture all of it - complete with nuance. That said, I believe that knowledge and skills in reading, writing, math and science are excellent benchmarks for general academic progress. While they don't measure all aspects of student achievement, they are central to it and no practical measure of student achievement can skip them.
Okay - now that we've spent a lot of time discussing an issue that is in no way urgent or ready for action, could the Alliance please address the current, urgent issues of:
ReplyDeleteStudent Assignment Policy
* Why aren't the language immersion and Montessori programs treated as Option programs to allow equitable access?
* Why is South Shore an Option school instead of an attendance area school?
* What are the goals of the new student assignment policy and how well does the new policy achieve those goals?
* How were the new program placements shown in the student assignment policy determined? What is the status of those decisions?
* Does anyone - ANYONE - believe the estimates from the District for the enrollment at Cleveland? What will the District do when these estimates prove horribly wrong?
Program Placement Policy and practice
* How were the new program placements shown in the student assignment policy determined? What is the status of those decisions?
* If the attendance areas are all right-sized, then what opportunity will there be for changes in program placement? Do the attendance area boundary maps cement all programs into place?
* The new Capacity Management Policy seems to direct the superintendent to make program placement decisions based on where space is available - in direct contradiction to the Program Placement policy. Which will it be?
* The District did not follow their established program placement procedure last year and it doesn't look like they are going to follow it this year either. What is the point of having a policy and a procedure if the District staff are going to override it annually?
Materials Adoption Policy
* Can the Board write a materials adoption policy that will preclude a fiasco like our last three math textbook adoptions - each of which has been a disaster?
Capacity Management
* Who is accountable for re-opening schools that we just closed?
* Does the District have any freakin' idea what they are doing?
* Why didn't the District move to re-open schools a year ago when people were screaming for them? How did it go from being a ridiculous idea then to an absolute necessity today?
* Why does the new policy direct the superintendent to match capacity with enrollment when she should be directed to match capacity with demand? The capacity for alterntative programs and Spectrum programs may match enrollment, but it certainly doesn't match demand - not with hundreds of students on waitlists. Moreover, there are schools filled with mandatory assignments where the enrollment is there but the demand is not.
* Since the District has distinguished between programs and schools (the program at Cooper was closed; the school is still open), they should be able and ready to adjust the capacity of programs that are not filling buildings and move another program into the building.
(cont.)
cont...
ReplyDeleteEarned Autonomy
* What does it take for a school to get waiver from using the Board-adopted materials?
* What autonomy can a school earn? Materials? Staffing? Bell times?
* How much sense does it make to allow schools that work well with the system to deviate from it, but to more tightly enforce the system in the schools where it doesn't work?
* How overdue is the Performance Measurement (management?) System right now?
* The Superintendent says that there has been no accountability and that there will be no accountability until the Performance Management System is established. Can we really have no accountability yet? Then what has she been talking about for the past two and a half years? Has that all been bogus?
Curricular Alignment
* Where is the line between curriculum alignment - which is good - and standardization - which is evil?
* Why do schools need to all use the same textbooks? For the benefit of students who change schools during the year? Really? How many of them are there? Why can't they change books along with schools and teachers? As long as the curriculum is the same, what difference does the material make?
* Why do all high school students need to read the same books? Where is the benefit in that? What is the cost?
* If the professional development is specific to the materials, then I have to question if that's a good idea. Shouldn't the professional development for the teachers be independent of the materials? Is the professional development about how to teach page 57 or is it about how to teach long division?
* What does it add to the cost of our materials adoptions and what does it add to the wear and tear on teachers to have professional development specific to every new text?
* The person in charge of the high school alignment project says that they have to reduce the number of texts used by teachers because they can't write lessons for the dozens currently in use. Why is the Central office writing lessons? Why are administrators scripting lessons for teachers?
Add to that the failure of the Southeast Initiative, the breakdown of discipline in some schools, the absence of any functional governance role for the Board (they can write policies but cannot enforce them - so what's the point?), the routine violations of District Policy, social promotion, and failures to provide students with early and effective interventions.
These are current issues that are being decided right now. These are issues that people should know about now, think about now, and engage the District about now. Let's not be wasting time and distracting people with abstracts like teacher quality.
Hi,
ReplyDeleteSorry for the delay in responding. We had our annual auction on Saturday night and as a small organization it takes all hands to pull it off. So I’m now following up. You’ve raised a lot of questions, so I can only address a few for now.
Seattle Citizen,
When I mentioned our schools having low teacher turnover, there is research that shows a statistically significant correlation between high teacher turnover and an increased percentage of students of color. That’s a problem. Here’s a link to one of those reports:
http://depts.washington.edu/ctpmail/PDFs/TeacherRetention.pdf
It actually sounds like we agree that good teaching is an art. But we have to find ways to provide that at all schools in all economic areas and for all students. And that means increased support for teachers and more understanding and accountability around expectations.
And hi Charlie,
So I started this thread with the thought that we could start a dialogue about the definition of teacher quality. No one I know believes that teacher quality is all about student test scores. Content knowledge, modeling continuous learning, collaboration, what else.... But I understand you to say that student learning should be part of it. So what combination is right for measuring student learning with content knowledge, commitment, and ongoing professional growth? And how do you measure commitment? Observation? And who observing?
You have been good at pointing out where we need to be careful. Very important. But we also have to start figuring out how to move forward. We cannot stay where we are and think we’re going to have a different impact from what we’ve had.
So I invite you to talk about what we can do.
I appreciate you saying you’re all for measuring and rewarding teacher quality. One of the things that matters very much to me professionally is that if I work really hard, take initiative and am committed, I get rewarded. Sometimes it’s monetary, sometimes other rewards. Regardless, that is incredibly satisfying and keeps me completely engaged in my work. Do you think there are teachers out there that would likely feel the same way?
