Leadership and Taking Risks

Nancy Flanagan had a great piece last week at EdWeek. "Defining Teacher Leadership" kicks off with her reaction to this handy meme:

She finds the first part is right on point. But the second part?

Most of the school leaders I encountered in 30 years in the classroom were good people, but the overwhelming majority were cautious rule-followers and cheerleaders for incremental change. The principals followed the superintendent's directives and the folks at Central Office looked to the state for guidance. Most recently, everyone has experienced the heavy hand of the feds--for standards, assessments and "aligned" materials. "Successful" leaders hit benchmarks set far from actual classrooms.

That sounds about right. As does this:

If I had waited for my school leaders to be risk-takers before feeling comfortable with change in my classroom, decades could have gone by.

I'm not sure we need school leaders who are risk takers; it's not the modeling that is most important. The biggest power that principals and superintendents have is not the power to demonstrate risk, but the power to define it.

School leaders get to decide two key aspects of risk-- what constitutes going outside the lines, and what possible consequences go with it. Principal A may run a school where getting caught with students up out of their seats in your classroom may win you a chance to stand in the principal's office while you're screamed at. Principal B may run a school where you can take students outside for an unscheduled sit on the lawn session and all that happens is you hear a, "Hey, shoot me an email before you do that the next time." Principal C, unfortunately, may run a school in which I'd better be on the scheduled scripted lesson at 10:36 on Tuesday, or there will be a letter in my file.

School leaders also get to decide how much they will protect their people. If you're teaching a controversial novel or running a project that may bring blowback form the community or from administrators at a higher level, will your principal help protect you from the heat, or throw you under the bus?

In other words, school leaders don't have to take risks -- they just have to create an environment where it is safe for teachers to take risks.

And teachers do share some responsibility in this risk-taking relationship. I have always had a pretty simple rule (like many rules, I figured it out by breaking it early in my career)-- if I'm about to do anything that could conceivably lead to my principal getting a phone call, I let him know what's going on, and why, and how, ahead of time. He can't support me if he doesn't know what I'm up to.

And of course, risk definition has been partially removed form local hands. Teachers now have personal ratings and school ratings and a host of other reformy accountability consequences riding on teacher choices. It makes leaders more risk averse, and that means clamping down on teacher risk taking as well. The last decade has not exactly fostered a risk-taking atmosphere.

The reformy movement has muddied the water on the other element of risk-- what, exactly, we are risking. Reformsters have tried to move us from , "Oh, no! That lesson didn't actually help my students master the concept I was teaching, meaning we lost a period of school and will have to try this again tomorrow" to "Oh no! We have low scores on a standardized test and must now lose money or be closed or fire somebody." Accountability and new standards and the Big Standardized Test have convinced too many administrators that teachers that take risks are now taking huge risks for enormous stakes and maybe we had all better just take it really, really easy and play it super, super safe and get back to those nice new test prep materials we just bought.

So I don't need my school leaders to model risk-taking for me. I just need them to provide me with a workplace where it's okay safe for me to try a few things and see if I can find interesting new paths for success. Which, ironically, is exactly what I am supposed to be providing for my students. If doing my teaching job is like changing a flat tire in the rain, I don't need an administrator who is changing another one of the tires on the car. I need someone who will make sure my tools are handy while they hold an umbrella over my head to keep the rain off me.

The Flawed Premises of Reform

In Friday's Washington Post, Mike Petrilli and Chester Finn, the current and former chiefs of the right-tilted thinky tank Thomas B. Fordham Institute, set out to create a quick, simple history of modern education reform. It's aimed mostly at saying, "Look, we have most of the bugs worked out now!" But it also lays bare just what failed assumptions have been behind fifteen years of failed reformster ideas.

They start by throwing our gaze back a decade to when "US education policies were a mess." Then:

At the core of the good idea was the common-sense insight that if we want better and more equitable results from our education system, we should set clear expectations for student learning, measure whether our kids are meeting them and hold schools accountable for their outcomes, mainly gauged in terms of academic achievement.

And there are most of the problems with the reformsters approach, laid out in one sentence.

if we want better and more equitable results from our education system, we should set clear expectations for student learning

Yeah, that sounds sort of sensible, but the problem that first lurked in the background and then erupted with the advent of Common Core is that the way to make expectations clear is to make them specific, and before you know it, you have one-size-fits-all standards, and one-size-fits-all standards suck in the same way that making all US school students wear a one-size-fits-all uniform and eat one-size-fits-all food.

