Archive for the ‘Accountability’ category

Emerging Trend: Superman Snubs the Justice League, Lex Laughs to the Bank

September 18th, 2010

NBC’s Education Nation confirmed their list of panelists for the upcoming education summit – none of whom are teachers and all of whom seem to take snaps from the same ed reform playbook. All except for the lone Randi Weingarten. She will play the role of Dissenting Voice in an ed reform narrative that is being ballyhooed across the nation. (Except where it’s not.)

It was important for event organizers to give Randi a place on the panel. The basic ed reform thesis, chronicled in the upcoming “Waiting for Superman,” begins with the idea that the school system & schools are broken, and that unionized teachers are where the faulty rubber meets the road. The trouble is, if the powers-that-be were to directly cast teachers as Lex Luthor their plan might backfire.

Who’s willing to place the failure of the American Education System on little old Mrs. Newton, teaching 2nd grade to generations of tots that loved her? That won’t sell well or bring in votes.

Enter unions stage left. Randi, as president of the American Federation of Teachers, has been a vocal critic of NCLB, RTTT, & the Fire-(Teachers)-At-Will squad of trigger happy reformers. As a teacher representative, she’s become the de facto Lightning Rod in the plot line that pits unions (as antagonists) against the great teachers the ed reformers (as protagonists) would deliver if only meddling teacher advocates would step aside.

For the NBC organizers, she needs to be a panelist in order to give the Gates’ League the whipping boy (girl) it requires.

The story goes like this: the unions enable the hordes of bad teachers who are responsible for keeping students from achieving. All the while the benevolent market forces of goodness & quality do their darnedest to right this wrong through superhero feats of privatizing, hiring & firing, and incentivizing teaching to the tests.

We are asked to buy into this plot-line and then jump to reformers’ same conclusions. Effectively, we are asked to leap these tall buildings, each in a single bound of reasoning:

  1. If we weigh the cattle more often, they’ll get fatter.
  2. Non-union teachers teach better.
  3. Charter schools = silver bullet against poverty & lack of parent involvement.
  4. Merit pay will be enough improve teacher “performance”. (A recent Vanderbilt study concludes otherwise.)

These unproven assumptions need more than super breath to blow me over. I’m just not convinced that these measures will lead to more professional educators & greater access to quality learning environments for all students.

The Bottom Line Variable

But what if they are wrong?

What if the fear mongering and hyperbolized “broken” metaphors that the media outlets have bought-into & hyped are the machinations of private stakes and bottom lines, rather than deep insights into poverty, parenting & learning? (That’s not to say there are not deeply rooted problems that need transforming. But “broken”?! That seems a slap in the face to the thousands who work in our nation’s schools.)

On his site, How the University Works, Marc Bousquet brings this point to light:

I’d like to see a few more of us start to question the objectivity of The New York Times and Washington Post, both corporations with increasingly large hopes that profits from their education ventures will prop up sagging journalism revenues. The Post, which owns Kaplan and shocked readers by blatantly pushing Kaplan’s legislative agenda in print and in person is already an education corporation that owns a newspaper as a sideline.

What is curious is that even Fox & Friends has discovered what the Chamber of Commerce and the Washington Post knew a long time ago: The Obama/Duncan algorithm for improving our nations’ schools has a hidden variable — profitability.

Non-union teachers + prepackaged curricula + (test x test x test) = Corporate Bling Package

Standardizing content across the country simplifies what all teachers teach, making it easier to . . .

Increase class size and save moola on teachers (especially the union-free teachers in charter schools who get paid less & have fewer benefits), which frees up money for . . .

Buying curricula in bulk from major textbook companies (which are more profitable to produce in larger numbers) which will necessitate. . .

Buying tests designed specifically for those prepackaged curricula, which will be justified because it will help  prepare students for . . .

Super-sized multiple-choice assessments to determine if teachers are teaching, which will . . .

Earn testing companies stacks of benjamins for administrating & scoring those tests, and has the added benefit of . . .

Determining which teachers should be fired, so newer, cheaper teachers can be hired, and more curricula can be bought to raise scores.