I’ll try to get to [some of] your Student Assignment questions later. Not trying to be selective, but it’s an awful lot of questions to address... I’ll start collecting some info on some of those questions.
more below...
Hi Joan NE
ReplyDeleteOkay, tough (but good questions). For now I’m just looking at your first question, but I’m also gathering some information to respond to your 2nd question (as you mentioned we can’t go further until we answer that. I’ll post that as soon as possible.
Regarding your question about what we need to do BEFORE defining teacher quality, here are some of my thoughts (and only my thoughts):
How would you define authentic student success?
In my mind, student success should be defined broadly with specific components that include, but are not limited to: student academic success (relative to individual needs vs. a standard), engagement in school, and individual feedback from students.
Academic success could be measured in a variety of ways including classroom grades, assessments (MAP, WASL, others), and teacher feedback to address some of the complexities that cannot otherwise be seen.
Engagement can be measured by participation in activities, attendance, disciplinary actions, observation, as well as other measurements.
Individual feedback is a challenging one, but considering the complexity of our diverse student body we need to better understand and respond to the many barriers that students face.
Last week I had the opportunity to meet with a Latino Youth Group. Some of the students I met with struggle with academics, and face multiple barriers in getting enough help both in school and at home, which often result in them falling behind pretty quickly. Once that happens it becomes extremely challenging to catch up, let alone get ahead, particularly with the resources they are aware of.
This is an example of how we cannot just look at scores, or teacher quality. We need a mechanism to identify these challenges and connect those students with additional resources (which by the way we’ve got a ton of in this city) to get the support they need.
I don’t know of any people who define student success only as proficiency on the WASL. That is a measurement that shows proficiency with state standards, but student success is much more broad and actually likely differs between students.
But I also want to ask why it has to be before defining teacher quality. Most efforts have multiple components taking place at the same time. I believe it's a matter of WHEN we answer the questions, not if?
So that’s it for now… Here’s a quote I ran by today.
ReplyDelete“We can, whenever and wherever we choose, successfully teach all children whose schooling is of interest to us. We already know more than we need in order to do this. Whether we do must finally depend on how we feel about the fact that we haven’t so far.”
~Ron Edmonds
The late Ron Edmonds was with the Harvard Graduate School of Education and this is his checklist for an effective school
EFFECTIVE SCHOOLS CHECKLIST
(from the original work of Ron Edmonds, Harvard, 1978)
1. Instructional Leadership Principal is an effective communicator (with staff, parents, students, school boards), an effective supervisor, & the instructional leader in the school
2. Focused School Mission General consensus by the school community (staff, parents, students ) on goals, priorities, assessment, accountability. The mission statement is specified and reviewed periodically.
3. Orderly Environment Purposeful atmosphere, not oppressive, and is conducive to teaching and learning.
4. High Expectations Demonstrated high expectations not only for all students but for staff as well. The belief is that students are capable and able to achieve, that teachers are capable and not powerless to make a difference.
5. Mastery of Basic Skills In particular, basic reading, writing and math skills are emphasized with back-up alternatives available for students with special learning needs.
6. Frequent Monitoring of Results Means exist to monitor student progress in relationship to instructional objectives (and results can be easily conveyed to parents).
Means to monitor teacher effectiveness
A system of monitoring school goals
7. Meaningful Parent Involvement Parents are kept well-informed re: programs, goals, etc. There is ample opportunity for them to keep in touch with their child’s progress. They are consulted for feedback about the school and when changes are foreseen Parent-initiated contact with the school is encouraged.
*8. Avoidance of Pitfalls Up-to-date awareness of good educational practice plus retaining currency in the field concerning promising and discredited practices.
*Most “effective schools studies” repeat the first 7 points. But, Edmonds’ original work stressed “one of the cardinal characteristics of effective schools is that they are as anxious to avoid things that don’t work as they are committed to implement things that do.”
http://education-advisory.org/Involved/2007/08/22/effective-schools-checklist/
Karen,
ReplyDeleteYou identified some ways that MIGHT work to assess success (assessments, feedback, etc) but I think what Joan was asking is what IS success?
What are the outcomes we want?
I think the point Charlie is making is not to answer each and every question but to convey the utter mis-management we are currently facing at the district level, and not one person seems to be concerned....
ReplyDelete...until last night when King 5 news did a three minute piece on the Meg Diaz analysis and Director Sundquist went on air all concerned and needing answers.
Right, they need Levy $$$ to implement the SAP. And right now SPS is not a good position and they know it.
Seattle Citizen,
ReplyDeletequestions for all to answer. I ask back to you all:
what is success?
what are the outcomes you want?
I would like 90% of students to understand 90% of the following(allowing for students who might not "get it" with a particular teacher, or be having a bad day, etc....variables. We WON'T ever have 100/100, and it's counterproductive to assume we could - this assumption would (does) drive curriculum and instruction to the detriment of the classroom, the students, and the teacher)
ReplyDeleteI would like 90/90 for these things:
*Content/skills
*Citizenship/teamwork/community
*Critical thinking, inquiry: extend beyond the content/text/idea
*range of options in school, life, etc
*multiple intelligences (ways to know; and also ways to know when you won't know in a particular way to know...you know? Meaning the knowledge that you might not be successful in everything you do, but you can try another approach.
*grace
*humility
*courage
*understanding of the poli-econ they will soon be joining, so they are prepared to compete compassionately
Seattle citizen - you wrote " I think what Joan was asking [was not, how do we MEASURE success, but rather] is what IS success?". Yes-exactly.