It is like saying that we can fix the divorce problem in this country by setting clear expectations for getting married and holding everyone to those expectations. Fordham sages tried to get around this with their "tight-loose" formulation, but they failed. Meanwhile, the standards themselves are amateur-hour constructions that take a definite side in arguments that experts don't find at all as neatly settled as the standards assume (e.g. is reading a complex relationship between reader and text, or a set of skills and behaviors-- the Core insists on  the latter, but actual educators favor the former). 

if we want better and more equitable results from our education system, we should... measure whether our kids are meeting them 

Also sounds sort of sensible, and yet we do not know how to do it. It really is as simple as that-- we do not have a large-scale, standardized instrument that can measure all learning for all students in a standardized, one-size-measures-all manner. Instead of asking, "What's the best way to measure critical thinking" test manufacturers have asked "What's something we could do on a standardized mass-administered test that would pass for a critical thinking measure?"

The Fordham has just released a report that tries to argue that the latest next-generation tests are achieving great feats of measurement. They aren't. And trying to measure student learning as if it occurs in just two dimensions on a single track is just such a meager, inadequate, stunted approach as to be useless. Well, worse than useless, because doing it leads some people to think they're actually accomplishing something.

if we want better and more equitable results from our education system, we should... hold schools accountable for their outcomes, mainly gauged in terms of academic achievement.

"Outcomes" just means "test scores," and that, again, is such a truncated, inadequate vision of the mission of US public schools. Ask a taxpayer, "What are you paying schools and teachers to do?" I doubt that you will hear the answer, "Why, just to have students get good test scores. That's it. That's what I'm paying them to do."

This is not to claim or pretend that there are not schools that are failing to fulfill the promise of public education. But that failure belongs not to the schools alone-- student success exists at the confluence of teachers, schools, communities, and local, state, and national leadership. Reformsters have been enthusiastic in their calls to hold teachers and schools accountable, but when it's time to hold state and federal governments accountable for bad regulations, unfunded mandates, and grotesquely inequitable funding of schools, reformsters fall silent. The fans of ed reform could, for instance, devote themselves to ferreting out districts where local and state authorities have underfunded schools to the point that students attend in unsafe crumbling buildings, but that's just not happening.

We know beyond the remotest shadow of a doubt that poverty is a huge factor in education. Not insurmountable, not inescapable, not hopelessly overpowering-- but still a major factor. We know that teachers are a large factor inside schools. But somehow we want to a big accountability hammer to land on teachers, but when it comes to holding anyone "accountable" for poverty, reformsters have nothing to say (well, except for those who suggest that the only people accountable for poverty are poor people).

And about that common-sense insight...

The notion that all of these things-- the clear and specific standards being measured by a test leading to "accountability" measures taken against the schools that come up short-- are common sense? Well, we have to call them "common sense" because we can't call them "evidence based" or "scientifically proven" or even "sure seemed to work well over in Location X" because none of those things are true. They haven't worked anywhere else, and now that we've been trying it for over a decade, we can see pretty clearly that they don't work here, either.

The best we get from reformsters is a circular argument-- "this tool is a valid measure and means of improvement, because when I measure the progress of this tool by using this tool, I see success."

There are other unfounded assumptions underlying the reformster approach that depend on these other bad assumptions. For instance, the whole idea that the power of the free market can be unloosed to improve education rests on the idea that we can measure definitively which are the best schools producing the best students who are taught by the best teachers. But we can no more do that than we can list the hundred best marriages in America, or the hundred best friends.

They remain convinced that we must have one-size-fits-all standards so that we can measure all students against them so that we can compare all students and schools so that we can.... what? We still don't have a real answer. It's common sense. It's something you just have to do, because not doing it clashes with reformsters beliefs about how the world is supposed to work. They literally do not understand how education works, and when they approach the world of education, they feel like OCD sufferers in a museum where all the paintings are hung crooked. They want to "fix" it, and they want to ask the people who work there, "How can you possibly function like this?" They can't see that the paintings aren't crooked at all.

The whole reformster approach is based on measuring a cloud with a meter stick, measuring the weather with a decibel meter, measuring love with a spoon.

Reformsters want to drive the school bus by setting a brick on the gas pedal and strapping the steering when into place, and every time the bus hits a tree, they say, "Oh, well, we just need a next-generation brick, and to fine-tune where we strap the steering wheel into place." They will tweak and improve and re-tweak, and they will keep failing because their approach is fundamentally wrong.

