tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-40871293613948813692024-03-14T06:52:52.059-04:00Teachable MomentThere's something happening in AmericaJohnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09953978758820288029noreply@blogger.comBlogger419125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4087129361394881369.post-56815903719500705382010-07-02T07:08:00.003-04:002010-07-02T07:30:51.620-04:00The EndAfter over two and a half years of blogging on this site, I'm hanging up my laptop. This is going to be my last post, at least for the forseeable future.<br /><br />When I first started blogging, I didn't have any real goal in mind. Mainly, I thought it would be fun and I wanted to get my voice and my ideas out there. After 30 months, I feel like I've done that. And it has been fun. But there comes a point where I don't really think that I have anything new to say. Rather, I'm just finding new ways to say the same old things. Not that that's necessarily bad. But it's just not what I want to be doing.<br /><br />So what am I trying to say with all this? Well, after giving it some thought, I think I can lay it out as a couple of big ideas.<br /><br />1. It's never either/or<br />Despite all the claims that there's one way to do reform or that someone has found the right way to do anything and everyone who does it differently is wrong, it's a big mistake to start looking at the world as either/or. It's not curriculum vs. accountability or small class sizes vs. merit pay. When we start looking at things that way we're really limiting what we can accomplish. Most of the dichotomies are false and we need to keep that in mind. The problems we face in education are too big to be reduced to a single solution.<br /><br />2. We need to look beyond schools<br />Ultimately, the problems in education require solutions that are bigger than can be implemented just in schools. To be sure, the schools themselves can use the work, but they're not alone. If we don't ensure that kids have safe neighborhoods, safe homes, good nutrition, proper health care, and more, how are we going to expect them to be able to learn to their full capacity? I'm not saying that kids can't learn unless their home lives are perfect. Obviously, that's not true. I am saying that if we want to make it easier for ourselves and truly invest in allowing all kids to achieve their potential, you aren't going to be able to do that in six hours a day, 180 days a year.<br /><br />3. Focus on the schools and neighborhoods that need help<br />For al the talk about how broken the U.S. education system is, we actually do pretty well on the whole. Most kids get a pretty good education and we still lead the world economy in many of the areas that would be impossible if our whole system was a failure. However, there are schools and neighborhoods who are being failed spectacularly by the system. Those are the schools and neighborhoods that need our attention. Rather than spend all of our time trying to find ways to fix a giant system that, honestly, doesn't need fixing, let's look at where the problem is and fix it there. That might require that we change the whole system, but let's cross that bridge when we come to it. We need to target our solutions to where the problems really are.<br /><br />4. Words matter<br />One thing that never fails to infuriate me is the incredible amount of hype and spin that takes place in education and the nearly uncritical reporting of that hype and spin. In the end, words matter because they shape perception and perception shapes how we approach issues. Too many of the words about education are sloppy or outright inaccurate. That leads to a skewed perception and all sorts of craziness. If we want to correct the educational problems in our country, we need to have a serious discussion about them and I don't know if that's possible in the current state of things. I don't know, but I haven't given up hoping.<br /><br />It's with very mixed feelings that I bring this blog to a close. It has always been a lot of fun to write. I hope that you've also enjoyed reading it.<br /><br />Thanks for reading and maybe we'll meet again somewhere down the trail.Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09953978758820288029noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4087129361394881369.post-19612932338605497702010-06-30T07:13:00.004-04:002010-06-30T07:23:14.827-04:00A Great Day for EducationYou have to figure that June 28, 2010 is not going to go down as one of the all time great days in the history of American education. That's the day, after all, that the DOE and UFT celebrated the end of another school year by <a href="http://gothamschools.org/2010/06/28/school-ends-with-city-union-bickering-over-when-it-should-begin/">sniping at each other </a>about whose fault it is that there's going to be a wacky start to the next school year with one day on, four days off, and then back to school. <br /><br />Let's set aside - at least for the purposes of this post - whose fault it actually is. The DOE says that they want to make the change, but that the UFT won't let them. The UFT says that DOE has the power to do it without UFT approval, so they can't be blamed. So we've got plenty of finger pointing going on. Check that off the old to do list. All you really need to know at this point is that they're blaming each other for not being able to solve a problem.<br /><br />Actually, all you really need to know is that the problem is not solved. That's right. The combined forces of the DOE and UFT can't even agree on how to solve something that they both say is a problem. That's insane!<br /><br />I can't help but look at this situation and wonder where the grown ups are. Where's the person who's going to come in, look past the silliness, and get things done.<br /><br />Let's be clear. In the grand scheme of things, this really isn't that big a deal. It's annoying and weird, but it's manageable. The fact that the DOE and UFT can't even get their act together to solve the little stuff doesn't fill me with confidence that they'll be able to solve the big stuff.<br /><br />I blame both sides for this. This is just a silly squabble to try to score cheap points and in the end, it doesn't help anyone.Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09953978758820288029noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4087129361394881369.post-25675114922190573772010-06-28T07:10:00.003-04:002010-06-28T07:19:18.296-04:00Beyond SchoolI've been seeing stories about cyberbullying popping up in the media quite a bit lately. I guess it's one of those stories that's pretty easy to cover and is guaranteed to arouse some feeling. I mean, who's in favor of bullying? I imagine editors across the country thinking, "We'll send a reporter to the school, talk to some bullied teens, and the story will just write itself. Piece of cake!" The <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/28/style/28bully.html">New York Times is the latest entry </a>with a pretty long story today.