Dear CUNY Teacher Educators:
I just saw your letter in support of edTPA on Diane Ravitch's blog. As will become obvious, I am not an academic. I'm a classroom teacher with thirty-some years of experience; I've also served as co-operating teacher for ten or so student teachers. Let me tell you why your letter did not convince me that edTPA is a great, good, or even okay program.
You characterize edTPA as "a performance assessment of teaching developed by hundreds of teachers
and teacher educators across the country, in a process led by Stanford
University’s Center for Assessment, Learning, and Equity (SCALE), with
support from the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education
(AACTE)." This does not even match edTPA's own description of the process, found on their website-- "Stanford University faculty and staff at the Stanford Center for
Assessment, Learning, and Equity (SCALE) developed edTPA. They received
substantive advice and feedback from teachers and teacher educators..." Giving advice and feedback is not "developing." It does not really address the frequent criticism that Pearson was in on the development, and I remain skeptical-- it is hard to imagine how Pearson could end up managing the complex on-line system of the evaluation without having had a voice in developing it, even to say "We can do X for you, but probably not Y."
But that's beside the point. Many of Alan Singer's most damning criticisms go unanswered in your letter.
I agree with you when you say that a teacher must be able to articulate what she is doing and why. But what edTPA requires goes far beyond that. It's one thing to be able to stand in front of a co-operating teacher (or a class) and explain the why's and wherefor's of a lesson. It's quite another to have to prepare a full-on dog and pony show to fit one's answer into program specifications. Or as Singer says, "Student teaching is about learning to be an effective and creative teacher. edTPA is about following directions."
I can agree that teachers need to be able to articulate what they're doing. But that's not the question-- the question is Why have them do it in the manner proscribed by edTPA? What about the edTPA project requirements marks these requirements as the very best way to demonstrate these skills? Nowhere in your letter (or, really, in edTPA/Pearson's website) is there a real answer for that. Singer asked directly what the research basis was for the validity of the program, and received a homina-homina-homina non-answer.
You say, "Furthermore, we do not agree with the claim that the edTPA demands only one way to demonstrate what is good teaching." But that's not the criticism. I am reminded of a student I watched working on Study Island, a computerized tutoring program. I was covering a math class and watching a student struggle. "I know the answer," he said. "I just have to figure out how the program wants me to say it." That is edTPA's problem. You can come up with any answer you want, but you have to put it all in the right package. edTPA's one useful strength is that it prepares future teachers to deal with pointless inflexible useless bureaucratic baloney; its corresponding weakness is that it fosters the notion that teaching is like a big final project for a college class.
You also attempt to address the question of who scores the project. You and the edTPA talking points paper agree: the projects are scored by trained educators with background in teacher training. I believe that, because a while back I followed a recruiting link for that very work. It took me directly to Pearson. I fared somewhat better than colleagues who have received invitations to be scorers for disciplines which they do not teach. And while Singer's charge that edTPA will be scored by Pearson-hired temps may be incorrect, let's be honest-- it doesn't matter. What really matters is who will select and train those evaluators. What matters is who writes the rubric and enforces its interpretation. What are the odds that Pearson, holder of the big fat contract to oversee and administer edTPA, is doing that job?
You wrap up with some pretty words that boil down to, "Well, it's better than a damn standardized test like the Praxis," and I agree. edTPA is a better than Praxis in the same way that being punched in the face is better than being punched in the throat. And while edTPA doesn't use student test scores yet, Mercedes Schneider reported almost a year ago that AACTE has embraced the VAM-loving folks at CAEP, who think VAM would go great with edTPA.
You cite some weak research that 96% of students reported a "positive influence" for edTPA. I read that to mean that a large number of students checked some version of "Well, it didn't make me teach any worse." This is not a ringing endorsement, and it speaks to the biggest unanswered question about edTPA.
Why do we need it?
Seriously. I'm an old fart, so I went to teacher school and my department trained me and then said, "We believe you're ready. Here's a diploma and a teaching certificate. Get to work." And I've been doing okay ever since. I have to ask (and I asked the same thing about the Praxis)-- did college education departments get stupider after I graduated?
Are you seriously telling me that as the CUNY teacher education department, when you are done teaching a student and mentoring him through student teaching, when you have put him through all the paces that your department has designed, you have to turn to the world, shrug and say, "I dunno. maybe he's ready; maybe he isn't. I mean, we gave him a diploma and all, but that was just a formality. We have no idea whether we have actually prepared him to be a teacher or not. We'd better hire somebody else to figure it out."