Ranking Is Not Measuring

This point came up in passing a few days ago when I was reviewing some writing by Mark Garrison,
but it is worth hammering home all by itself.

We have been told repeatedly that we need to take the Big Standardized Tests so that we can hold schools accountable and tell whether our teachers are succeeding or not. "Of course we need accountability systems," the policy makers say. "Don't you want to know how well we're doing?"

And then we rank schools and teachers and students. But ranking is not measuring.

Would you rather be operated on by a top-ranking surgeon or one who was the bottom of his class? What if the former is the top graduate of Bob's Backyard School of Surgical Stuff and the latter is the bottom of Harvard Medical School? Would you like homework help from the dumbest person in MENSA or the smartest person in a 6th grade remedial class? And does that prompt you to ask what we even mean by "dumb" or "smart"?

"But hey," you may reply. "If I'm going to rank people by a particular quality, I have to measure that quality, don't I?"

Of course not. You can find the tallest student in a classroom without measuring any of them. You can find the heaviest box of rocks by using a scale that doesn't ever tell you how much they weigh. Ranking requires no actual measurement at all.

Not only that, but when we are forced to measure, ranking encourages us to do it badly. Many qualities or characteristics would best be described or measured with a many-dimensional matrix with a dozen different axes. But to rank-- we have to reduce complex multidimensional measurement to something that can be measured with a single-edged stick.

Who is most attractive-- Jon Hamm, Ryan Gosling, or George Clooney? It's an impossible question because it involves so many factors, from hair style to age to wry wit vs. full-on silliness all piled on top of, "Attractive to whom, exactly?" We can reduce all of those factors and  measure each one independently, and that might create some sort of qualitative measure of attractiveness, but it would be so complicated that we'd have to chart it on some sort of multi-matrix omni-dimensional graphy thing, and THAT would make it impossible to rank the three gentlemen. No, in order to rank them we would either have to settle on some single measurement that we use as a proxy for all the rest, or some bastard offspring created by mashing all the measures together. This results in a ranking that doesn't reflect any kind of real measurement of anything, ultimately both meaningless and unconvincing (the ladies of the George Clooney fan club will not change allegiance because some data-driven list contradicts what they already know in their hearts).

In fact, when we create the bastardized mashup measurement, we're really creating a completely new quality. We can call it the Handsomeness Quotient, but we might as well call Shmerglishness.

So let's go back to "smart," a word that is both as universally used and as thoroughly vague as "good" or "stuff." Smartitude is a complex of factors, some of which exist not as qualities but as relationships between the smart-holder and the immediate environment (I'm pretty smart in a library, average under a car hood, and stupid on a basketball court). Measuring smart is complicated and difficult and multi-dimensional.

But then in the ed biz we're going to fold that quality into a broader domain that we'll call "student achievement" and now we are talking about describing the constellation of skills and abilities and aptitudes and knowledge for an individual human being, and to rank requires to use a single-axis shmerglishness number.

We could go on and on about the many examples of how complex systems cannot be reduced to simple measures, but I want to go back and underline that main idea--

Ranking is not measuring. In fact, ranking often works directly against measuring. As long as our accountability systems focus on ranking students, teachers, and schools, they will not tell us how well the education system is actually working.

Dear Randi: About That ESEA Petition--

You've been kind enough to drop me an email about your position on testing in the might-be-new ESEA, so I wanted to share my reaction with you.

What the hell are you thinking?

You've enumerated four actions you would like Congress to take with the could-be-revamped ESEA (in partnership with CAP which already blew my mind just a little). While they are clearer than the joint-CAP statement, they don't make me feel any better.

End the use of annual tests for high-stakes consequences. Let’s instead use annual assessments to give parents and teachers the information they need to help students grow.

Oh, hell. While we're at it, let's use annual assessments to make pigs fly out of our butts, because that's just about as likely as the test being a useful source of information that I need to help my students grow. Exactly how would this work. Exactly what would I learn from a standardized test given late in the year, results to be released over the summer, that would help me grow those students?

Use the data we collect to provide the federal government with information to direct resources to the schools and districts that need extra support. 

Yes, because that has worked so well so far. The federal government is great about allocating resources on the local level without lots of red tape and strings attached. 

You know what would work better? Actual local control. Actual democracy on the local level. Actual empowerment of the people who have the largest stake in the community's schools. 

Ensure a robust accountability system that judges schools looking at multiple measures—including allowing real evidence of student learning. 