<br /><br />Here's my take. I don't know whether or not schools have the authority to impose restrictions on what happens outside of schools. I also know that when school districts - <a href="http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/education/2010/06/18/2010-06-18_no_more_sext_ed_for_students_under_new_rules.html">like in New York </a>- try to ban things like sexting, it raises the obvious question of how it's going to be enforced. Given that there are often issues with addressing misbehavior in school, how are we going to enforce rules on things that happen outside of school?<br /><br />What comes to my mind, though, is that this latest push is symptomatic of society's larger expectation that schools are going to be able to fix everything that needs fixing in today's kids. Reading behind grade level? We need better teachers and more accountability and that will make all kids learn. Cyberbullying taking place at home? The school system will spring into action.<br /><br />In either instance, I think the school-only approach is unrealistic. In either case, teachers and school administrators are constrained by time, access, and availability. Certainly schools can be the focal point for addressing issues having to do with kids. In fact, schools should be the focal point. But they cannot be the only point. Kids need more than schools.Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09953978758820288029noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4087129361394881369.post-14314054482251604422010-06-25T07:23:00.003-04:002010-06-25T07:33:10.771-04:00Seems Like a Good IdeaIt's hard to tell whether <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/25/nyregion/25transform.html">this </a>is big news or not. On the one hand, the city seems to be moving away (at least slightly) from their position that bad schools must be closed at once. On the other hand, the whole thing seems awfully limited in scope, so we should exercise a little caution before hailing it as the wave of the future.<br /><br />For those of you who don't like following links, the New York Times is reporting that the city and UFT have come to an agreement on following a transformation model for 11 of the lowest-performing schools in the city. As the name suggests, it's about turning schools around rather than closing them. The schools will hire master teachers who will train other staff at the school to try to develop the teachers there, student data will be used as a factor in rating teacher effectiveness, and ineffective teachers will face an expedited hiring process.<br /><br />Now, with the caveat that all my information on this comes from a pretty short article in the newspaper, I'm going to go out on a limb to say that this makes sense to me. I've long been a proponent of working to better develop the teachers we have rather than fire everyone and tap into the imaginary pool of master teachers who just can't find a job as replacements. So I'm a big fan of that. I also broadly agree with the idea of stricter methods for evaluating teachers. Using student data as one of several factors for evaluating teachers makes sense to me too.<br /><br />I'm impressed that the city and the union seem to have found a middle way forward here. Too often both sides dig into their bunkers and lob grenades back and forth. That's unhelpful to everyone. Let's hope the spirit of collaboration continues.Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09953978758820288029noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4087129361394881369.post-89477162897433385512010-06-23T07:20:00.003-04:002010-06-23T07:29:53.630-04:00The Appearance of ActionUpset with the lack of racial and economic diversity in its gifted and talented programs - and perhaps a little flustered under questioning by City Council members - the DOE is apparently going to be looking at the possibility of <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/22/nyregion/22gifted.html">changing how they determine G&T eligibility</a>. They'll be looking for a test that's a little harder to prep for so that families from wealthier communities can't "game" the test by hiring tutors, etc.<br /><br />I have to say, this is not a great moment in critical problem solving by the DOE.<br /><br />First of all, the idea that they're going to stumble upon some un-gameable test is just ludicrous. Change the test and you'll change how people prepare for it. That's all. Those families that want to prep their kids are going to prep their kids and it's really just a matter of what they're prepping for.<br /><br />More fundamentally though, the DOE actually seems to be missing what the real issue is. Do they really think that the reason more kids from the Upper East Side are determined G&T eligible than kids from the South Bronx is that the Upper East Siders are "expending thousands" of dollars on test prep? Really? That's the only difference they might be able to think of?<br /><br />My biggest pet peeve in any sort of policy discussion is when people try to look like they're doing something rather than actually doing something. The DOE is far from alone in this practice. But they are certainly guilty of it. Changing the test from one to another gives the appearance of action and seeking to redress apparent racial and economic inequality, but really it's just changing how that inequality is measured. It doesn't matter what ruler you use, until you actually do change something, the results aren't really going to change.Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09953978758820288029noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4087129361394881369.post-38729333715166782932010-06-21T07:16:00.002-04:002010-06-21T07:24:26.113-04:00The Need for FathersRegular readers of this blog should know by now that I favor a pretty broad approach to tackling educational problems. Rather than just focus on what goes on in the school building, I think you need to look at what happens in the lives of children when they're in school and when they're out of it. That's why my eyes perked up a bit when I read in the New York Times about <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/20/nyregion/20father.html">a program in the Bronx to teach men how to be better fathers</a>.<br /><br />The article was disappointingly short on details, so I'm afraid that I can't comment much on it other than to say that, in theory, it sounds like a pretty good thing.<br /><br />I'm not one to say that the only way to raise a child is in a familiy where both parents are married and still together. But it does help. At the very least, children do need multiple people who care about them in their lives - both women and men. The statistics are grim in poor, urban communities about this kind of arrangement. Too many women are raising too many children on their own. That's a problem.<br /><br />The program highlighted in the Times seemed to have worked with 16 men. That's not a lot, but it is a start. If the program works at getting men involved in the lives of their children, let's hope that it grows.Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09953978758820288029noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4087129361394881369.post-54912419993538315332010-06-09T07:29:00.004-04:002010-06-09T07:41:39.112-04:00Do We Still Need TFA?A sure-fire sign that things are getting tough is when you start seeing people blame groups for something that isn't really their fault. So when you read <a href="http://www.lvrj.com/news/teachers-wary-of-recruitment-group-95753084.html?ref=084">a story out of Las Vegas </a>about teachers there being wary of Teach for America and thinking that they might not be needed and may even be keeping teacher salaries artificially low, it's a sign that things are not great in Las Vegas. (Full disclosure: I am a TFA alum myself, but not in Las Vegas, though I have been there.)<br /><br />First, let's rebut the whole TFA is keeping salaries low theme. According to the article, TFA has placed 308 teachers in Las Vegas over the last six years. That's about 51 a year. For 51 teachers - who are part of the union, by the way - to have any impact at all on the average teacher salary would mean that you have the tiniest district in the world or people are talking nonsense. My bet is nonsense given that they <a href="http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/districtsearch/district_detail.asp?Search=1&ID2=3200060">employ well over 16,000 teachers</a>.<br /><br />That's pretty low-hanging fruit, but it's worth pointing out since it shows the realm of ridiculousness that we're talking about.<br /><br />The other, and more serious, issue raised by the article centers around what the role of TFA should be in during this time of layoffs and cutbacks. As teaching jobs become harder and harder to come by, is there still a role for TFA to play in terms of bringing in new teachers to the system?<br /><br />I think that the answer is yes, but with changes. TFA needs to take a more focused approach at this point and probably needs to cut back on how many teachers it recruits. But even with layoffs and cutbacks, there are going to be some positions that are harder to fill than others and that's the role that TFA thrives in. Is Teach for America the answer to all of education's problems? Absolutely not. Does it still have a role to play in education today. Absolutely.Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09953978758820288029noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4087129361394881369.post-81868161649538808022010-06-07T07:11:00.003-04:002010-06-07T07:24:42.818-04:00Much AdoThe New York Post was shocked - shocked! - on their cover yesterday to discover that New York <a href="http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/how_do_you_pass_ny_school_tests_tCqFKo40FhcwkO5SoPYWRI">students were getting credit for putting the wrong answer on their state math tests</a>. Those fiends at the DOE have done it again! Will there be no end to the dumbing down?<br /><br />Amidst about 500 words of outrage over the policy - <a href="http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/math_wrath_over_scores_HmHYvQEu7zyEKWJH42JJ8O">which was upgraded today to "controversial"</a>, apparently based on the fact that the New York Post wrote about it yesterday - it comes out that the reason kids are getting partial credit for those problems is that they show work demonstrating at least a partial understanding of the math principles involved. <br /><br />I'm sorry, but that policy actually makes sense.<br /><br />Look, ultimately it matters whether or not kids can solve math problems correctly. No argument from me on that point. But these tests are supposedly measuring student learning. If a child is able to demonstrate that they are learning - even if it's not as much as they should be - doesn't it make sense to account for that in our measurement?<br /><br />The Post's "exclusive" yesterday is essentially an expose on giving credit for showing work, something that's been around at least since I was in school and probably before. It's certainly not a new policy on the New York state tests either.<br /><br />Is the amount of credit being given for showing work too generous? Perhaps. I don't know. I do know that overheated Post rhetoric doesn't help.<br /><br />That brings me to my last point of the morning. The more I read education reporting in the Post and other New York papers, the more troubled I am by the things I recognize to be misrepresentations or outright falsehoods. It makes me wonder what I would find if I knew more about, say, economics or world affairs. I mean, if we can't trust the papers to report accurately on education, how can we trust them to get right <a href="http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/too_S00LEBs0JUIl9OhB6xTBVI">the big stories like this one</a>?Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09953978758820288029noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4087129361394881369.post-7088828339186219642010-06-04T07:02:00.003-04:002010-06-04T07:13:19.187-04:00A Reasonable DealSo, you've probably heard by now that <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/03/nyregion/03teachers.html">Mayor Bloomberg has unilaterally decided to avert teacher layoffs by not granting raises to teachers for the next two years</a>. Say this about the guy, he's not afraid to pull the trigger.<br /><br />Now, both the UFT and CSA have come out against this, saying that the Mayor doesn't have that authority. And while they may technically be right, in practical terms it probably won't matter. As long as a contract hasn't been signed, <a href="http://gothamschools.org/2010/06/02/why-the-mayor-can-get-away-with-his-salary-freeze-surprise/">the Mayor does have the practical authority to do this</a>.<br /><br />But is it the right thing to do?<br /><br />Well, certainly teachers always deserve more money. You'd be hard pressed to find me ever arguing against that. But let's look at the facts here. Just three days ago we all woke up with the expectation that nearly 4,500 teachers were going to be laid off and booted from the system. You think class sizes are bad now? Is that really the education system we want? Furthermore, (and this isn't entirely clear to most people) <em>most teachers are still going to get raises next year</em>. Step increases, which you earn just for being in the system another year or for increasing your education, are still going to be happening. Teachers are going to get raises, just not as big as they may have thought. Honestly, in this economic climate, that's a deal I would take.<br /><br />Again, the unions have come out against this, and I guess that's there job. They always need to ask for more. But I hope that this is posturing on their part and not the start of an actual fight. If given the choice between no additional raises for everyone and layoffs plus raises for everyone else, I'm going for the no-layoffs plan. In the end, it's better for everyone.Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09953978758820288029noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4087129361394881369.post-44672962994174726522010-06-02T06:58:00.004-04:002010-06-02T07:24:41.678-04:00Follow the MoneyThe other day, my wife got a mailing from <a href="http://www.edreformnow.org/">Education Reform Now</a> - a group formerly pretty focused on lifting New York's charter cap. Essentially (and unsurprisingly for someone who's seen <a href="http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypolitics/2010/05/more-ern-ads-go-live.html#more">ERN's previous work</a>), the full color flyer was a hit on the UFT. On the front was a picture of a third grade parent saying something to the effect of, "I used to think that the union was on our side. But now they're working to protect the teachers who have been their longest, not the best teachers." (Unfortunately, my wife threw away the flyer so I don't have the exact wording.) Inside was a little more explanation on why last in/first out is so bad. There was also a little tear out card that you could put your information on and mail in to say that you think teacher quality and not seniority should be the major factor in teacher layoffs.<br /><br />Two things struck me about this mailing.<br /><br />First, the heat is definitely on the union, or at least the heat is trying to be on the union. When there are direct mail pieces trying to whip up popular support against you going out, you know that you're in a precarious spot. At the very least, someone is trying to put you in a precarious spot.<br /><br />That's what bring me to my second point to ponder: how did my wife end up on the mailing list, whereas I did not? (And yes, I am a little jealous.) We are both former UFT members, though she's a little more recent, but I don't know that it makes sense to target union members with something like this. Plus, I doubt the UFT would share their list with ERN. We don't have kids so her name wouldn't appear on any lists of that sort (if such things exist). She'd never heard of the group, so she hadn't signed up directly as a supporter. <br /><br />What I keep coming back to is that she is a registered Republican, while I'm a Democrat. Where that starts to get interesting is that in the past that's mattered because she received all of the Bloomberg mailings during the last Mayoral election. I had to read them over her shoulder. Given the facts that I have now, the explanation that seems to make the most sense to me is that the Bloomberg campaign has transferred into OFA-mode and is using their resources to try to bolster non-election campaigns - in this case, the repeal of last in/first out.<br /><br />This is not entirely out of the realm of possibility either. Joe Williams of the group Democrats for Education Reform sits on the board of ERN. <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/10/nyregion/10charter.html">He has hired former Bloomberg campaign manager Bradley Tusk to help in his efforts</a>. So there is a connection there, but it wouldn't totally explain what's going on. After all, Tusk presumably wasn't allowed to keep the various campaign lists after the election for his own personal use. <br /><br />Now, obviously, that's almost pure speculation at this point and there may be a perfectly good explanation that I just haven't thought of because it's early in the morning. But were I an enterprising reporter, it's a link I just might be trying to look into. After all, if the Mayor or the Republican party in general really is putting resources (monetary and otherwise) behind a group that's explicitly declaring war on the UFT, that would be a story.Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09953978758820288029noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4087129361394881369.post-39501741501674136302010-05-28T07:27:00.003-04:002010-05-28T07:36:20.543-04:00The Cap is Lifted, Now What?Well, it looks like they're going to do it. <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/28/nyregion/28charter.html">According to the Times</a>, the City and State Assembly have reached a deal to more than double the number of charter schools allowed in New York State. In return for that increase, the bill will forbid charters from being operated for profit, allow the state comptroller to audit the schools, require that in instances of co-location any major improvements made to a charter school must also be made to the public school, and require the establishment of a building council to mediate disputes between the schools.<br /><br />For those of you keeping score at home, that's (in order) two worthwhile changes, one kind of silly one, and one that's totally meaningless.<br /><br />After all the time and ink that's been spent on this whole issue, I find that apparent resolution a little bit anti-climactic. Maybe I'll be wrong and this will be the education reform that changes everything and makes it so that all children can obtain an excellent education. But I doubt it. Assuming that New York continues to do a good job at approving charters, this will probably help some kids. But it's not going to help all kids. No matter what you read from the Post or Chancellor Klein or anyone else, this will - at most! - affect 6% of public school kids in New York City. That leaves a lot of kids out there who won't benefit at all from this. Let's take a minute to consider them before we take too many victory laps on this one.Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09953978758820288029noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4087129361394881369.post-35217054721780670722010-05-26T07:32:00.004-04:002010-05-26T07:43:47.790-04:00Where's the Books?I'm a big fan of metaphors and telling details. A telling detail is a small instance that illuminates a larger truth. Honestly, one of the best examples of the use of telling details is the TV show The Wire, where countless small moments demonstrate character and larger social implications. Now, though, I have perhaps a new favorite moment from the real world.<br /><br />In Douglas County, Nevada the school board is<a href="http://www.recordcourier.com/article/20100523/NEWS/100529949/1062&ParentProfile=1049"> looking to adopt a new English curriculum</a>. They're leaning toward one called Springboard, which is "vertically aligned" and uses "standards-based instruction to reinforce content." It's everything an idealocrat could hope for. There's just one thing missing: novels. That's right, they forgot the books. In this curriculum, students are expected to read only one novel a year.<br /><br />On the one hand, this is the sort of thing that just makes you want to shake your head and say that it's no wonder that <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20381678/">nearly 25 percent of Americans don't read books</a>. On the other hand, this is a telling detail that I think illuminates a larger trend.<br /><br />With the direction that education reform is moving right now, we like things like vertical alignment and standards-based instruction. Frankly, we should like those things. But they aren't the ends in themselves. And that's easy to lose sight of when you're trying to look at things from an algorithmic, number-crunching sort of way. Maybe this curriculum will help kids do better on state tests. I don't know. But even the state tests aren't the end.