ReplyDeleteI very much like your ideas for what is student success.
My daughter goes to a school in SPS that defines success in much this way. It is a C54 K-5 Alternative school called Thornton Creek.
I call this a progressive model for education.
Even though Thornton Creek does not teach to the WASL, the students in this school perform very well on this exam -- on par with the traditional K-5 schools in this part of Seattle.
I understand that certain other progressive alternative schools in SPS, which have more racial and economic diversity than my daughter's school (e.g. Nova, Middle College High Schools) also have students that do well overall on the WASL, again without much teaching to the test.
I also understand that students from these schools enter college at high rates (especially the Middle College HS students -- see the National Dropout Prevention Center audit report of alternative schools, prepared for SPS July 2008).
I have seen research from Chicago showing similar results for progressive non-charter public schools that serve student populations that have a very high proportion of low-income minority students (google the string "Chicago School Reform: Lessons for the Nation").
I feel these examples - some from within our own diverse collection of SPS schools - show - perhaps incontrovertibly? - that the reform ideas for how to close the achievement gap (data-driven decision making, in particular) are not necessarily best practice for at-risk students, and for children in general -- regardless of whether success is defined narrowly (getting a passing score on high stakes exam, fulfilling graduation requirements on time) or defined more broadly.
Yes, Joan, I am interested in seeing our own alternative (and what's now called "safety net" schools studied for efficacy. All this talk of reform in SPS, and little attention seems to be paid to the fine alternative schools. Two years ago, the "safety net" schools were separated from the "alternative" schools, perhaps for good reason. But some of the alts also served a sort of "safety net" purpose, allowing students who weren't finding "success" in the traditional schools to fluorish in an alternative program.
ReplyDeleteI look at it this way: Some students might not do well in the "regular" programs: They might need (or flourish in) a different sort of school. We have (and had) many of these: Nova, TOPS, Salmon Bay, Thornton Creek, John Marshall, Pathfinder, Center School, etc
Of these students who might do better in a non-traditional school, some have parents how are savvy enough to look for options (or the student is savvy themselves) and these go to the alternative schools. Some students might not have parents who are savvy (or are themselves not savvy) and these students stay in the regular programs where they aren't being served. Eventually, since they are not comfortable there, they start to bang their heads against this wall, and trouble brews. The student is expelled, or suspended at a high rate...THEN they end up in alternatives, or in what's now called safety net (Marshall, when it still existed...RIP, John Marshall...and Interagency et al.
The Safety Net system is being revamped to try to and keep students who are struggling in their sending schools (regular schools) before they "fall out" and end up on the streets or in Interagency, etc. But I'm not sure thios systems is fully up and running yet. The district IS committed to RtI, Response to Intervention, so this might help identify students who are struggling.
But why keep them in their ragular program if they are butting up against a wall? Why not grow the alternative system and offer these choices, and make ALL students and parent/guardians aware of these alternatives?
Karen, what do you know about our alternatives, and the district's support of them? Can you tell us why it appears that "choice" in teh public system seems to be diminishing at the same time "choice" seems to be on everyone's lips? Why was Marshall closed, Nova moved, Summit closed, Pathfinder moved, AS1 put under the gun, and other alts always nervous about their continued existence?
Karen, have you seen District Policy C56.00, which indicates district support for alts, and have you seen the "alt checklist" (some definitions of what might make an alt) that was part of the district's year-long Alt Ed Committee Report (june, 2007), a committee called by the CAO, comprised of staff, parent/guardians, student...
THIS is choice. THIS is innovation and support of different needs. Please report to us what you know about the district and it's support of alts. With all this talk of choice, it seems we should be looking for the choices that work in our own system before talking about what others think choice is. What does Arne Duncan know about Seattle? What do Bill Gates and Scott Oki? Our alternative schools are home-grown, arising with the support of committed parents and guardians, indeed, the whole community. Can we have a report paid for by the Alliance that looks at what works well in the alternatives, so these things can be grown and replicated? Can we have a report on the status of C56.00 and the Program development policy, so we can start some new alternative choices to replace and build on the ones that were closed?
Karen,
ReplyDeleteThank you for reading my comments and asking such thoughtful questions.
I just answered one of the questions. Here is an answer to the other. To paraphrase,
"Why must student success be defined before teacher quality can be defined?"
The short answer has two parts.
First, the definition of TQ will follow from the definition of student success.
For purpose of TQ assessment, it is cost-effective that the qualities and habits considered by the assessment be limited to those qualities and habits that are known to be or can can be proven to be influential and necessary for student success.
Second, the design of the TQ assessment should match the definition of TQ.
Provided that the definition of TQ is already well-referenced to the definition of student success, a close match of TQ design to TQ-definition will increase the likelihood that a teacher's scores on the TQ will correlate with student assessment scores (and/or year-over-year gains in scores) of a teacher's cohort of students.
Seattle Citizen -
ReplyDeleteBack to the question of "how do you define student success." You are really getting to the heart of the inherent contradictions of the reform philosophy.
Karen, please do read Seattle Citizen's preceding comment carefully. I am very interested to hear your answers. Here is the link for Board Policy C54 http://www.seattleschools.org/area/policies/c/C54.00.pdf
and for Board Policy C56
http://www.seattleschools.org/area/policies/c/C56.00.pdf
I want to point out here that the big irony of the reform movement is that innovation is welcomed if it occurs in the charter school sector of a public school district, but is intolerable within the non-charter public schools of a reformed district.
We are already seeing this in SPS.
The New School has a progressive "hands-on" PK-KG curriculum. It is called High/Scope. As best I can tell from the New School Foundation website, the progressive approach is retained at the grades above KG.
