Governor Bobby Jindal of Louisiana had barely finished joining the crowd of politicians dancing rapidly away from various aspects of Common Core when State Superintendent of Education John White continued his streak of bad wrong no-good comments by sticking up by the people who will be most hurt by something as wild and crazy as dumping the PARCC testing. White wanted to speak up on behalf of the people whose interests have always been at the forefront of his policy decisions in the past.
Teachers.
White had previously offered the fanciful notion that the PARCC test would be a money-saver, or at least break even. Did he not know that the PARCC tests are not free? Mercedes Schneider told him.
But in today's Advocate, White is quoted expressing his concern over the probable ship jumpification of Jindal.
Just from a teacher’s perspective, it is deeply confusing and probably
troubling that they now go into the remainder of the school year with
leadership across state government not giving them the clarity they need
and deserve and they have had for several years.
White's education training comes courtesy of a stint in TFA and training from the Broad Academy, so you know he really gets where teachers are coming from. He worries about teachers getting what they deserve, and clarity has always been his guiding principle, and does my internet connection now access some alternate universe, because from out here in the cheap seats it has been clear for years that Louisiana is one of the poster children for how the Masters of Reforming Our Nation's Schools can get pretty much everything they want and yet have no actual success to show for it.
White jumped into the Core a year sooner than needed, and rolled out PARCC practice without actually saying that's what was up. He got caught lying about the exposure of student data, and he presided over a busticated version of VAM even worse than the "original." And then there's the ongoing loot-and-pillage by charter interests going on under his watch.
But he is worried about the poor confused teachers, God bless them.
It's an impressive pivot. The more standard MoRONS move is to invoke the children and how they will suffer without the benefits of the super-duper awesome tests, tests whose magical powers automatically cause knowledge to bloom within the brains of even the dullest young person.
But no. White doesn't want to make things confusing for the teachers.
“I think it is just a shame from the teacher’s perspective,” White said
of the debate over test plans. “You really have no idea whether to go
right or go left.”
Yes, that's sweet. Because I am sure that the teachers of Louisiana have known exactly where they were going previously, much like Thelma and Louise knew exactly where they were going at the end of their adventure.
But reading this article, I don't so much smell as I catch the faint whiff of panic sweat.
“What would we do? We don’t have a test for next year. We have been
planning for years, it is no secret, to purchase this test,” he said of
PARCC.
I had plans. I had backers. I had money lined up. I made promises to people who are expecting me to deliver.
No, White is not sounding like someone who at long last is worried about the care and feeding, the health welfare and safety of teachers. He sounds like a guy who is in to his bookie-- his big, burly bookie with the enforcer with arms like tree trunks and a pierced eyeball-- for a whole bunch of money, and he just saw snake eyes roll up on his last big bet.
But I wouldn't worry about him. He's Bobby Jindal's boy, his pushed-for-hire, and I'm sure that even if Jindal queers White's PARCC deal, he'll still have White's back. Just like White is looking out for all of Louisiana's teachers.
[with a big hat tip to the reporting of Mercedes Schneider and Crazy Crawfish]
Tuesday, April 15, 2014
Insulating the NEA
How is it that NEA becomes so insulated from its members? After all, we are the union, right?
My first big lesson in representative democracy came courtesy of the United Methodist Church. In the church structure, local churches are grouped into districts, and districts are grouped into larger regions, and on and on to the national level. Theoretically all these levels are responsive to the concerns of local churches, but as it turns out, not so much. The problem, as one wise man once explained to me, is that the district/regional/national body becomes the representatives' local church.
When they start out, reps say "we" when they mean the local they come from. But after a while, "we" means the regional coneference.
The EAs, like many large-scale representational bodies, use this process deliberately. When you go to a regional gathering of local reps and officers, business is always mixed with fun and parties and socializing. The energy is kept high and for newer local reps, it can be like being invited to sit at the lunch table with the very coolest kids.
In this day and age, there's little practical need for most of these gatherings. Information on issues could be sent out over the net, votes could be taken over the net, and at the very least the full-weekend gatherings could be reduced to a Saturday afternoon. Likewise union training sessions that could be a single day are often stretched into at least one overnight so that participants have the opportunity for a big social dinner followed by a dance or social event. And gathering locations are still picked based on what fun things there are to do.
While it's true that none of these training or governance events need to be dry, dull and painful, there's another purpose served by wrapping union gathering in so much socializing-- it bonds the local person to the larger group. I go back to my local school and when a co-worker talks to me about "that dumb-ass decision that those state level jerks made," I'm thinking, "No, that state-level jerk is my good friend Chris who is a great person, so I'm sure that decision is peachy swell."
For teacher-reps who have spent enough time at the state or national level, "we" means "union leadership" and "they" means "those guys who work at local schools."
This is not unique to NEA; most large groups involve switching loyalties from the local to the large group (e.g. too many Congressmen). This bonding in turn facilitates one of the most common, but toxic, principles of all political activity-- the ends justifies the means.
When we arrive at the outcome of this strategy, it will be really good for the members, so it's okay if we manage the rank and file in order to get them to support what we're doing. We'll tell them just what we need them to know. We'll stack the vote. We'll guarantee that we get the outcome we want, even if we have to totally trash any semblance of democratic process to do it, because we are pursuing a Worthwhile End. It's for the members' own good.
Believe me-- I totally get how leadership fosters a...well, crankiness...about members. If you've been a union officer for more than a week, you've heard all the classics: "My principal is yelling at me for leaving an hour early every day. Make him stop." "Why didn't you get us a contract with free ice cream every Tuesday?" "Do you mean to tell me they can discipline me just because I came to school drunk five or twelve times? Protect me!!"
And informing the members? You can try to explain something 147 times to members who blow you off more thoroughly than a sleepy fifth period class of low-function juniors, but a week later some of those same members will be angrily complaining that you made a decision on that same matter without consulting them. People don't want to be involved, but they still want veto power.
So I get it. I get how easily the rank and file can get under leadership's skin. I get that union leaders are like assistant principals-- dealing mostly with the problem children. But here's the thing-- that's the job. Complaining about how much work your members create is like complaining that the students in your class are all children. That's the job. If you don't like the job, get another job.