The private sector’s opportunity to profit handsomely from this brand of standardization has stockholders salivating & lobbyists scheming. The Chamber of Commerce, at the behest of former FL governor Jeb Bush (whose younger brother, Neil, profits from NCLB & RTTT), has become a testifying standard anywhere education reform is on the legislative docket.

It all makes me wonder if ed reform is being driven by Superman, or Lex Luthor.

What if we are asking the wrong questions?

What if the propagandized central conflict, Unions vs. Good Teaching, isn’t the central conflict after all? What if it is just a sub-plot? What if the problem is much more complex than that?

What if the central argument, “Pay great teachers for student achievement and great teachers will flock to the classroom” doesn’t hold water? What if the actual teachers we want teaching and shaping our youth are not the ones attracted by promises of pay for performance?

What if wooing and keeping great teachers requires a different sort of honey altogether?

Unfortunately, no-one is asking what it takes to attract (and retain) the truly innovative educators who can provide the transformative learning experiences that transcend race, gender, and socio-economic status. It seems assumed that bonuses, based on centralized high-stakes tests, will be enough.

In a tweet-versation with RiShawn Biddle (@DropoutNation), an education journalist and ed reform advocate, I asked if the current slate of reforms was likely to narrow the curriculum and decrease educator autonomy. He replied that it would, that it was necessary.  This made me wonder what it would take to attract and keep the best and the brightest (the most ambitious and well educated among us) to the field of teaching. So I asked him.

His response?

They need more than a paycheck. They need an environment which allows them to utilize their skills in new and creative ways. In essence, they need autonomy and the flexibility to work in a professional atmosphere where they have latitude.

And therein lies our paradox. We want/need the best and the brightest to embrace teaching as a profession, but our brand of ed reform vinegar (high stakes testing, value added firing, & standardized everything) is a hook without a worm. It doesn’t attract and/or keep the very candidates we need flocking to our schools.

Superman & the Justice League

We seem to hope that by testing the kryptonite out of students Superman will arrive. However, him being faster than a speeding bullet doesn’t make him a silver bullet. We’ll need more than Superman if we aim to make meaningful, relevant, and lasting changes to our national school system.

We’ll need the entire Justice League in order to effectively address the central conundrums of transforming our schools into learning environments of equality where students are engaged, enabled, and empowered.

Our villains are many:

  • Poverty
  • Lack of parent involvement
  • Untenable dropout rates
  • Too few high achievers in the field of teaching
  • Overly specific centralized learning goals
  • Undervalued teaching profession
  • Inaccurate measures of teacher effectiveness
  • Overuse of high stakes assessments as a cure all
  • Elitism

To tackle these villains, we must recruit & engage every one of the Justice League heroes, many of whom are dedicated teachers who’ve been asked to stay quiet and do as they’re told for far too long.

The Justice League is supposed to be a collection of people banded together in mutual cooperation.

Too bad they’ve been left off of Superman’s panel.

Thanks a lot, Man of Steel. You could’ve gotten a teacher on the panel if you wanted. After all, with that cool x-ray vision thing you got going, you should be able to see through their shenanigans.

This post was originally published on Ecology of Education.

Justice League Image: OSU Department of Statistics
Lex Luthor Image: Prodigeek

1 comment »

Posted in Accountability, Arne Duncan, Big Idea, Collaboration, Duncan, Edreform, Education, Education Reform, educational reform, Jason Flom, Merit pay, Michelle Rhee, NCLB, Schools, Teacher Evaluation, Teacher Pay, Teacher's Unions, Testing

Tags:

Dualities, Schmualities

September 14th, 2009


By Jason Flom, Ecology of Education

Our public forums teem with dueling dualities:

  • Luke vs. Vader
  • Booker vs. du Bois
  • Optimus vs. Megatron
  • Homework vs. None
  • Fraiser vs. Ali
  • Whole language vs. Phonics
  • Nixon vs. Truth
  • Skills vs. Content
  • Cylons vs. Humans

However, the latest iteration hits a bit too close to home to be anything besides unnerving for educators:

Judging teachers using only students’ scores on high stakes test vs. Not

While I’m not a huge fan of standardized tests as primary markers for achievement, I understand (and even appreciate) their utility and functionality. For assessing benchmarks and basic skills, they serve a purpose. However, we must temper our enthusiasm for relying on basic skills attainment as the sole measure for determining if teachers are teaching.