The New School is a psuedo-charter. It has foundation funding to supplement the public dollars that come with each enrolled student. It is competing with South Shore (re-entry) high school for the space that used to belong only to the high school. It is getting preferential treatment from the district.
Rumor has it the Superintendent's daughter is attending pre-school at the New School.
Recently, it has become quite clear that progressive non-charter schools are being phased out.
To account for all these observations, we are forced to conclude that even in our own district, a progressive education is fine for charter school students (and even for the Superintendent's own daughter), but it is not o.k for non-charter public school students.
[continuation of preceding post]
ReplyDeleteNow how do we explain this bias? The only explanation I can come up with is that the purpose of strict uniform reform of non-charter public schools is to produce greater demand for the choice that is available through charter schools.
Next question is this: Why do reformists favor charter schools?
Maybe because it's an opportunity for wanna-be principals and superintendents to have some fun.
Maybe because it's an opportunity for business income and profit.
Maybe because it's an opportunity for weakening teachers unions.
Maybe because charters --with their limited restrictions compared to what public schools face -- can best create an environment were disadvantaged youth can get trained to be submissive literate productive workers (and consumers), to be supporters of capitalism, and to be respectful of law and order. This is the reformist definition of success, as best I can tell.
Look at http://www.masterycharter.org/files/MasteryCharterSchoolOverview2009.doc for a detailed 20 page description of stunning example of a charter school that does - by its own account - a remarkable job of fostering reformist-style success of disadvantaged students who live in violent neighborhoods of Philadelphia.
What I wish for these same kids is a safe school that offers a progressive education with genuine college preparation, with wonderful caring creative teachers, with a rich selection of high-quality academic electives, with great ethnic studies courses, and in which the students are supported to become self-motivated life-long learners, to go on at high rates to college to earn bachelor's and advanced degrees, to become leaders, to have successful, satisfying, economically secure adult lives.
Why is it not o.k. for public schools to strive to provide these learning opportunities for all students? (Why do reformists - our Superintendent included - always cut back on the counselling services that are so critical to the academic success of disadvantaged youth?)
Kelly LaRue (Thornton Creek's district relations parent) said to me recently: I don't understand why the Superintendent doesn't "get" Alternative schools. And I don't get why the Superintendent doesn't seem to want to understand Alternative schools.
I do get it. The Superintendent DOES understand what Alternative means. She's loyal to the Broad Foundation. And she's reformist.
Karen,
ReplyDeleteForgive me for writing so much in one day!
I already gave a short answer to to this question,
"Why must student success be defined teacher quality can be defined?"
Now, for the lonnggg answer. I first have to put down here in writing my understanding of the philosophy of school reform, as I presently understand it.
One of the big ideas of the reform movement - at least for those public and charter schools that serve a high proportion of black students - is that curriculum should be narrowly focused on the knowledge and skills that are tested by the high stakes exam.
It follows from this idea that teachers can best support the goal of closing the achievement gap by "teaching-to-the-test."
Well, if teachers are constrained in their lesson content and pedagogy, and every teacher of a given course is teaching the same thing (intra-district uniformity is a goal of reform, and serves equity), then it would seem to make sense to use high stakes exam scores (or year-over-year change in scores) of a teacher's cohort of students as a basis for decisions about teacher retention, pay, promotion, etc (Still, there are certain problems with this, so this strategy has to be wisely implemented).
Use of student test scores to make important decisions about students - grade promotion and graduation -- and about teachers - retention, promotion, pay, tenure, etc.-- is part of what is meant by the term "data-driven decision making." I'll call it 4D.
4D is enshrined in the the SPS Superintendent's Excellence for All plan, and most anyone who has heard any of the Superintendent's utterances has probably heard this term, as well as the closely related terms accountability, performance management, curriculum alignment, core curriculum, instructional leadership, and high stakes exams.
To summarize, 4D is the means, and "closing the achievement gap" is the ends. Under the 4D approach, standardized exams are to be the primary instruments used by SPS to quantify the achievement gap. The assumption of E4A is that 4D (and everthing that goes with it) will cause a dimunition of the achievement gap.
Would not Dr. Goodloe-Johnson and proponents of School Reform answer my first two questions this way?
Q: How would you define authentic student success?
A: Attainment of a passing score on a district- or state-mandated (or national voluntary) standardized exam (such as the WASL); fulfilling the course credit requirements for graduation.
Q: Do you have at hand a student assessment instrument that is statistically valid, which is to say, has statistical explanatory power for authentic student achievement as defined in answer to Question 1?
A: For now we are using the WASL, but probably in the not-too-distant future we will be replacing the WASL with a less time-consuming exam. Since we have defined student success as passing score on the WASL - and provided that students who pass the 10th grade WASL graduate at high rates--, we can certify that the instrument is a valid index for student success.
Having written all that I have written so far for this comment, I can now answer the question, "Why must student success be defined before teacher quality can be defined?"
If the community of parents of SPS students agrees with the reformist answers to my first two questions, then it is valid for TQ evaluations to be based on standardized exam scores (although care must be taken to address certain serious valid concerns that teachers have about this strategy for TQ assesment).
If, on the other hand, the community rejects the Superintendent's answer to Question 1, then the justification for implementing the Superintendent's answer to Question 2 is voided.
I propose that the characteristics of an appropriate TQ assessment will depend on the community's answer to the first two questions.