<br /><br />Somewhere along the line, folks seem to have forgotten - at least in Douglas County, and I would argue elsewhere - that there's a lot more to educating kids than will show up on a bubble sheet. That an English curriculum without novels is even being considered just shows how people are forgetting that.Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09953978758820288029noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4087129361394881369.post-19395493063296715042010-05-24T07:29:00.003-04:002010-05-24T07:41:31.806-04:00Poverty MattersHere's one of those things that didn't exactly surprise me when I saw it, but is worth noting anyway. A report out of the Annie E. Casey Foundation has found that <a href="http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2010/05/18/33casey.h29.html?tkn=SXWCW54JRr9vsY1PcNz01XHOo63C0G8bh2C6&cmp=clp-sb-ascd">poverty has a negative effect on fourth grade reading levels</a>.<br /><br />I know. Not really shocking stuff. What makes it worth noting, though, is this finding:<br /><blockquote>The figures show how poverty and different school contexts can exacerbate the proportion of students having trouble mastering reading. While 83 percent of poor black students in schools with moderate to low levels of poverty failed to hit the grade level reading target, for example, the corresponding percentage for low-income African-American students in school with high concentrations of poor students was 90 percent.</blockquote><br />Let's think about that for a minute. Not only does a student's own poverty affect his learning, the poverty of those around him affects his learning. That's a big deal. And it should make us think - at least a little bit - about how we approach poor neighborhood schools.<br /><br />I think it's safe to assume that how much money is in the bank account of a child's parents doesn't actually have a direct impact how well a child reads. It's not the money itself that makes the difference, it's what the money allows for. A child living in poverty without adequate nutrition or medical care is going to have trouble reaching those all-important grade-level targets. A child with an unstable home life or uncertain housing is going to have trouble learning in school. The evidence is clear that those things matter. We need to take those into account when we're trying to teach the kids. More than that, we need to work to make sure that those conditions are improved wherever they can be. If we don't, we're going to be missing a real opportunity to better the lives of kids in need.Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09953978758820288029noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4087129361394881369.post-26275712812919470792010-05-21T07:17:00.003-04:002010-05-21T07:31:57.164-04:00Stunted ProgressI kind of feel bad for the city's fourth grade teachers. Over the last 8 years, they've gotten kids to make <a href="http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/education/2010/05/20/2010-05-20_nyc_fourthgraders_improved_on_national_reading_tests_eightgraders_didnt.html#ixzz0oUF92vAV">slow, but steady progress on the NAEP reading tests</a>. We're not talking the kind of progress you see on the state tests, but it's progress all the same. That takes a lot of hard work and dedication and they deserve to be commended for that.<br /><br />But then those kids get to eighth grade and the wheels seem to fall off. According to the same set of NAEP results, the level of eighth grade success is almost exactly the same as it was in 2003.<br /><br />The crazy thing about this is that today's eighth graders used to be fourth graders, where presumably they were getting better. Then a few years later, it's gone and there's no improvement. What gives?<br /><br />I know there's all sorts of research and anecdotal evidence about the drop off in student success that seems to coincide with middle school. A lot of that may have to do with the transformation from sweet little kids to raging hormone monsters. But even if that's the case, it seems like we need to do something to adust for that.<br /><br />As a former middle school teacher, I know it's hard. But all the fourth grade gains in the world don't matter much if they're gone in four years. Progress really only matters if it can be sustained.Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09953978758820288029noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4087129361394881369.post-69071327554209698962010-05-19T07:17:00.002-04:002010-05-19T07:33:59.988-04:00Last StandFor the most part, I'm not a huge fan of the way any newspaper covers education. The best I usually hope for is a clear statement of facts with a minimum of what it all means, which often tends to be wrong. That's why I was pleasantly surprised to be thoughtfully stimulated by an article set to appear in the New York Times Magazine this weekend called <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/23/magazine/23Race-t.html">The Teachers' Unions' Last Stand</a>. Now, I don't know that the article necessarily lives up to the hype of that headline, but it is pretty good.<br /><br />Everyone else probably knows this already, but the point that didn't really fully register with me until I read the article is how radically the Race to the Top guidelines are threatening to change the standards by which unions operate and the concessions they can expect to get from cities and states. I read the New York Post each day, so I've seen the constant barrage of stories about how the unions hate kids and are opposed to any sort of reform. I wrote off a lot of that as just being, well, the New York Post, which tries to make everything about how bad unions are. But it turns out they may be on to something.<br /><br />The thing that gets lost in New York where it seems like the unions have a lot of power to call shots in the legislature is how much pressure the unions must be under at this point. The "reform" banner has been unfurled across the country and there's a lot of money and attention out there for educational issues. More than that, the money and attention are focused on educational issues that the union and the Obama administration seem to be looking at from different perspectives. There's a definite ideological clash going on without a clear winner in sight. At least, not yet.<br /><br />Let me issue my disclaimer now that I'm agnostic about a lot of the ideas in RttT and I don't blame the union for everything that's wrong in schools. Not even close. Still, the drama here is compelling. From a political perspective and from the perspective of what's going to be happening in our schools, we're seeing pressure placed on teachers' unions in ways that we haven't seen in a long time if ever. Ultimately, something is going to have to give on one side or the other. It will be interesting to see which side relents first.Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09953978758820288029noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4087129361394881369.post-10284344640415124002010-05-17T07:20:00.002-04:002010-05-17T07:30:58.365-04:00Start Young, Go FarI've pointed this out before, but in case you missed it, I'll say it again. The achievement gap cannot be laid solely at the feet of differing levels of school quality. There are much bigger issues that need to be addressed before we can really and truly close that gap.<br /><br />Don't believe me? <a href="http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/education/2010/05/01/2010-05-01_six_districts_in_central_brooklyn_and_the_south_bronx_dont_have_enough_kids_to_o.html">Check out this article from the Daily News</a>. Turns out that six of New York's 32 districts don't have enough incoming kindergarteners qualify for a gifted and talented program to offer even a single section (about 25 kids) in the district. Want to guess where those districts are? I'll give you a hint, it's not the Upper East Side where a single school can have enough kids qualify to open at least two sections. No, we're looking at Central Brooklyn and the South Bronx. Kind of the usual suspects when we're talking about these issues.<br /><br />The important thing I want to highlight here is that these tests were given to incoming kindergarteners who have not yet attended even a single day of school. Even before they enter the system, these kids are starting behind. Seems a little unfair to blame the schools for that.<br /><br />So what do we do?<br /><br />Looking at information like this just makes me think that we need to start extending our efforts farther and younger. In neighborhoods like Central Brooklyn and the South Bronx we need to make better efforts to boost child health and nutrition. We need to provide more resources to help parents be better parents. We need to invest more in early childhood learning and intervention.<br /><br />Clearly, the problems start before the kids get to school and extend far beyond what happens in that single building. We need to make sure our solutions do the same.Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09953978758820288029noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4087129361394881369.post-9616496682732238312010-05-07T07:22:00.003-04:002010-05-07T07:36:55.898-04:00An Education Election in HarlemI just want to flag for your attention an interesting political situation developing up in Harlem. Bill Perkins, who will never be accused of being a fan of charter schools, is facing a primary election challenge from a candidate who <a href="http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/politico_to_challenge_charter_foe_ehsG7aWro1mdRfLxBmcwdL">seems to be running entirely on a pro-charter platform</a>. Now, that's according to the Post, which has a pretty clear position on charters and isn't afraid to let that position creep into its news reporting. They're also not especially known for their nuance. Still, this could be an education-based election. And that's pretty exciting.<br /><br />If the election really does turn into a referendum of charter schools, it'll be an interesting test. Perkins is counting on big support from the UFT and Smilke (his opponent) is counting on the help of charter school operators and a groundswell of parent support. How much the ground actually swells for him is the big question. Is it going to be enough to knock off an incumbent with strong union backing? <br /><br />Fast forwarding a few months, I can already see the Post coverage. If Smilke wins, it's going to be a victory for Harlem children who rose up against those who would resist charter schools. If Perkins wins, it's going to be a victory for the corrupt UFT and their status-quo-loving allies, which will be proof of how corrupt and status-quo-loving the UFT really is. For the Post, this is a no-lose situation. In reality, it's going to be pretty interesting to watch.Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09953978758820288029noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4087129361394881369.post-9384549426918630342010-05-05T07:25:00.002-04:002010-05-05T07:36:49.375-04:00AEI and MeAs far as I know, there's not much that the American Enterprise Institute and I agree on. They tend to be on one side of the political spectrum while I tend to be on the other. So as I was reading this morning's New York Times, I found myself a little bit surprised to be agreeing with <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/05/opinion/05murray.html">an op-ed written by Charles Murray of AEI</a>. It's not like he was channeling my innermost thoughts or anything, but I wasn't totally opposed either.<br /><br />He starts off with the statement that charter schools aren't necessarily going to be better schools than their traditional public school peers and that even if they are, standardized test scores aren't a very good way to measure that anyway. Okay, so far he is just channeling my innermost thoughts.<br /><br />Then, he gets to the real meat of what he's trying to say, which is that school choice is important just for the sake of having choice. If there are two schools of essentially equal quality, but they take different approaches to learning, there is a value in letting parents select one over another.<br /><br />I'm not really against that, though his rhapsodizing about the concept is a little annoying. For all his talk about how people just want to be able to choose, a huge number of parents continue to send their kids to their local school even when it's failing and they've been told (because of NCLB) that they have the right to send their children elsewhere. So I don't entirely buy that argument. I also tend to think that schools should be taking a greater role in a community, not less as would happen with a totally decentralized admission system.<br /><br />But enough quibbling. Where's the agreement? Well, I think that different schools should offer different things and that there's value in letting parents have the option to select what's best for their kids. I don't think that necessarily needs to equate with charter schools or private school vouchers. Nor do I think that we need a completely inflexible approach of sending kids only to the school down the street from where they live. As with everything, there's a balance that needs to be found somewhere in the middle. Finding it is always the challenge.Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09953978758820288029noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4087129361394881369.post-46578098574541863552010-05-03T07:23:00.003-04:002010-05-03T07:34:22.588-04:00No MagicStop me if you've heard this before, but there's some evidence out there that charters are not all wonderful schools. <a href="http://credo.stanford.edu/reports/MULTIPLE_CHOICE_CREDO.pdf">Some are very good, but more are ... less so</a>. It's just that you wouldn't really know that from reading the New York papers where they take a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Wobegon">Wobegon </a>view of charters: the principals are smart, the teachers are dedicated, and all the children score above average on their yearly high-stakes tests.