And none of this justifies the NEA's insulated insular behavior. None of it justifies the Us vs. Them mentality with the members, nor does it justify "managing" the rank and file because only leadership really knows what's good for them. Shut up and fall in line, because, unity. NEA is so bad at communicating. SOoooooooo bad.It is so corporate and bureaucratic that most days it seems no different than the USDOE. Have DVR and Arne ever been seen together?
Can it be changed? I doubt it.
Even if we could somehow nominate and elect outsiders to represent us, they would face the same problem all outsiders face when entering an insular system-- they wouldn't be able to get anything done, because they would need the cooperation of the Old Guard (and in fact, the Old Guard carefully watches over the path to any offices of significant power-- ain't nobody storming that castle).
But we should still pay attention. We get ballots to vote on state reps and RAs and all manner of associationy stuff and most of us barely pay attention to who is going to what. We should start paying attention. We should start making sure that our representatives are actually representing us, and we should ask about sending them just for the sessions of substance and skipping the social hour. I don't really need to have my dues dollars spent on events designed to show my representatives that hanging out with the union leaders is so much cooler than spending time with the local rank and file. I don't want being a union rep to be a terrible chore, but I also don't want union reps to forget where they came from, and these days I don't think NEA leadership could find its way home with a GPS and a hundred days to make the trip.
My first big lesson in representative democracy came courtesy of the United Methodist Church. In the church structure, local churches are grouped into districts, and districts are grouped into larger regions, and on and on to the national level. Theoretically all these levels are responsive to the concerns of local churches, but as it turns out, not so much. The problem, as one wise man once explained to me, is that the district/regional/national body becomes the representatives' local church.
When they start out, reps say "we" when they mean the local they come from. But after a while, "we" means the regional coneference.
The EAs, like many large-scale representational bodies, use this process deliberately. When you go to a regional gathering of local reps and officers, business is always mixed with fun and parties and socializing. The energy is kept high and for newer local reps, it can be like being invited to sit at the lunch table with the very coolest kids.
In this day and age, there's little practical need for most of these gatherings. Information on issues could be sent out over the net, votes could be taken over the net, and at the very least the full-weekend gatherings could be reduced to a Saturday afternoon. Likewise union training sessions that could be a single day are often stretched into at least one overnight so that participants have the opportunity for a big social dinner followed by a dance or social event. And gathering locations are still picked based on what fun things there are to do.
While it's true that none of these training or governance events need to be dry, dull and painful, there's another purpose served by wrapping union gathering in so much socializing-- it bonds the local person to the larger group. I go back to my local school and when a co-worker talks to me about "that dumb-ass decision that those state level jerks made," I'm thinking, "No, that state-level jerk is my good friend Chris who is a great person, so I'm sure that decision is peachy swell."
For teacher-reps who have spent enough time at the state or national level, "we" means "union leadership" and "they" means "those guys who work at local schools."
This is not unique to NEA; most large groups involve switching loyalties from the local to the large group (e.g. too many Congressmen). This bonding in turn facilitates one of the most common, but toxic, principles of all political activity-- the ends justifies the means.
When we arrive at the outcome of this strategy, it will be really good for the members, so it's okay if we manage the rank and file in order to get them to support what we're doing. We'll tell them just what we need them to know. We'll stack the vote. We'll guarantee that we get the outcome we want, even if we have to totally trash any semblance of democratic process to do it, because we are pursuing a Worthwhile End. It's for the members' own good.
Believe me-- I totally get how leadership fosters a...well, crankiness...about members. If you've been a union officer for more than a week, you've heard all the classics: "My principal is yelling at me for leaving an hour early every day. Make him stop." "Why didn't you get us a contract with free ice cream every Tuesday?" "Do you mean to tell me they can discipline me just because I came to school drunk five or twelve times? Protect me!!"
And informing the members? You can try to explain something 147 times to members who blow you off more thoroughly than a sleepy fifth period class of low-function juniors, but a week later some of those same members will be angrily complaining that you made a decision on that same matter without consulting them. People don't want to be involved, but they still want veto power.
So I get it. I get how easily the rank and file can get under leadership's skin. I get that union leaders are like assistant principals-- dealing mostly with the problem children. But here's the thing-- that's the job. Complaining about how much work your members create is like complaining that the students in your class are all children. That's the job. If you don't like the job, get another job.
And none of this justifies the NEA's insulated insular behavior. None of it justifies the Us vs. Them mentality with the members, nor does it justify "managing" the rank and file because only leadership really knows what's good for them. Shut up and fall in line, because, unity. NEA is so bad at communicating. SOoooooooo bad.It is so corporate and bureaucratic that most days it seems no different than the USDOE. Have DVR and Arne ever been seen together?
Can it be changed? I doubt it.
Even if we could somehow nominate and elect outsiders to represent us, they would face the same problem all outsiders face when entering an insular system-- they wouldn't be able to get anything done, because they would need the cooperation of the Old Guard (and in fact, the Old Guard carefully watches over the path to any offices of significant power-- ain't nobody storming that castle).
But we should still pay attention. We get ballots to vote on state reps and RAs and all manner of associationy stuff and most of us barely pay attention to who is going to what. We should start paying attention. We should start making sure that our representatives are actually representing us, and we should ask about sending them just for the sessions of substance and skipping the social hour. I don't really need to have my dues dollars spent on events designed to show my representatives that hanging out with the union leaders is so much cooler than spending time with the local rank and file. I don't want being a union rep to be a terrible chore, but I also don't want union reps to forget where they came from, and these days I don't think NEA leadership could find its way home with a GPS and a hundred days to make the trip.
Monday, April 14, 2014
Today's NEA = Yesterday's GOP
Today's NEA is not your father's NEA. It's more like your grandfather's NEA.
NEA reminds me of the GOP of the last two Presidential elections -- they've heard of the technology stuff that the Young Folks are using, what with their social medianting and playing with their twitters, but it's probably just some passing fad (like the rap) and, anyway, the people who know how to work with that stuff don't seem quite like Our Kind of People, so we'd rather not have them in the parlor, please and thank you. And that equipment they use-- it would probably smudge our upholstery and ruffle our throw rug, so just ask them to stay out in the front yard and we'll consider their advice, but probably ignore it. And by the way, why don't any of the young folks ever stop by to visit?