Joan,
ReplyDeleteYou have eloquently summed up the problem I have with "reform":
It ignores quality teaching and schools already extant;
It narrows the definition of "success" to a mere bubble on a standardized test;
It aims to use that mere bubble to characterize public schools as "failing" children, when, in fact, individuals in those schools are teaching well;
It thusly characterizes whole groups of children as "failing," when, in fact, individuals in that group are quite successful (in the true and deep meaning of the word)
The combination of the above factors does two horrific things:
1) Provides, ostensibly, the rationale for the dismantling of the public system as we've known and nurtured it, turning it over to non-public entities by weakening the democratically created Boards, Board Policies and concurrent accountabilities; and, more importantly,
2) Grossly insults and denigrates children by reducing them to mere bubble-fillers, then slandering them with such terms as "failed Black children," and "unsuccessful poor children," merely because the student a) filled out a box on a registration form (Black, Hispanic, etc, or asked for a free or a reduced lunch) and b) might have had a bad day, might have not known the culture of the test-designers, might have decided the test was BS and opted out while still be scored a "Zero."
These dual threats are mean, they're dishonest, they're slimey and they must be exposed and stopped.
A good place to start would be a suit over civil rights: Whole groups of minority and poor students are being tracked as if each student in the group is failing.
Who would think it makes sense to say that a school has failed, and must be replaced in toto?
Who would call a child "failed"?
Actually, my point was that we are nattering on about a matter that isn't the least bit urgent while there are urgent matters that need to be addressed immediately. It's like we're focused on planning meals for the weekend while tonight's dinner is burning.
ReplyDeleteKaren, below is a slightly shortened list of things Charlie believe we should be paying REAL attention to. Our discussion (and the Alliance paying for a study on) teacher quality DOES seem like fiddling while Rome burns. Can you address some of Charlie's comments below, and explain why the Alliance is focusing on TQ while there are bigger problems?
ReplyDeleteCharlie's list:
Student Assignment Policy
* Why aren't the language immersion and Montessori programs treated as Option programs to allow equitable access?
* Why is South Shore an Option school instead of an attendance area school?
* What are the goals of the new student assignment policy and how well does the new policy achieve those goals?
* How were the new program placements shown in the student assignment policy determined? What is the status of those decisions?
* Does anyone - ANYONE - believe the estimates from the District for the enrollment at Cleveland? What will the District do when these estimates prove horribly wrong?
Program Placement Policy and practice
* How were the new program placements shown in the student assignment policy determined? What is the status of those decisions?
* If the attendance areas are all right-sized, then what opportunity will there be for changes in program placement? Do the attendance area boundary maps cement all programs into place?
* The new Capacity Management Policy seems to direct the superintendent to make program placement decisions based on where space is available - in direct contradiction to the Program Placement policy. Which will it be?
* The District did not follow their established program placement procedure last year and it doesn't look like they are going to follow it this year either. What is the point of having a policy and a procedure if the District staff are going to override it annually?
(cont)
Charlie's list, part deux:
ReplyDeleteMaterials Adoption Policy
* Can the Board write a materials adoption policy that will preclude a fiasco like our last three math textbook adoptions - each of which has been a disaster?
Capacity Management
* Who is accountable for re-opening schools that we just closed?
* Why does the new policy direct the superintendent to match capacity with enrollment when she should be directed to match capacity with demand? The capacity for alterntative programs and Spectrum programs may match enrollment, but it certainly doesn't match demand - not with hundreds of students on waitlists. Moreover, there are schools filled with mandatory assignments where the enrollment is there but the demand is not.
* the District…should be able and ready to adjust the capacity of programs that are not filling buildings and move another program into the building.
Earned Autonomy
* What does it take for a school to get waiver from using the Board-adopted materials?
* What autonomy can a school earn? Materials? Staffing? Bell times?
* How much sense does it make to allow schools that work well with the system to deviate from it, but to more tightly enforce the system in the schools where it doesn't work?
* How overdue is the Performance Measurement (management?) System right now?
* The Superintendent says that there has been no accountability and that there will be no accountability until the Performance Management System is established. Can we really have no accountability yet? Then what has she been talking about for the past two and a half years? Has that all been bogus?
Curricular Alignment
* Where is the line between curriculum alignment - which is good - and standardization - which is evil?
* Why the same textbooks?
* Why do all high school students need to read the same books?
* Shouldn't the professional development for the teachers be independent of the materials?
* What does it add to the cost of our materials adoptions and what does it add to the wear and tear on teachers to have professional development specific to every new text?
* Why is the Central office writing lessons? Why are administrators scripting lessons for teachers?
Add to that the failure of the Southeast Initiative, the breakdown of discipline in some schools, the absence of any functional governance role for the Board (they can write policies but cannot enforce them - so what's the point?), the routine violations of District Policy, social promotion, and failures to provide students with early and effective interventions.
These are current issues that are being decided right now. These are issues that people should know about now, think about now, and engage the District about now. Let's not be wasting time and distracting people with abstracts like teacher quality.
Charlie writes that the Board can write policies but not enforce them.
ReplyDeleteI would like to know about the status of Alternative Policy C56.00, and Program Placement policy. There are many, many parents and guardians in Seattle who desire to bolster alternative schools and build new programs supported by the community in Seattle (just like there are those who want to build charters supported by the community) Since we already have in place Policy that allows and supports these sort of schools, can you tell us how the Alliance and the District will be supporting and enabling such schools under Board Policy?
Karen,
ReplyDeletePlease know that any reservations I express about reform is not a personal attack.
When I refer to "reformers" in a critical context, I am not referring to you or the typical Broad Resident.
I am referring to
the "masterminds" and chief advocates for school reform-- e.g. Eli Broad, Bill Gates- the major funders of reform,
the major enablers of reform --e.g., U.S Presidents and their pro-reform Dept. of Education appointees, Broad Fellow superintendents --
and to individuals who either look to "free-market education" for direct or indirect business opportunity, or who work in libertarian think tanks (such as Lisa Snell, at the Reason Foundation).