<br /><br />However, a barrier fell yesterday when the New York Times ran a story headlined: <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/02/education/02charters.html">Despite Push, Success at Charter Schools is Mixed</a>. I had to check a few times to make sure I wasn't hallucinating that one.<br /><br />The article itself is not especially brilliant, but it's pretty good. The reporter visits different charter schools around the country and writes about what's going on at a successful one and at an less successful one. Because, remember, there are differences.<br /><br />The moral of the story, at least to those paying attention, is that charter schools are not magic. There's nothing about a charter in itself that makes it a great school. Charters can be great. Just like traditional public schools can be great. Great schools are great schools. The labels matter much less than what's actually going on in the classroom.<br /><br />The Times yesterday seemed to take a step toward acknowledging that. Now let's see if their editorial writers actually read their own paper.Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09953978758820288029noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4087129361394881369.post-60317229970808772502010-04-30T07:24:00.003-04:002010-04-30T07:36:51.644-04:00On Second ThoughtA thought occurred to me the other day as I was reading about the Senate Democrats' efforts to pass a bill on financial reform. It suddenly struck me that they might be barking up the entirely wrong tree.<br /><br />Consider this: the hugely influential report "A Nation at Risk" was published in 1983. In one of the more memorable phrases to ever come out of a government commissioned report, it said that if our education system had been forced on us by another country it would have been considered an act of war. In other words, things in schools were really bad.<br /><br />That was 27 years ago. Obviously, the problems in education haven't been fixed yet, so we must still have a really bad education system. No wonder our economy nearly collapsed!<br /><br />For at least 27 years (and probably at least a few before that), we've been working with such a terrible system that there's no way that we could be producing productive members of society. It's not the financial system or derivatives (which are invariably described in the press as "complex") or anything to do with Wall Street at all. It's probably the fault of teachers unions for making schools bad for the better part of three decades so now we have a dumb workforce that's ruining our economy.<br /><br />And yet, even as I type this, I can't help but think that it doesn't quite ring true. Do we really believe that we've produced three decades of educational failures? Are we really willing to say that everyone born after 1977 (so they would be 6 in 1983) has gotten a bad education? Forget everyone, are we even willing to say that most people born after 1977 are unable to deal with the real world because they were poorly prepared by their school experiences?<br /><br />I just don't think we can make that assertion. (And I say that as someone who was born after 1977 and is doing just fine, thank you.) I think, in fact, that anyone trying to make that point would be laughed out of the room.<br /><br />So where does that leave us? Pretty much where I've been saying all along. The American education system is, for the most part, a success. Failure is not the norm across all schools. There are schools that are spectacularly failing and those schools tend to be concentrated in poor and minority communities. That's a problem that needs addressing. But it means that we need to focus on those schools, not on remaking an entire system. Let's fix the problems. Let's not worry about fixing the things that aren't broken.Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09953978758820288029noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4087129361394881369.post-62745867264093931362010-04-26T07:20:00.003-04:002010-04-26T07:32:10.770-04:00Rational LayoffsFor the first time in over 30 years, it's a pretty definite thing that New York is going to be laying off teachers. It's not a scare tactic or a negotiating plea. It's really happening. And suddenly, the city is realizing that the method in place for laying off teachers doesn't make any sense.<br /><br />In New York, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/25/education/25seniority.html">layoffs are done on a last in, first out basis</a>. In other words, the newest teachers are the first to be let go. Ultimately, that's not a very good system.<br /><br />Does it make any sense to not take quality into account <em>at all</em> when making these decisions? Yes, seniority is important because teachers tend to get better with experience. But is anyone really willing to say that <em>every </em>fifth year teacher is better than <em>every</em> fourth year teacher? Or even every first year teacher? That just defies logic and common sense. <br /><br />The problem is (and this is why I haven't written about this before), I don't really know what's better. Given the way funding works in the city, during budget cuts there's an incentive to fire more experienced teachers because their salaries are higher. Also, leaving things solely in the hands of principals could lead to abuse. I don't buy the DOE's line that no principal would fire an effective teacher because of personal issues. That just seems a bit naive to me.<br /><br />So what do we do? Well, this makes pretty clear that we need a better way to look at this issue and a better way to evaluate teachers - one that takes into account seniority, but also looks at effectiveness. <br /><br />As the saying goes, the time to fix the roof is when the sun is shining. We've missed that opportunity and now these discussions - which would be highly charged during the best of times - are going to be even more fraught. But it's still a discussion worth having.Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09953978758820288029noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4087129361394881369.post-80055474800568247192010-04-23T07:29:00.003-04:002010-04-23T07:43:04.353-04:00Kangaroo CourtAnyone who was hoping for a calm, reasoned debate on the role and future of charter schools in New York at yesterday's state senate hearing on the topic was pretty disappointed. As <a href="http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/education/2010/04/23/2010-04-23_shouting_degrades_ed_meeting.html">the Daily News writes</a>: "Charter school supporters and their critics spent eight hours shouting at one another at a volatile public hearing Thursday - and left the battle more polarized than ever."<br /><br />Of course, anyone expecting a calm, reasoned debate about charter schools yesterday hasn't been <a href="http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/editorials/bill_perkins_hypocrite_iUdyjAXHOMvE4Nyph4cRbP">reading the Post lately</a>.