Consider twitter. Even Job Bush and the Chamber know enough to try to at least fake a twitter presence. Word on the street is that Arne Duncan's tweets are intern-generated, but at least there is communication going on through an account with his name on it. He even attempts the occasional #AskArne, which is a terrible terrible idea, but which shows at least a rudimentary understanding of how twitter works and what you have to do to use it.
Randi Weingarten may be an active and engaged union leader, or she may be a manipulative woman bent on establishing herself as a national political power. I've heard both theories and everything in between, and personally, I don't know where the truth lies. But you know what I do know-- you can find her on twitter pretty much every day. And you know who she'll talk to? Pretty much anybody, and she'll do it live enough that I have to believe that she just goes ahead and types it herself.
Meanwhile on twitter, you can check out Dennis Van Roekel's account. Well, you can sort of check it out, because it's locked and protected. It says that DVR is following one person and has thirteen tweets. This is better than NEA vice president Lily Eskelsen Garcia, who has apparently never used the account at all. It looks like Secretary-Treasurer Becky Pringle is doing slightly better-- twenty-two tweets, half of which came from the Kansas Legislature-- with photos. The NEA PR team and NEA Today both have very active corporate accounts.
Facebook is even worse. The National Education Association (you won't find them under "NEA") has a page; out of the three-point-something million members, just under 32,000 have liked the page. NEA Today's page has just over 64,000 likes. For comparison, the Bad Ass Teachers group just topped 42,000 members with nothing resembling actual organization. The Network for Public Education, another group that isn't collecting a zillion dollars from millions of members and is barely a year old , is just shy of 10K likes on Facebook.
If I were a young teacher trying to get a handle on the various teacher-related groups out there, and I were trying to do it by looking around the interwebular materials available, I would find precious little to clarify NEA for me (of course, much of the NEA site is closed to non-members). If I scoured social media, I might conclude that NEA is a group that used to exist but has since gone out of business and is now run by bots.
Oh, and let's not forget GPS Network, a discussion board and internet community software package that now functions as one of the biggest ghost communities on the internet. There have been several rotations of "hosts" to perk up the chatty discussions, but check out the forum on Common Core, arguably the hottest hot button in the teaching world, and you'll find nothing but a handful of shills posting perky praises to CCSS at the rate of one or two a month, while the internet equivalent of tumbleweeds fill the gaping empty space in between.
The only way NEA could be on the right track is if their new motto is "Trying To Avoid Putting a Human Face on a Large Corporate Entity." The groups out there in the reformy world that actually ARE big soulless corporate entities are doing a better job of faking humanity than the country's largest collection of living breathing human teachers.
Never mind bad policies, stupid choices, and an all-too-typical rush to jump on the CCSS bandwagon before checking to see if that wagon has wheels-- NEA's presentation of itself and use of twenty-first century tools is enough explanation all by itself for their dwindling grasp of anybody under thirty-five.
Guys, I am fifty-six years old. My computer basis was a course about programming in BASIC on punchcards. I have every excuse in the world to be a cranky old luddite fart who refuses to learn his email password, and yet, I'm up to my elbows in this stuff. Hell, Diane Ravitch is no chicken d'spring, and she has built a huge voice by dogged and smart use of all the 21st century tools. And that means nobody who is not my mother has an excuse for being as stunningly bad at all of this as NEA.
Add to this new media illiteracy to a message astonishingly out-of-touch with many (if not most) of the rank and file, and it's a miracle (or perhaps simply a demonstration of collective inertia) that NEA still manages to limp forward at all. Even if the NEA message were forward-thinking and empowering, who would ever hear it??
But the backwards media is just a symptom. Witness NEA's reporting-- reporting!!-- last week on the growing test revolt. They offer a warmed-over recounting of what's going on and some words of support-- all in reference to one of the biggest movements currently going on in education, and with which the NEA has absolutely nothing to do. The new NEA Today tagline might as well be "Reporting the News That's Important in Education, But To Which NEA Is Irrelevant."
Do I think it can get better? I have my doubts. In an organization this hidebound you don't rise up through the ranks by doing anything that rocks the boat. And it's very hard to turn around an organization that believes its members are to be managed rather than listened to.
But I'd like it to be possible, if for no other reason than it would be nearly impossible in today's climate to create something from scratch like what NEA is supposed to be. I don't think we can make an impression on the national union, but I think we have a better shot in some cases of getting a useful response from the state-level association, and I think the states could get through to the national corporate level. If anybody has the contacts or means of doing that, sooner is probably better than later, because the process will be slow. After all, we might have to wait for the national office to type a response out on their remington and send it by pennyfarthing messenger.
NEA reminds me of the GOP of the last two Presidential elections -- they've heard of the technology stuff that the Young Folks are using, what with their social medianting and playing with their twitters, but it's probably just some passing fad (like the rap) and, anyway, the people who know how to work with that stuff don't seem quite like Our Kind of People, so we'd rather not have them in the parlor, please and thank you. And that equipment they use-- it would probably smudge our upholstery and ruffle our throw rug, so just ask them to stay out in the front yard and we'll consider their advice, but probably ignore it. And by the way, why don't any of the young folks ever stop by to visit?
Consider twitter. Even Job Bush and the Chamber know enough to try to at least fake a twitter presence. Word on the street is that Arne Duncan's tweets are intern-generated, but at least there is communication going on through an account with his name on it. He even attempts the occasional #AskArne, which is a terrible terrible idea, but which shows at least a rudimentary understanding of how twitter works and what you have to do to use it.
Randi Weingarten may be an active and engaged union leader, or she may be a manipulative woman bent on establishing herself as a national political power. I've heard both theories and everything in between, and personally, I don't know where the truth lies. But you know what I do know-- you can find her on twitter pretty much every day. And you know who she'll talk to? Pretty much anybody, and she'll do it live enough that I have to believe that she just goes ahead and types it herself.
Meanwhile on twitter, you can check out Dennis Van Roekel's account. Well, you can sort of check it out, because it's locked and protected. It says that DVR is following one person and has thirteen tweets. This is better than NEA vice president Lily Eskelsen Garcia, who has apparently never used the account at all. It looks like Secretary-Treasurer Becky Pringle is doing slightly better-- twenty-two tweets, half of which came from the Kansas Legislature-- with photos. The NEA PR team and NEA Today both have very active corporate accounts.