Do you remember when you were on twitter, pushing "VAM is a sham" as a pithy slogan? What the heck happened? How can the head of a national teachers' union take any approach about the widely discredited and debunked test-based evaluation of students other than, "Hell no!" 

And finally, the federal government should not be the human resources department for local schools, and should not be in the business of regulating teacher evaluation from Washington D.C. Teacher evaluation is the district’s job.

Oh, come on. In what universe does the federal government give local school districts resources, oversee their accountability system, but still leave them free to do the job. Answer: they don't. This is local control just like adoption of Common Core was freely adopted by states. This is the feds saying, "You can paint your school any color you want, and we'll buy the paint, just as long as you meet the federal standards that say all schools must be black. But otherwise you're totally freely under local control."

Randi, I have been a fan in the past, but I find this policy package an absolute headscratcher, and no matter how I squint, I cannot see the interests of public education (or the teachers who work there) reflected anywhere in the shiny surface of this highly polished turd. 

So, no. I'm not going to sign your petition, and I'd encourage others to refrain as well. This is just wrong. Wrong and discouraging and a little anger-inducing, and I'm not going to the dark side with you, not even if they have great cookies.

Sincerely,

Peter Greene

Profiting from Non-Profits

There are days when it seems like the news in education is just the same news, over and over and over again.

People believe in the magic of certain words, like "non-profit." For whatever reason, when people hear the word "non-profit" they think of some philanthropic exercise in austerity and sacrifice. When the term is applied to schools, they think of teachers and administrators plugging away tirelessly, plowing every spare cent back into the work of the school.

Here comes Marian Wang in ProPublica to explain how Not True that is.

Let me start with the usual disclaimers. Not all charter schools are a blight on American public education, and not all non-profits are scams.

But the unregulated world of charters, infused with cash and boosted by politicians who are some combination of paid-for and clueless has given rise to an endless parade of charters created as money grabbing mechanisms. There's plenty of reason, for instance, to believe that Gulen charters are simply a fund-raising operation for their secretive owner-founder. Just last week, the Indy Star ran an piece about a charter high school being set up as basically a recruiting wing of a for-profit college currently under investigation for being one more predatory school (they had better watch out, or the feds might punish them by forcing them to accept a bunch of financial and political aid). You can go to high school and get college credits-- that only count at the for-profit college. I hear that heroine dealers also offer free samples.

Wang's piece is well worth the read-- she describes the practice of "sweeps," arrangement by which a non-profit school turns over as much as 95 or 100 percent of its revenue to a for-profit management company.

While relationships between charter schools and management companies have started to come under scrutiny, sweeps contracts have received little attention. Schools have agreed to such setups with both nonprofit and for-profit management companies, but it's not clear how often. Nobody appears to be keeping track.

There are so many things wrong with this sort of thing, not the least of which is the complete absence of accountability. 


Take the case of Brooklyn Excelsior Charter School, another National Heritage Academies school. In 2012, state auditors tried to track the $10 million in public funding given to the school, only to conclude they were " unable to determine ... the extent to which the $10 million of annual public funding provided to the school was actually used to benefit its students." From what auditors could tell, the school was paying above-market rent for its building, which in turn is owned by a subsidiary of National Heritage Academies. They also had concerns about equipment charges.

This is not news. It's only been a few months since Wang wrote about Baker Mitchell, a North Carolina charter operator who sets up these sorts of management contracts with himself.  

But in all these cases, the private company enjoys a shield from prying eyes. Once public funds enter this black hole, they could be doing anything from footing the bills for some other enterprise entirely to financing a second house in the Hamptons for the CEO. As Casandra Ulbrich, VP of the Michigan State Board of Education told Wang, "I can't FOIA [Freedom of Information Act] National Heritage Academies."

The practice of using non-profit charters as pass-throughs is too common to be surprising any more. It's a new sort of money laundering, in which any sniff of public interest is stripped from the money, and they become untraceable nuggets of wealth.

One thing is absolutely certain-- every dollar that is spent on actually educating students is a dollar that the management company doesn't get to put in its own pocket. Students are a Good Thing to these charters because students generate revenue, but they are also a problem because educating students drains revenue.

Bottom line-- even if you weren't bothered by the total lack of transparency and accountability, there's still another issue. In a profitable charter arrangement (whatever it's called) the interests of the students are in direct opposition to the interests of the operators. That makes this scam a bad deal for taxpayers, students, the community and everybody else who isn't making a buck from faux non-profit charterdom.