I have read the personal statements of some of the Broad Residents.
My impression is that these are people who genuinely want to make a difference in the lives of disadvantaged and minority children, and believe that their business perspective can be put to good use through the opportunities provided by a Broad Residency training and placement.
As for you, Solynn, and Patrick, I really appreciate your efforts to engage the public through this blog, and the professionalism of your comments and responses to the community imput and questions.
You are comments are thoughtful and genuine.
I sense that the three of you - and, by extension, the whole staff of Alliance for Education - are committed to genuinely helping the students of SPS.
I worry, though, that reformists are using people such as yourselves to advance an agenda that does not constitute the best means for achieving a most worthy end, which is, as you eloquently put it, this:
"At the Alliance for Education our agenda is about supporting a public school system in Seattle that can effectively address the needs of a diverse population and help all students graduate ready for college, career and life.
"It’s that simple. "
"At the Alliance for Education our agenda is about supporting a public school system in Seattle that can effectively address the needs of a diverse population and help all students graduate ready for college, career and life.
ReplyDelete"It’s that simple. "
Yes, Karen, this statement does say it all, and I, too appreciate the efforts of the three of you...unless they are being directed by Gates, Broad, and others who have in mind something not quite that simple, nor quite that benign.
I hope to attend this meeting tonight: Senators McAuliffe & Oemig Listening Tour on K-12 Education the African American Academy.
ReplyDeletePerhaps you and/or your A4E colleagues will be there? It would be my pleasure to meet you in person.
Considering that there is a lot of advocacy at the state level for legislative reforms that favor regressive school reform and charters, due to the Race to the Top competition, this might be a good opportunity for the public to let legislators know whether they support this agenda.
Details:
Senators McAuliffe & Oemig Listening Tour on K-12 Education
Wednesday, October 28, 2009 6:30pm - 8:00pm
Van Asselt Elementary Library at African American Academy
8311 Beacon Ave. South, Seattle 98118 (not the closed old Van Asselt building at 7201 Beacon Ave. S.)
Please RSVP : Heidi B. Bennett Seattle Council PTSA VP- Legislative 206-781-5566.
If you can't make it but have a question to ask, you can forward it to Heidi Bennett, please include your name and school.
Directions: From N of I90: I5 south, take exit 161 for Albro Place/Swift Ave. Left onto S. Albro Place, right onto Swift Ave S., stay on Swift, slight right and continues on S. Myrtle St for 0.1 mile Bear right onto Beacon Ave S. and the schools is 0.8 miles on the right between S. Rose St and S. Thistle St.
Ron Dorn will be at New School tonight at a Early Learning Plan listening tour event. Details can be found at http://centraldistrictnews.com/events/2009/10/28/stand-up-for-kids-tell-it-like-it-is.
I meant to say also, I hope to meet others at the Af.Am.Acad. mtg tonight who have been contributing comments to the A4E blog.
ReplyDeleteYou ask what do we want?
ReplyDeleteThe assuarnce that schools are not closed, only to see the building re-opened.
A better K-12 math program. What we have is failing our students!
Better management of capital projects, the Garfield cost over-runs are out of control.
Successful programs like Bio-Tech replicated in highschools.
Rigor in middle school!
Adherence to Board Policies, such as the one allowing citizens to suggest new programs, and Policy C56.00, which dictates that the District supports alternative schools (fyi, alternatives are NOT "safety net" schools for struggling students; they are truly alternative ways of learning. This is important because, as see around the country, many students, parents/guardians and others desire choices in their public system, and some of the best choices are those that grow organically from the desire of the commuunity.)
ReplyDeleteI went to to hear the legislators at Af.Amer.Acad thursday night. I found especially interesting and relevant comments to the effect that stability is really important for having student success at schools that serve high proportions of low-inc / minorites / ESL students.
ReplyDeleteOne teacher said that they need the District to not interfere so that they can have each student for three years AND have a consistent program (principal, staff, program, curriculum, building I think he meant).
The frequent changes in program & curriculum coming down from the District offices makes it hard for the school to make its AYP targets. Even with a very high proportion of disadvantaged, needy students, the school can achieve high WASL passage rates (>70%) if the District refrains from having any destabilizing effect.
Building closures, RIFs, shuffling principals, replacing staff, and SAP will be highly disadvantageous for such schools and the students they serve.
BTW, I am telling people to write in Charlie Maas for M.DeBell's position -- Is this o.k. Charlie? I would love to see you displace Michael. He is so unhelpful.
While Aki Kurose was spiralling down through the steps of NCLB sanctions it had a different principal for each of three consecutive years. For a while it looked like it would have a new principal in the fourth year as well, but the superintendent named the interim principal to the job. You have to wonder how much reform an "interim principal" has license to initiate and implement. You have to wonder how deeply school staff will invest in the plans and preferences of an "interim principal".
ReplyDeleteAgain this year the superintendent played hopscotch with the principal assignments, often moving people who had been in place for only a year or two or moving people who are only a year or two from retirement. None of the school communities were consulted - not even the alternative school communities where consulting with the community on principal assignments is required by Board Policy.
The Board, of course, has no means for enforcing policy, so there wasn't anything they could do about it. What could they do? Vote to direct the superintendent to take a specific action?
The one time that the Board DID vote to direct the superintendent to take a specific action she ignored the direction. She just blew it off. On January 29 of this year, as part of the motion to close schools and move programs, the Board directed the superintendent to review and suggest revisions to Board Policy D12.00. That was nine months ago. The superintendent and her staff have taken no action at all to follow that specific direction from the Board. None. In fact, they have completely forgotten that the Board ever even directed them to do it.