Facebook is even worse. The National Education Association (you won't find them under "NEA") has a page; out of the three-point-something million members, just under 32,000 have liked the page. NEA Today's page has just over 64,000 likes. For comparison, the Bad Ass Teachers group just topped 42,000 members with nothing resembling actual organization. The Network for Public Education, another group that isn't collecting a zillion dollars from millions of members and is barely a year old , is just shy of 10K likes on Facebook.
If I were a young teacher trying to get a handle on the various teacher-related groups out there, and I were trying to do it by looking around the interwebular materials available, I would find precious little to clarify NEA for me (of course, much of the NEA site is closed to non-members). If I scoured social media, I might conclude that NEA is a group that used to exist but has since gone out of business and is now run by bots.
Oh, and let's not forget GPS Network, a discussion board and internet community software package that now functions as one of the biggest ghost communities on the internet. There have been several rotations of "hosts" to perk up the chatty discussions, but check out the forum on Common Core, arguably the hottest hot button in the teaching world, and you'll find nothing but a handful of shills posting perky praises to CCSS at the rate of one or two a month, while the internet equivalent of tumbleweeds fill the gaping empty space in between.
The only way NEA could be on the right track is if their new motto is "Trying To Avoid Putting a Human Face on a Large Corporate Entity." The groups out there in the reformy world that actually ARE big soulless corporate entities are doing a better job of faking humanity than the country's largest collection of living breathing human teachers.
Never mind bad policies, stupid choices, and an all-too-typical rush to jump on the CCSS bandwagon before checking to see if that wagon has wheels-- NEA's presentation of itself and use of twenty-first century tools is enough explanation all by itself for their dwindling grasp of anybody under thirty-five.
Guys, I am fifty-six years old. My computer basis was a course about programming in BASIC on punchcards. I have every excuse in the world to be a cranky old luddite fart who refuses to learn his email password, and yet, I'm up to my elbows in this stuff. Hell, Diane Ravitch is no chicken d'spring, and she has built a huge voice by dogged and smart use of all the 21st century tools. And that means nobody who is not my mother has an excuse for being as stunningly bad at all of this as NEA.
Add to this new media illiteracy to a message astonishingly out-of-touch with many (if not most) of the rank and file, and it's a miracle (or perhaps simply a demonstration of collective inertia) that NEA still manages to limp forward at all. Even if the NEA message were forward-thinking and empowering, who would ever hear it??
But the backwards media is just a symptom. Witness NEA's reporting-- reporting!!-- last week on the growing test revolt. They offer a warmed-over recounting of what's going on and some words of support-- all in reference to one of the biggest movements currently going on in education, and with which the NEA has absolutely nothing to do. The new NEA Today tagline might as well be "Reporting the News That's Important in Education, But To Which NEA Is Irrelevant."
Do I think it can get better? I have my doubts. In an organization this hidebound you don't rise up through the ranks by doing anything that rocks the boat. And it's very hard to turn around an organization that believes its members are to be managed rather than listened to.
But I'd like it to be possible, if for no other reason than it would be nearly impossible in today's climate to create something from scratch like what NEA is supposed to be. I don't think we can make an impression on the national union, but I think we have a better shot in some cases of getting a useful response from the state-level association, and I think the states could get through to the national corporate level. If anybody has the contacts or means of doing that, sooner is probably better than later, because the process will be slow. After all, we might have to wait for the national office to type a response out on their remington and send it by pennyfarthing messenger.
Edupreneuring Hard Rock Instructional Boondogglery
Are you too non-rich to attend Camp Philos, the philosophical retreat for educational thought leaders at Lake Placid this summer? Then 2014 Rock the Core! may be for you! If nothing else-- it provides an object lesson in edtrepreneurship in action.
Rock the Core will take place June 9-11 at the Hard Rock Casino in Biloxi MS. 2014 Rock the Core is the fancy name for the 2014 New Teacher Institute, which is put on by the New Teacher People. Despite the remarkable initiallary coincidence, this is TNTP (which used to stand for The New Teacher Project but now, well, doesn't (kind of like KFC). None of that is easily discernible by looking at the website for the event.
A search for "The New Teacher People" turns up nothing but the website promoting this, well, let's call it a Training Convention Boondoggle (TCB). A search for "The New Teacher Insitute" turns up the same plus a press release or two, but from that we learn that the founder of the group is Candance McClendon, and that this is the third annual such gathering.
We're clearly working a different market here than the Lake Placid philosophers' gathering. Instead of skiing, it's beach vollyball. Instead of a private massage, there's a hotel pool. But Hard Rock has excelled at turning an okay idea into a mass-produced franchise of numbing sameness, loved by tourists and hated by locals, so it seems like a better location for CCSS conventioneering than a former Olympic site. I think Ms. McClendon nailed it with that choice. So who is Candace McClendon, and how did she end up with her own special teacher consulting business?
Ms. McClendon has a project (The Future of Education) on fundrazr on which she tells her story.
I never wanted to be a teacher. I completed my entire high school and college career with a fierce passion for writing and creating narratives. I wanted to be a journalist. I had the goods, and I had spent the majority of my teens idolizing the editors in those glossy magazines. Needless to say, my senior year in college, I decided I was unprepared to live the fast life in New York City, so I opted for a year of teaching to save money. My life has never been the same.
She spent six years in the classroom and five as an educational consultant. Her Linkedin profile lists her as the owner of McClendon Education Group, LLC, (founded August 2009) which is based in MS but does not have a website of its own. The New Teacher People is another one of her companies, which puts on the New Teacher Institute in the summer, and also, apparently has a newsletter and Saturday Academies. This is all way more than you can glean from the site itself.
About Us takes you to some vaguely worded puff about change, students, world shaping and the need to "move expeditiously to prepare our youth for what's to come." We (who remain nameless throughout) have selected all sorts of current and former educators to create a "personalized product."
The registration page asks "Are you an advocate of Common Core?" The site promises engaging professional development (not the same old "sit and git") that will show you "what CCSS will 'look' like in a classroom/school like yours (i.e struggling learners, below grade level readers, state test driven, low student morale, time management issues)." I can't explain the inappropriately quotationed "look," but I am curious if the Institute will address Common Core's role in creating some of those problems. There's also a crack about fifty slides of PowerPoint which became ironic when I found this promotional video for the event which looks a lot like, well, bad PowerPoint (though it does use Pharrell's "Happy" as a sound track, and I love that song and appreciate that Pharrell got some of these peoples' money when they paid for the rights. You guys totally paid for the rights to use that, right?