If this dichotomy is really the best we can do, then we really do need to retool our education system. Badly. Quickly. Immediately.

Clearly the basic skills approach isn’t leading to critical thinking in basic deliberation/mitigation/compromise skills. Additionally, such “dualities only” debates illuminate a graphic lack of creativity, imagination, and, ultimately, innovation.

Basic civics lessons teach us that “either/or” ultimatums often lead to “neither/none” outcomes.

Aren’t there other options?!

Of course there are. But they cost money and take time. Two things of critical shortage in our school system. And are more difficult to standardize and analyze than, well, standardized scores.

The problem with a sole reliance on standardized test is well stated in Campbell’s Law:

The more any quantitative social indicator is used for social decision making, the more subject it will be to corruption pressures and the more apt it will be to distort and corrupt the social processes it is intended to monitor.

David T. Campbell, in 1976, goes on to write:

Achievement tests may well be valuable indicators of general school achievement under conditions of normal teaching aimed at general competence. But when test scores become the goal of the teaching process, they both lose their value as indicators of educational status and distort the educational process in undesirable ways. (Similar biases of course surround the use of objective tests in courses or as entrance examinations.)

Perhaps it is time for us to take a page out of Carol Ann Tomlinson’s differentiation schtick. Perhaps it is time for us to begin with the idea that all students and teachers are different — and therefore perform differently in different situations, and have different needs in terms of growth and development.

I am personally a big fan of working on a local level to improve the quality of life and quality of instruction provided in our institutions. I also believe that once a year evaluations by principals are too few and too thin to provide any sort of reliable and effective professional development for teachers. Additionally, in terms of cultivating a professional atmosphere for teachers and principals necessitates that both take a larger role in steering areas of growth.

Enter rubrics. Kid tested, teacher approved.

I am a big fan of the teacher and principal rubrics developed by Kim Marshall:

Moving beyond this or that, one or the other, mine or yours, them or us, and with us or against us mentality should be a chief objective for cultivating civil school systems. To that end, lets empower districts and principals to weigh in on who deserves pay incentive. A new teacher working hard to improve in identified areas of needed growth should be rewarded for doing so, even if it can’t be measured on a multiple choice test.

In this way, we may just find teachers more willing to look their shortcomings in the eye and work to overcome them.

As the old adage goes, if all you have is a hammer, all your problems look like nails. Let’s fill the assessment tool box, or at least put another option in it.

Image: How Stuff Works, but obviously a Lucas Films Image

No comments »

Posted in Accountability, Basic Skills, Campbell's Law, Carol Ann Tomlinson, Darth Vader, High Stakes Assessments, Jason Flom, Kim Marshall, Principal Evaluation, Teacher Accountability, Teacher Evaluation

Accountability that Works

August 1st, 2009

Accountability that Works . . . .for Kids.

William L. Sterrett, Ph.D. (@billsterrett)

Many issues of importance, from the economy and health care, to foreign relations and energy can occupy any president early in his term. These issues certainly are at the forefront today. Similarly, in education, we are at a pivotal moment in history. President Barack Obama and his administration, along with Congress and state/ local government leaders, and, importantly, educational leaders, have the opportunity to truly make a difference in how we view accountability for kids and for educators. Though educational leaders, policy wonks, and political commentators offer a boilerplate menu of educational “to do” items such as universal pre-school, salaries, fully funding No Child Left Behind, and a host of other items for much-needed discussion and debate, perhaps the most “fixable” item that the new president’s team can address with little to no cost is the accountability issue. Central to the NCLB act is the basic question: “How can we ensure that each child is making adequate yearly progress?”