I looked in the Board Manual and couldn't find anywhere that the board says that sup has to uphold board policy. It looks like the board has willingly given away the authority to enforce its own policy. Is that your read, too, Charlie? This is astounding.
ReplyDeleteI talked to Phyliss Fletcher today, and told her about this problem. She seemed quite interested to do a story on this. I will have her get in touch with you if she does. She was at court today, when the District was yet again a no show. Seems to be a pattern. I got the names of a couple other people who have had similar experiences. Phyllis is also interested to do a story on this.
A4E, are you reading these comments any longer? If you are, feel free to let Maria know that people are watching, and the media is showing interest in picking up these stories!!!!
Our intent is to engage the media as a way to let the community know that SPS is being reformed and what that means.
We want the Broad out of here. We want Maria G-J out of here, we want Michael DeBell out of here. We want our school district back.
We understand that Antioch got rid of the Broad and the reformers. We are looking to them as a model and to get support and advice.
We have some very smart people working on this, and we plan to succeed.
I hope you realize the folly of what you are doing by working for this organization, and how your good intentions are being exploited by Gates/Broad.
I sure hope you will put your wonderful energy and enthusiasm to work for the right side!
Sincerely
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJoan NE,
ReplyDeleteDid you remove your post of 10/31 2:54 AM< or did A4E? My understanding is that only they have power to remove posts. What could you possibly have written that would be deleted?
Seattle Citizen - I did remove my comment. It was minor and redundant, so I took it off.
ReplyDeleteMy preceding comment was probably a conversation stopper for Karen, but I went ahead and left it there because Karen seems to have abandoned the conversation anyway.
I hope that this conversation has made even just a little bit of progress in getting the misguided types (as I see Karen and Solynn, and perhaps Patrick too) to start questioning their assumptions.
I think of it as "Reform the Reformers" campaign.
Thank you for your help with this. It has been great to hear your insights and inspiring.
I enquired about you, in hopes that we could arrange to meet. I hope I can work with you writing up a white paper or some such thing for purpose of introducing the Broad Foundation/School Reform issue to the voting public.
The more people know about this, the better our chances of ridding SPS of this insidious, powerful influence.
I am thinking that the root of the problem is the School Board.
This is one aspect: Even if MGJ is deposed (as I hope she is), the Board will just appoint another Reformist to replace her.
Another aspect is that the Board is not motivated to require the chief administrator to uphold policy.
It will be disastrous if the mayor should get the power to appoint Directors. I read a statement by McGinn on a candidate survey that he favors mayoral appointment. Strangely, this was the only comment he made on the entire survey. Made me wonder who encouraged him to run, who is financing his campaign. His motivation for running sounds fishy to me.
It's kind of fun making comments like this on this A4E blog. I like to think the A4E folks will read this, and get the impression that we are really serious about getting rid of MGJ and reformers in general.
I hope it gets back to MGJ. I think it would be prudent to figure out a strategy to preclude getting a Reformist replacement before we try start our campaign to get rid of MGJ.
I know MGJ won't be too upset about getting kicked out of Seattle, if that's what happens. The Broad will take care of her. She has career security. Even if she can't get another job for a while as a Sup, the Broad can put her on their faculty, or help her set up a consulting busienss, just like they have done for other Broad Fellows. Another reason she won't be upset is that the Broad is clear that they expect their Fellows to stay only a few years at a placement.
You must know all this, but I would like A4E to know that we know all this.
Charlie - you chronicled some Aki Kurose history - sequence of principal replacements. I have been learning very recently about the importance of Stability as one of the critical factors for the success of schools that serve any population, but especially that serve low-income /at-risk populations of students. Stability refers to program, curriculum, textbooks, staff, student placement, principal assignment. I heard a teacher speak eloquently about this. He stressed they need to have a struggling student in a stable program for at least three years in order to that student to be able to come up to grade level and be a successful student. He said the district is forcing so many different changes on school - including not just building closures, SAP, and math adoptions, that his school is having trouble making their AYP targets. When they did have several years without significant meddling, their school did very well (70% WASL passage) even though the school served a very challenged population.
ReplyDeleteTwo other very important factors for student and school success that I have been reading about are psychosocial services and strong and well-integrated, well-supported K-12 social skills curriculum.
So why is the District making a point of cutting back on psychosocial services and college placement/career guidance services? My guess is that the District wants to hasten school failure, because school failure means an opportunity for a district intervention, and opportunity for private tutoring business (due to an NCLB requirement).
I could understand a Reformist pursuing this evil agenda if the District were free to convert failed schools to charters. But without that option, I am surprised the Superintendent would be as eager as she seems to be to set schools up for failure. Maybe the plan is to create more pseudo-charters (as New School is).
On another point, are you all aware of the October 2 2009 letter sent to Arne Duncan by a National Academny of Science panel of experts? This panel is called the Board of Testing and Assessment (BOTA). It has gotten little coverage in the press. I don't remember how I found out about it.
The purpose of the letter is to inform Arne that the best available science does not support high stakes testing. The letter is a strong condemnation really of the high stakes testing approach to education reform. This letter can be used as a strong refutation of a claim by MGJ and colleagues that Excellence for All represents "best practice."
I am thinking it would be helpful to bring this up at Board meetings whenever appropriate. To be honest, I haven't been to a Board meetin yet -- I just found out about the Broad F. in late September, and have been resarching like crazy over the last five weeks to try to understand what is going on.
I've made a lot of progress. One other person and I are compiling the research of several people into one big well-organized easily searchable data base. We want to make sure we have easy access to all the documentation we need for op/eds, media reports, testimony to the board, flyers for the public, etc.