Keynote speaker is Sandra Alberti from the Student Achievement Partners, the group founded by David Coleman, Susan Pimetal and Jason Zimba tocash in on CCSS help assimilate more tools help all students and teachers achieve good stuff. Notes the site, "One of our powerful keynotes, Achieve the Core, is founded by a writer of the Common Core State Standards. How close to an authentic look at CCSS can you get than that." It's possible Ms. McClendon hasn't finished proofreading.
Also speaking will be Adam Dovico from the Ron Clark Academy, and now I'm wondering how is Ron Clark doing these days, because he has to be looking at many of these uplifty no excuse charter-loving reformy stuffs and thinking, "Damn! I was a man ahead of my time." Anyway, he'll be here to collect a fee as well. And apparently State Rep Jeremy Anderson is coming as well.
The site has a resources page that plugs work from Chester Finn, Mark Oshea, Lucy Calkins, and Robyn Jackson as well as links to the CCSS themselves. Accommodations are a conventioneer-friendly $169/night, and the conference itself is a mere $299 (early) or $349 (after April 30). There are only 350 seats, so act now.
And there is a pdf for presentation proposals, but those were due by March 4th. I'm bummed to have found this too late. I was thinking that if I can't raise the money for Camp Philos, I could have put in a proposal to present "How to Deal with CCSS Foolishness and Boondogglery" or "How to Cash in on New Educational Baloney."
Ms. McClendon is to be commended for her edrepreneurial spirit; she's clearly not one of the big fish (SAP is only sending a "staff" person?!) but she has marked out her own corner of the market and with a little pluck and a webdesigner, she's propped herself up as reformer-for-hire. With a shiny website and everything! I'm not sure that we can blame this sort of thing on Common Core; as long as folks are interested in a nominally work-related vacation on the Gulf Coast, this sort of educational profiteering will always be with us. Still, as another protional video reminds us, Mississippi is looking at full-on Core onslaught in August of 2014, so that sense of manufactured urgency can't hurt. 350 seats times $300 makes $105K which is a not too shabby take for a weekend convention. And if Ms. McClendon gets lucky at the slots, she may really cash in.
Rock the Core will take place June 9-11 at the Hard Rock Casino in Biloxi MS. 2014 Rock the Core is the fancy name for the 2014 New Teacher Institute, which is put on by the New Teacher People. Despite the remarkable initiallary coincidence, this is TNTP (which used to stand for The New Teacher Project but now, well, doesn't (kind of like KFC). None of that is easily discernible by looking at the website for the event.
A search for "The New Teacher People" turns up nothing but the website promoting this, well, let's call it a Training Convention Boondoggle (TCB). A search for "The New Teacher Insitute" turns up the same plus a press release or two, but from that we learn that the founder of the group is Candance McClendon, and that this is the third annual such gathering.
We're clearly working a different market here than the Lake Placid philosophers' gathering. Instead of skiing, it's beach vollyball. Instead of a private massage, there's a hotel pool. But Hard Rock has excelled at turning an okay idea into a mass-produced franchise of numbing sameness, loved by tourists and hated by locals, so it seems like a better location for CCSS conventioneering than a former Olympic site. I think Ms. McClendon nailed it with that choice. So who is Candace McClendon, and how did she end up with her own special teacher consulting business?
Ms. McClendon has a project (The Future of Education) on fundrazr on which she tells her story.
I never wanted to be a teacher. I completed my entire high school and college career with a fierce passion for writing and creating narratives. I wanted to be a journalist. I had the goods, and I had spent the majority of my teens idolizing the editors in those glossy magazines. Needless to say, my senior year in college, I decided I was unprepared to live the fast life in New York City, so I opted for a year of teaching to save money. My life has never been the same.
She spent six years in the classroom and five as an educational consultant. Her Linkedin profile lists her as the owner of McClendon Education Group, LLC, (founded August 2009) which is based in MS but does not have a website of its own. The New Teacher People is another one of her companies, which puts on the New Teacher Institute in the summer, and also, apparently has a newsletter and Saturday Academies. This is all way more than you can glean from the site itself.
About Us takes you to some vaguely worded puff about change, students, world shaping and the need to "move expeditiously to prepare our youth for what's to come." We (who remain nameless throughout) have selected all sorts of current and former educators to create a "personalized product."
The registration page asks "Are you an advocate of Common Core?" The site promises engaging professional development (not the same old "sit and git") that will show you "what CCSS will 'look' like in a classroom/school like yours (i.e struggling learners, below grade level readers, state test driven, low student morale, time management issues)." I can't explain the inappropriately quotationed "look," but I am curious if the Institute will address Common Core's role in creating some of those problems. There's also a crack about fifty slides of PowerPoint which became ironic when I found this promotional video for the event which looks a lot like, well, bad PowerPoint (though it does use Pharrell's "Happy" as a sound track, and I love that song and appreciate that Pharrell got some of these peoples' money when they paid for the rights. You guys totally paid for the rights to use that, right?
Keynote speaker is Sandra Alberti from the Student Achievement Partners, the group founded by David Coleman, Susan Pimetal and Jason Zimba to
Also speaking will be Adam Dovico from the Ron Clark Academy, and now I'm wondering how is Ron Clark doing these days, because he has to be looking at many of these uplifty no excuse charter-loving reformy stuffs and thinking, "Damn! I was a man ahead of my time." Anyway, he'll be here to collect a fee as well. And apparently State Rep Jeremy Anderson is coming as well.
The site has a resources page that plugs work from Chester Finn, Mark Oshea, Lucy Calkins, and Robyn Jackson as well as links to the CCSS themselves. Accommodations are a conventioneer-friendly $169/night, and the conference itself is a mere $299 (early) or $349 (after April 30). There are only 350 seats, so act now.
And there is a pdf for presentation proposals, but those were due by March 4th. I'm bummed to have found this too late. I was thinking that if I can't raise the money for Camp Philos, I could have put in a proposal to present "How to Deal with CCSS Foolishness and Boondogglery" or "How to Cash in on New Educational Baloney."