As lawmakers scurried to frame that basic question in terms of measurable accountability, wide variances in testing methods (and pass rates) ranged from state to state. As a result we as educators have difficulty framing “best practices” in terms of state-to-state comparisons. Assessments that are built upon one state’s curriculum framework can look much different from other states. Similarly, even within states, within divisions, and within school districts, there is wide variance as schools may vary widely in regards to student populations.

Yes, realistic consideration must be given as schools even within the same division may have a very different make-up in terms of socioeconomics, ethnicity, and languages spoken. No Child Left Behind looks at these distinctions in terms of membership groups- it is time to instead look at these in terms of growth opportunities. At our Distinguished Title I School, the staff enthusiastically welcomes and embraces our diverse population (no one ethnicity is above 50% and nearly half of all students qualify for free/reduced lunch).

However, under the current provisions of NCLB, our membership groups must score a “pass” on an end-of-year test that currently does not take into consideration that a 3rd grade student who comes to us reading at a kindergarten level and makes an extraordinary two years of growth in a year is a huge success- he will simply get a “fail” score on an end-of-year exam. Similarly, a 3rd grade student that is reading on a 5th grade level only has to pass the 3rd grade assessment; we should instead be pushing her to excel even further. Our schools should be pushed to push all students to new heights. Educators want to be held to a high standard, and we want to be judged fairly and realistically. Here are five essential recommendations to enable this solution:

1.) Adopt a Baseline of National Standards- Other countries have “power standards” that are concise and to-the-point. Let states build upon these but use these standards as a baseline criterion for testing. We should applaud the recent efforts of the National Governor’s Association (NGA) and the Council of Chief State Officers (CCSO) for their efforts in this regard so far.

2.) Measure Growth- “Value-added” models that take into consideration inputs (where students come in) and outputs (where the school community has taken them throughout the course of the school year) are needed. Growth should be measured on the above power-standards in a way that does not force teachers to spend inordinate amounts of time testing rather than teaching. This will bolster instruction, collaboration, reliability and validity.

3.) Higher-order Teaching and Assessments- It’s time to not rely solely upon “bubble tests” to measure accountability but let’s find ways to push students to create, design, synthesize, and evaluate.

4.) Reward Staff in Challenging Schools- Retaining teachers and staff in high-poverty schools is a challenge that can be addressed by supplementing compensation accordingly. All students deserve a great teacher; we should create incentives for our teachers to work in challenging environments and to share out their success stories.

5.) Look at the Big Picture- A holistic determination of a school community demonstrating healthy growth and progress versus the current complicated and potentially punitive system will take into account the bigger picture of the above growth model while also recognizing the larger picture of growing the school community in terms of safety, communication, and collaboration. Principals and teachers alike would welcome this realistic portrayal and it would encourage greater teamwork and transparency.

Like all professions, educators should be held to a high standard that is realistic and fair. Today’s myriad national issues are rightfully drawing a lot of attention in D.C. However, scores of schools will soon enter numerous sanctions that drain already-depleted budgets simply because the current accountability structures fail to take into consideration inputs and outputs. Today’s leaders should consider a true “quick fix” for today’s schools that will have little or no cost involved, yet transform what is considered by many to be a punitive “high stakes” model into a true growth model. Yes, the stakes are indeed high- we must ensure that each student, regardless of skin color, socioeconomics, language, or current achievement level, is truly being challenged to excel in this “flat,” increasingly competitive world. We must employ an accountability system that works. . . .for schools and for kids.

Author Biography:

Dr. William Sterrett is an elementary principal with Albemarle County Public Schools, in Charlottesville, Virginia. A former upper elementary science and reading teacher, he is current principal of a 2009 Distinguished Title I School which also received the 2009 Governor’s Board of Education Virginia Index of Performance (VIP) Award. He received his B.S. in education from Asbury College and his Ph.D. from the University of Virginia.

Please note that this piece is from me as a citizen, parent, and educator; I write independently and not on behalf of my school, division, or any other organization.

http://www.corestandards.org/ (for more information about NGA, CCSO)

No comments »

Posted in Accountability, assessment, growth model, national standards, William Sterrett

Switch to our mobile site