I just happened to meet a fellow at the grocery store to day, and got to talking about who we each favored for school board elections (I urgedhim to vote for Mary Bass and write in Charlie Maas). Turns out he is on a District oversight committee. He is a newer guy on the committee. He has the feeling that there is something going on under the surface of this committee agenda, and he senses that it might have to do with charters. He hadn't heard of the Broad yet. I filled him in. We exchanged #'s. It may turn out to be very useful to have an anti-reform ally on this particular oversight committee. I prefer not to mention the name of this committee on this public venue, since it may be disadvantageous for us if the District should find out who this person is. It is a rather important committee that he is on--quite a big budget that it oversees.
I forgot to say one more thing about stability. Probably you are familair with the recently released Hoxby et al. study of achievement gain differences between "lotteried-in" and lotteried-out" students in New York City charter schools. The study was really very good, except for one very serious fundamental flaw, which has gone unnoticed.
ReplyDeleteNevertheless, this study does lend credence to the argument that three=years of stability is a critical threshold for student sucess. The researchers saw significant gains in achievement durinng each of the first three years that a student attends a charter school- probably mostly for kids that came in needing significant remedial help. Once a child gets to grade level - which apparently takes typically about three years for students that have fallen significantly behind--, the gains probably level off, unless the curriculum offers opportunity for working above-grade level (which seems to be rare in charters).
The Board relies on the superintendent to enforce policy, which is funny because, thanks to the tight control of authority at the top, the superintendent is usually the person who is violating the policies.
ReplyDeleteYou don't have to be Plato or have an MBA to figure out that it isn't effective to have an individual police him or herself. Most of us can remember when Raj Manhas was the superintendent and he worked in direct opposition to the Board, defying them at every turn.
Here's something for you all to think about when pursuing teacher quality: the Board testimony of Linh-Co Nguyen on 9/16/09. Go to the 18th minute of the stream.
ReplyDeleteCharlie - what can we do to reform this weak Board? Will it help to get a news story on problem that our School Bourd's policy is that the Superintendent does not have to uphold policy? I know a reporter who expressed interest in this.
ReplyDeleteThe real eye-opener for me was hearing Director Chow confirm all of my worst fears about her when she ranted for six minutes before the vote on the amendment to retain the 2.0 GPA graduation requirement. Director Chow said that the Board should always approve every motion that comes before them because every motion is fully vetted by experts before it comes to the Board and that the time of the Board vote is too late to make any changes or even make any complaints about the motion.
ReplyDeleteThis certainly explains why Director Chow never voted no on anything but motions brought by other Board members.
The funny thing, of course, was that after she ranted on about how wrong the amendment was, she voted in favor of it.
There are other Board members who believe - they honestly and sincerely believe - that the role of the Board is to support the superintendent. They will never be critical of her work, never hold her accountable, never question her decisions, and never ask about her actions or rationale because they think their job is to facilitate whatever she wants to do. They honestly believe that is what they are there to do and so they are going to do it. They believe that the superintendent should run the district with a free hand and that the Board is just there because the law requires it. So the Board should keep quiet and out of the way and perform only the legally required tasks of voting approval of whatever the superintendent tells them to approve.
The only way to reform the Board is to replace the Board members who will not take action, who will not hold the superintendent accountable, who will not insist that Policies be followed.
ReplyDeleteInstead, the voters sent Michael DeBell back to the Board, took Mary Bass off of it, and added Betty Patu, a woman with almost no knowledge or understanding of the Board's work.
When the voters wise up and elect people who will advocate for the community instead of the staff, then you'll see real reform.
"Here's something for you all to think about when pursuing teacher quality: the Board testimony of Linh-Co Nguyen on 9/16/09. Go to the 18th minute of the stream."
ReplyDeleteWOW, thanks for posting this. Went on to listen to Ricky Malone, I love her!
Is the Alliance done with this?
ReplyDeleteIf so, then why not just bring it down.
They recently lost their president, Charlie - he moved on to another job. Perhaps they're busy reorganizing.
ReplyDeleteBut while it's here perhaps we can continue to share information and comment. For instance, on November 12th, the district is going to share the progress and/or metrics of "Performance Management." It will be intersting to see what this is, and how it's going.
ReplyDeleteCharlie - I also looked up that testimony to the Board - it was powerful. I hope the Board Directors' ears are not deaf to the import.
ReplyDeleteMaybe having the naive new directors (Betty and Kay) is an opportunity - they may be more or less blank slates that we can influence through friendly contact and sharing of real information and insights about real versus perverted reform. For sure they will be sent to A4E-facilitated board training meetings in beautiful hotels, but maybe we can counteract that brainwashing to some extent, if we really try to engage these new members constructively and personably, whether personally or through email conversations.
Invite Betty or Kay to visit your favorite school, to be given a tour by the principal. Then take her out for coffee and have a nice chat.
Here's a very short list of what I might like to talk with her about:
I would like to know whether she realized when she decided to run, that the Board--through its own choosing -- has no power over the Superintendent. I would like to ask her if she minds that -other than to promote whatever the Sup does, and insulate her from the public's frustration and anger and dissatisfaction - the Board has no role in SPS.
I would like to remind her that Mike McGinn is likely to try to win the right to appoint SPS Directors,and her if she believes this would be a good development for SPS.
I would like to hand her a copy of the Oct 5 2009 letter from BOTA (a premier expert panel convened by National Academy of Sciences) to Arne Duncan telling him that the premise behind Race-to-the-Top competition (and also NCLB and data-driven decision making, in the form it is being implemented in SPS) is scientifically (and I might add, morally) unsupportable.