Ms. McClendon is to be commended for her edrepreneurial spirit; she's clearly not one of the big fish (SAP is only sending a "staff" person?!) but she has marked out her own corner of the market and with a little pluck and a webdesigner, she's propped herself up as reformer-for-hire. With a shiny website and everything! I'm not sure that we can blame this sort of thing on Common Core; as long as folks are interested in a nominally work-related vacation on the Gulf Coast, this sort of educational profiteering will always be with us. Still, as another protional video reminds us, Mississippi is looking at full-on Core onslaught in August of 2014, so that sense of manufactured urgency can't hurt. 350 seats times $300 makes $105K which is a not too shabby take for a weekend convention. And if Ms. McClendon gets lucky at the slots, she may really cash in.
Sunday, April 13, 2014
Five Best Positive Posts
Even though this blog is mostly about the spleen ventage, I do make it a point to remember the Good Parts, too. So here, for your Sunday night (or Monday morning or Wednesday afternoon or whenever your Up could use some Pickme), here are the five most positive posts from Curmudgucation (so far). I know that irony is often my stock and trade, but for these posts, I'm not kidding!
Why American Public Education Is Worth the Fight
American public education is one of the most awesome institutions created in the history of human civilization. It deserves our love and affection and protection precisely because it is such a wonderful expression of what makes us great as a people.
Should I Be a Teacher?
I never quite understand why everyone doesn't want to be a teacher. But nowadays there seems to be some question, even among people who are drawn to it. And certainly it's a scary world for teacher these days. Here's how to know if it's for you!
Should I Quit?
In the era of the public resignation letter, it's no surprise that many of us struggle with the question of leaving the profession. I faced my own dark night, though it came before the Age of Reformy Stuff. I stayed. Here's why.
Evaluating That
It's only been a couple of months since #evaluatethat had its day as a big hashtag. It was a great reminder of what teachers do, and why we should watch each others' backs. In fact, as soon as I finish this, I think I'll go on twitter and look through those tweets again.
I Love My Job (Seriously)
There are days when I think you run the risk of being called crazy if you admit that you love what you do. But I love what I do. I love this job. Even in these struggly times, I love my job. I know I'm lucky not to be in the thick of the worst of it, but I guess what I can do is send word to those of you on the front lines that you memory isn't playing tricks on you-- teaching really is one of the greatest jobs in the world.
Why American Public Education Is Worth the Fight
American public education is one of the most awesome institutions created in the history of human civilization. It deserves our love and affection and protection precisely because it is such a wonderful expression of what makes us great as a people.
Should I Be a Teacher?
I never quite understand why everyone doesn't want to be a teacher. But nowadays there seems to be some question, even among people who are drawn to it. And certainly it's a scary world for teacher these days. Here's how to know if it's for you!
Should I Quit?
In the era of the public resignation letter, it's no surprise that many of us struggle with the question of leaving the profession. I faced my own dark night, though it came before the Age of Reformy Stuff. I stayed. Here's why.
Evaluating That
It's only been a couple of months since #evaluatethat had its day as a big hashtag. It was a great reminder of what teachers do, and why we should watch each others' backs. In fact, as soon as I finish this, I think I'll go on twitter and look through those tweets again.
I Love My Job (Seriously)
There are days when I think you run the risk of being called crazy if you admit that you love what you do. But I love what I do. I love this job. Even in these struggly times, I love my job. I know I'm lucky not to be in the thick of the worst of it, but I guess what I can do is send word to those of you on the front lines that you memory isn't playing tricks on you-- teaching really is one of the greatest jobs in the world.
From One Reluctant Warrior to Another
Anthony Cody posted A Call to Battle for reluctant Warriors earlier this week, and it got me to really thinking about my own reluctant warrior status, and what I would say to someone else just entering the fray.
I'm not a fighter. On those personality tests that measure such things, I usually emerge as a peacemaker. But from day one, teaching has forced me to confront the need, sometimes, to fight.
My first teaching job started with a strike and ended with layoffs. It took me another five years to land a permanent full time gig, and in the meantime, I wondered if the universe was sending me a message (roughly, "Do something else, dummy!"). But there wasn't anything else I'd rather do, so I soldiered on.
I had always figured that I would sometimes have to wrestle with students who didn't exactly consider the wonders of studying English one of the most important part of life. But I was naively surprised to discover that many of the people who I'd figured would support education-- parents, administrators, board members, government officials-- actually spent more time creating obstacles than helping. And I started to realize that teaching was not a walk in the park or a ride on a parade float, but actually guerilla warfare. Like most teachers, I was inclined to follow the rules, stay inside the lines, respect the system. We all learn at some point that standing up for our students means standing up against the system, and that it's worth it.
Not everybody decided to fight. Some folks let the obstacles have their occasional win on the theory that they were mostly doing good work. Some could simply never bring themselves to break the rules or argue with a boss. Some just hate the idea of conflict. I get that. I'm one of those people.
Has it gotten worse? I believe it has. It used to be that the occasional misguided administrator would recommend some piece of educational malpractice. Then the state suggested it. Then the state mandated it. Nowadays, the federal and state governments have teamed up to make some acts of educational malpractice the law of the land.
I had the same sorts of thoughts when I found myself on the path to becoming the president of a teachers' union on strike. Sometimes you don't choose the fight, but the fight chooses you. Sometimes you are caught in a conflict of someone else's creation, and your only choice is to either stand up or to be one of those good men who does nothing.
So if you're going to become a reluctant warrior, what can you do?
Trust your judgment.
Not blindly. I think my judgment is pretty good, but I'm also painfully aware that I have screwed up big time in my life, that I have failed students, that I have made poor choices. But I hope that I've learned lessons from all of that (including not to blindly trust myself).
But if you are a trained professional educator, that means you're the expert. If the answer key gives an answer that you know is wrong, you don't just say, "Well, the answer key must be right." Trust your professional judgment and
Network
Talk to other people whose judgment you trust. Even if-- especially if-- they don't necessarily come from your identical perspective.
You may have an opportunity to make allies that nobody else can. Do not fall into the trap of declaring enemies so ferociously and finally that you miss the chance to convince someone to join your side. If there's anything we know about the battle over public education, it's that it has made strange bedfellows on both side of the fight.