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/editorials/the_perkins_show_trial_w8iAOu1aJyG1mAQI7t56lO">The Post was correct in today's article </a>(it surprised me too) where they describe the hearing as a kangaroo court. That's exactly what it was and both sides of the debate are to blame. Something about charter schools seems to have removed a reasonable middle ground and left only the extremists to pontificate and/or rant (depending on their mood). There's a real debate to be had here and it's a shame that it's being hijacked by shouting and accusations of personal impropriety (Sen. Perkins takes money from the UFT/Sen. Johnson takes money from charter schools).<br /><br />It's always easier to yell and scream and chant than to make good points and come to a reasonable consensus. It's too bad that so many people are falling into that temptation.Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09953978758820288029noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4087129361394881369.post-26745101298065353462010-04-21T07:32:00.002-04:002010-04-21T07:46:40.069-04:00Anyone Can Do ItOther than teaching, is there a profession anywhere else in the world where the movement is toward less training and preparation? Are there any programs that will give you a medical license for doing work in a hospital without going to medical school? Is there a movement to make people lawyers who've never been to law school? What about teaching makes it so different?<br /><br />Here in New York, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/21/education/21regents.html">the Board of Regents has approved a program </a>that will allow programs like Teach for America to create their own masters programs so that participants can get their masters without going to an actual education school.<br /><br />Not to be flip, but would we allow Doctors for America (if such a program exists) to grant medical degrees based on work done in poor hospitals around the country? Would we allow them to set up non-accredited programs to grant those degrees and then accept them as valid?<br /><br />A few things seem pretty clear to me when I read a story like this. First, traditional education schools have messed up. Either they've screwed up the way they prepare teachers or they've screwed up their own PR because people seem not to think that they're preparing teachers well. It's a problem no matter which way you cut it.<br /><br />Second, people think that because they've been in school, they're an expert on school policies and how schools should be run and that everyone can just do it. That's why we have lawyers running school systems and masters degrees being given by non-accredited institutions. We wouldn't put up with this in the medical profession, but teaching is seen as somehow less.<br /><br />I do have to say that while I have major misgivings about what this actually means and what it indicates, I do strongly believe that an education program should have a strong focus on practical, inside the classroom elements. I don't think that should totally replace theory (which helps inform those inside the classroom elements), but they do need to be a strong component of any program. <br /><br />What I oppose is the de-professionalization of teaching. I can't help but think that this is a step down that road.Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09953978758820288029noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4087129361394881369.post-87667936351969613072010-04-16T07:21:00.004-04:002010-04-16T07:29:18.864-04:00Bounce BackWell, they won't have the rubber room to kick around anymore.<br /><br />Yesterday, the DOE and the UFT came to an agreement to <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/16/nyregion/16rubber.html">end the rubber rooms</a>. In their place, reassigned teachers will be posted to administrative duties rather than just sitting around all day. The process for hearing and deciding cases will also be sped up. All in all, this is probably a pretty positive thing.<br /><br />Or is it? Because I can't help but think about what's actually changing here. The answer that I come to is: not much.<br /><br />The rubber rooms got so much attention because they seemed like a perfect symbol for how the conflict between a bureaucratic school system and a self-interested union (as all good unions should be) led to nonsensical "solutions" like the rubber room. Now the symbol is gone, but I'm not sure that the underlying issues have been addressed.<br /><br />I haven't seen the Post yet this morning, but I'm sure that they're shouting the news to the rafters. I'm sure the DOE is going around patting each other pretty heartily on the back. The symbol is gone. But how long until another one takes its place?Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09953978758820288029noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4087129361394881369.post-66332819429212988912010-04-14T07:21:00.004-04:002010-04-14T07:31:26.119-04:00iDon't Buy ItI'm always skeptical about books or studies or anything else that single out today's youth as being somehow dramatically different than the generations that preceded them. I think most of it is bogus to begin with and also it seems like every generation is arguing that the next generation is so completely different that none of the old models still apply.<br /><br />Still, there seems to be a market for that kind of stuff and so now we have the <a href="http://www.eschoolnews.com/2010/04/12/author-igeneration-requires-a-different-approach-to-instruction/">iGeneration</a>. (For what it's worth, I think it's a pretty good name for the thesis.) The iGeneration, author Larry Rosen writes, is so different from all other generations because they are constantly plugged in to all sorts of personalized media. Think iPods, cell phones, etc. This, apparently, means that they learn in ways that would have been unthinkable to previous generations.<br /><br />To steal a conceit, iDon't buy it.<br /><br />Without question kids these days have access to a level of technology that did not exist even in conception when their parents were in school. So in that sense, things have changed. But has that technology actually changed the way kids learn? Frankly, I have a little trouble seeing how an iPod is going to realign my conception of history.<br /><br />Certainly, teaching methodologies and techniques must change as technology changes. I mean, we don't want to go back to using slates and chalk for every assignment. Technology can be a very good thing. But we also don't want to overstate the case and say that it's changed everything. Kids are still kids. In all likelihood, they aren't that much better or worse than the generation that came before them or the generation that will come after them. The wrapping may be a little different, but it doesn't change the fundamentals.Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09953978758820288029noreply@blogger.com0