And there are groups to join. On Facebook the most active voice is the Bad Ass Teachers page, an action group that can provide you with something simple to do to take action in the fight every single day. Organizations like this are popping up all over. If you are a joiner,it's a great way to find likeminded people to focus your warrior activities.
Speak
In staff meetings. In professional development. In neighborhood social gatherings. Don't be a jerk about it, but speak up. Share your perspective.
Read about the issues on line, and when you read something you agree with, leave a comment saying so. When you read something you disagree with, leave a comment saying so. When we stay silent, folks are able to imagine whatever they like running through our brains. When we speak, they must deal with the truth.
And in these times, words of support are always a help. Let people know you are on their side. You know how lonely guerilla warfare gets.
Act
This is a challenge. Perhaps you live and work in one of the epicenters of this fight, in which case you have opportunities to take to the streets, swell a crowd, make some noise. Or, like me, you may live someplace quiet and far away from the toughest parts of this fight. But you can still do something.
The Network for Public Education (a group you should join) has prepared a simple kit for nudging your Congressperson and agitating for a Congressional inquiry into the abuses of High Stakes Testing. You can send an e-mail or a regular old paper letter. Everything you need is right here.There is also a petition nearing its final days, urging the removal of high stakes testing from RttT/NCLB. Like most White House petitions, it may well fall short of the required numbers of citizens willing to register and sign up, but look-- you're already sitting here at your computer. Click on this link.
Tell your state and national union bosses what you want from them. Get involved in your local. Communicate regularly. Call your state and federal elected representatives repeatedly. Write to them. It's not always or only about who has the money. inBloom had way more money that Leonie Haimson, but inBloom is no longer in New York State, and Leonie Haimson surely is. Corporate money is most useful in silencing the critics, but you can choose not to be silenced.
Educate yourself. Read the blogs. Search out the info. And then spread the word, any you can think of. We're teachers, and that makes us one of the most dangerous type of warrior there is, reluctant or not.
Ultimately, for me, it is not about whether I would change the world or not-- it is about whether I will live out my values or not, whether I will live a life that demonstrates what I believe. I know what it's like to be reluctant to fight, but as rough as conflict may feel, it's not as bad as living a life that doesn't match what you care about, what you value, what you hold to be true and important. We all have to stand up for something; why not stand up for what we actually believe?
Saturday, April 12, 2014
Interviewing with HAL
In a recent post, The New Teacher Project (TNTP) asks an interesting question. And by "interesting," I mean "dumb."
Can Better Questions Lead to Better Teachers?
By "better," TNTP means "very specific multiple choice questions asked by a computer." As it turns out, I'm pretty sure I know the answer to this question, so let's end the suspense right away. Jessica Cardullo, contributing writer to the TNTP blog, here is the answer to your question:
No.
Or possibly, "for the love of God, no." I was also tempted to go with "No, dummy," by I do not know Ms. Cardullo and for all I know, she's a highly intelligent person who was assigned to write about a dumb question.
TNTP is the big-boys-and-girls version of TFA; they take people who have an actual history of working for a living in some non-teaching job and try turning those folks into teachers. It's actually a far less ridiculous concept than TFA, and if TNTP didn't have the same corporate weenie connections as TFA, I might be inclined to take it seriously. But instead, they are run by the kind of people who come up with ideas like this one.
First we have to figure out what "better" means when applied to teachers. Cardullo starts out by contrasting broad questions such as "Why do you want to be a teacher" with focused questions such as "Which of these statements best describes you" followed by multiple choice answers from which to select. Or they could be asked agree-or-disagree statements such as “All students should be held to the same grade level standards,” and “teachers in high-need schools must be given equal resources to teachers in wealthier schools if they are going to be evaluated by the same standards.” And I'm starting to see their problem, because by "better," maybe we mean "fully aligned with the biases of this organization."
Cardullo assures us that lots of standardized test questions such as these will elicit a picture filled with "nuance" and "texture." Because I think we can all agree that when we really want a nuanced and textured picture of a person, we hand that person a set of standardized test questions.
But TNTP is really looking at this "interview pointillism."
One interesting possibility: using computer-based interviews, at least at the outset of someone’s application to one of our training programs, to ask these sorts of questions. It’s an interview model that sounds inhuman and even a little scary, like the quest for machine-based efficiency gone too far. But we’re looking into computer interviews not because we’re trying to skimp on time, but because we think they might actually predict future teacher performance better than our old model, a daylong in-person interview.
Well, yes. If by "interesting" you mean "inhuman." Now, it's not that they never believed in rigorous interviews and screening; they've got training screening and interview screening and even phone interviews. It's just that "when we took a hard look at whether performance during the screening process was connected to classroom performance, we found very little relationship."
Now, I can definitely draw a conclusion from that, and my conclusion is that TNTP's screening people are very, very bad at their jobs. Either they don't know what to look for in prospective fellows, or they make it really easy to game their system, or they just don't know how to draw impressions about the character and ability of other carbon-based life forms. I might send them for training. I might reassign them. I might fire them. But the brain trust at TNTP has a better idea.
Multiple choice questions.
Seriously.
Rather than relying on whatever meaning interviewers ascribed to an open-ended conversation, these “forced-choice” computer survey questions could give candidates—and us—a clear, specific and common set of terms and ideas to review regarding their skills, experience, aspirations and expectations for teaching as a career. They could replace part of our existing application screen to allow us to drill down on the handful of particular skills we know we’re looking for, like professionalism, critical thinking and receptivity to feedback, which our experience tells us that most effective teachers possess.
You know, my ordinary approach is to exaggerate outrageously in order to make my subject look foolish, but today I am stumped. And by "stumped" I mean "saddened and astonished." In addition to the virtues of drilling down and attempting to determine critical thinking with a bubble test, Cardullo goes on to tout the virtues of computer assessment because it can't be biased (only the person who writes the assessment questions can be biased-- seriously, what is this magical belief that when a person says something or writes something it has human bias, but as soon as you type his words into a computer, magical elves dance out and suck all the personal bias away, leaving nothing but sweet, sweet perfect objectivity. And by "sweet" I mean "imaginary"). (And yes, I know we're practically describing the Praxis test here, but I'll save curmudgeoning about that for another day.) There are so many things wrong here. Sooooooo many. Let's just pick two.
1) You know what the best way to gauge someone's ability to interact with other human beings? Have them interact with other human beings. Yes, all the human beings involved in that process will bring their own personal biases, ideas, personalities, human foibles, hair styles and histories into the process. So will all the students who walk into a classroom. This is how human beings are. Stop trying to create systems that don't allow for humans to be human! If your humans in charge of talking to the humans can't handle talking to humans, you need to hire different humans.
2) You know what's really easy to lie to? A bubble test. Your questions will be biased and you will be testing your candidate's ability to figure out what you want him to say. What you won't have is the benefit of seeing him roll his eyes and flip the bird at the computer screen. Your standardized test will tell you exactly nothing except how good he is at navigating bureaucratic baloney. That is, of course, excluding the candidates who will decide that any organization that tries to screen humans for a job that's all about working with humans without involving any humans-- well, that organization is to be avoided.
Cardullo acknowledges this last problem. It is possible that this approach might shrink the talent pool. "The idea of a computer predicting which candidates have the potential to become effective teachers might sound a little crazy." If by "a little crazy" you mean "unbelievably stupid," then yes, you are correct. But in reform land, they have fallen so far down the rabbit hole, they cannot see how far they've fallen and how little sense they make. And by "rabbit," I mean "stupid."
Can Better Questions Lead to Better Teachers?
By "better," TNTP means "very specific multiple choice questions asked by a computer." As it turns out, I'm pretty sure I know the answer to this question, so let's end the suspense right away. Jessica Cardullo, contributing writer to the TNTP blog, here is the answer to your question:
No.
Or possibly, "for the love of God, no." I was also tempted to go with "No, dummy," by I do not know Ms. Cardullo and for all I know, she's a highly intelligent person who was assigned to write about a dumb question.
TNTP is the big-boys-and-girls version of TFA; they take people who have an actual history of working for a living in some non-teaching job and try turning those folks into teachers. It's actually a far less ridiculous concept than TFA, and if TNTP didn't have the same corporate weenie connections as TFA, I might be inclined to take it seriously. But instead, they are run by the kind of people who come up with ideas like this one.
First we have to figure out what "better" means when applied to teachers. Cardullo starts out by contrasting broad questions such as "Why do you want to be a teacher" with focused questions such as "Which of these statements best describes you" followed by multiple choice answers from which to select. Or they could be asked agree-or-disagree statements such as “All students should be held to the same grade level standards,” and “teachers in high-need schools must be given equal resources to teachers in wealthier schools if they are going to be evaluated by the same standards.” And I'm starting to see their problem, because by "better," maybe we mean "fully aligned with the biases of this organization."
Cardullo assures us that lots of standardized test questions such as these will elicit a picture filled with "nuance" and "texture." Because I think we can all agree that when we really want a nuanced and textured picture of a person, we hand that person a set of standardized test questions.
But TNTP is really looking at this "interview pointillism."
One interesting possibility: using computer-based interviews, at least at the outset of someone’s application to one of our training programs, to ask these sorts of questions. It’s an interview model that sounds inhuman and even a little scary, like the quest for machine-based efficiency gone too far. But we’re looking into computer interviews not because we’re trying to skimp on time, but because we think they might actually predict future teacher performance better than our old model, a daylong in-person interview.
Well, yes. If by "interesting" you mean "inhuman." Now, it's not that they never believed in rigorous interviews and screening; they've got training screening and interview screening and even phone interviews. It's just that "when we took a hard look at whether performance during the screening process was connected to classroom performance, we found very little relationship."
Now, I can definitely draw a conclusion from that, and my conclusion is that TNTP's screening people are very, very bad at their jobs. Either they don't know what to look for in prospective fellows, or they make it really easy to game their system, or they just don't know how to draw impressions about the character and ability of other carbon-based life forms. I might send them for training. I might reassign them. I might fire them. But the brain trust at TNTP has a better idea.
Multiple choice questions.
Seriously.
Rather than relying on whatever meaning interviewers ascribed to an open-ended conversation, these “forced-choice” computer survey questions could give candidates—and us—a clear, specific and common set of terms and ideas to review regarding their skills, experience, aspirations and expectations for teaching as a career. They could replace part of our existing application screen to allow us to drill down on the handful of particular skills we know we’re looking for, like professionalism, critical thinking and receptivity to feedback, which our experience tells us that most effective teachers possess.
You know, my ordinary approach is to exaggerate outrageously in order to make my subject look foolish, but today I am stumped. And by "stumped" I mean "saddened and astonished." In addition to the virtues of drilling down and attempting to determine critical thinking with a bubble test, Cardullo goes on to tout the virtues of computer assessment because it can't be biased (only the person who writes the assessment questions can be biased-- seriously, what is this magical belief that when a person says something or writes something it has human bias, but as soon as you type his words into a computer, magical elves dance out and suck all the personal bias away, leaving nothing but sweet, sweet perfect objectivity. And by "sweet" I mean "imaginary"). (And yes, I know we're practically describing the Praxis test here, but I'll save curmudgeoning about that for another day.) There are so many things wrong here. Sooooooo many. Let's just pick two.
1) You know what the best way to gauge someone's ability to interact with other human beings? Have them interact with other human beings. Yes, all the human beings involved in that process will bring their own personal biases, ideas, personalities, human foibles, hair styles and histories into the process. So will all the students who walk into a classroom. This is how human beings are. Stop trying to create systems that don't allow for humans to be human! If your humans in charge of talking to the humans can't handle talking to humans, you need to hire different humans.
2) You know what's really easy to lie to? A bubble test. Your questions will be biased and you will be testing your candidate's ability to figure out what you want him to say. What you won't have is the benefit of seeing him roll his eyes and flip the bird at the computer screen. Your standardized test will tell you exactly nothing except how good he is at navigating bureaucratic baloney. That is, of course, excluding the candidates who will decide that any organization that tries to screen humans for a job that's all about working with humans without involving any humans-- well, that organization is to be avoided.
Cardullo acknowledges this last problem. It is possible that this approach might shrink the talent pool. "The idea of a computer predicting which candidates have the potential to become effective teachers might sound a little crazy." If by "a little crazy" you mean "unbelievably stupid," then yes, you are correct. But in reform land, they have fallen so far down the rabbit hole, they cannot see how far they've fallen and how little sense they make. And by "rabbit," I mean "stupid."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)