It's not that I don't think there are college ed departments in serious, serious trouble. Inadequate prep with barely drive-by supervision during student teaching, checking nothing except the student's ability to pay-- there are college departments that need to be revamped or terminated. edTPA, with its serious of narrow-scoped color-by-numbers is not the answer. A highly artificial five-day "project" is a supremely inauthentic and unhelpful command performance. A college teacher training program that thinks it's a great idea is probably one of the departments that needs to be dismantled.
But then, it looks like you need to have this conversation with your own colleagues.
Friday, June 13, 2014
Directory of Anti-Teacher Trolls
It may or may not be a good idea to attempt reading all the pieces responding to the Vergara decision, but it's definitely a mistake to read the comments section for any of them.
If there is any group that has been emboldened by the California court's fact-free finding against teacher job protections, it has been the legion of anti-teacher trolls. From mainstreamish media like Slate to the usual bloggy outposts, teacher bashing trollery is in high gear.
So this seems like the perfect time to provide a directory of the basic varieties of internet teacher-haters you may encounter. (And remember-- don't feed them.)
Childless Troll
I don't have any kids, so why should I be paying any kinds of taxes to pay teachers salary? Cut their salary back to where I don't have to pay any taxes ever. Mind you, I still expect my doctor, neighbors, fellow voters, and every employed person I ever deal with to be an educated adult. I just don't want there to be any schools. I don't know how that's going to work. You're so smart, you figure it out.
Public Service Troll
People should work with children for free because it's such important work (also, musicians and artists should never want to be paid). When teachers complain about salary and benefits, it's unseemly. If they really cared about the children, teachers would happily live in a cardboard box just for the warm glow of satisfaction that comes from teaching. When teachers complain about no raise for eight years or trying to support their family, it just pisses me off-- don't they care about the children??
"Those Damn Unions" Troll
It's the damn teachers union. Teachers all want to go sleep at their desks because the union will protect them. The union does nothing but protect bad teachers. In fact, the union actually goes out, recruits bad teachers, and then cleverly forces administrations to give these crappy teachers tenure. The union also elected Obama President, and they have the power to bend all elected officials to their will (except for Rand Paul). Union leaders have a giant pile of money that they like to swim in a la Scrooge McDuck; they use it to buy all the elections and all the power.
Teacher Hater Troll
Teachers are the single biggest obstacle to education today. They are only in it for the power and the glory. Well, no-- they also became teachers because they knew that would put them in the best position to interfere with the education of American students, which is every teacher's goal. Teachers hate children, and they hate learning, so they become teachers so they can devote their entire lives to destroying those things. It's perfectly logical.
Race To The Bottom Troll
The guy who cooks the fries at McDonalds does not have tenure or make any more than minimum wage or get vacations, so neither should teachers. The guy who dropped out of school in tenth grade and now works part-time at Mega-Mart doesn't have job security, and he barely makes enough to pay his cellphone bill, so why should teachers not have to struggle, too? There are employers in this country who force their workers to toil in unconscionable conditions; why should we fight to improve those conditions when we can fight to drag teachers down to that crappy level instead.
Sad Bitter Memories Troll
I hated high school. My teachers were mean to me. I remember a couple who picked on me all the time just because I didn't do my work and slept in class a lot. And boy, they did a crappy job of teaching me anything. I sat in their classroom like a houseplant at least three days a week, and I didn't learn a thing. Boy, did they suck! Crappy teachers like that ought to be fired immediately! And that principal who yelled at me for setting fire to the library? That guy never liked me. Fire 'em all.
Unlikely Anecdote Troll
There was this one teacher in the town just over from where I went to school, and one day he brought in a nine millimeter machine gun and mowed down every kid in his first three classes. The principal was going to fire him, but the union said he couldn't because of tenure, so that guy just kept working there. They even put kids in his class who were related to the ones he shot. Tenure has to be made illegal right away.
Just Plain Wrong Troll
Tenure actually guarantees teachers a job for life, and then for thirty years after they retire and fifty years after they die. It's true. Once you get hired as a teacher you are guaranteed a paycheck with benefits for the next 150 years.
Confused Baloney Troll
If you really care about children and educational excellence, then you want to see teachers slapped down. The only way to foster excellence in education is by beating teachers down so they know their place. Only by beating everyone in the bucket can we get the cream to rise to the top.
Like A Business Troll
You know, in every other job, you get judged on your performance and then rewarded or fired accordingly. Personally, I would have been a useless lazy bastard at my job except that my boss was always looking over my shoulder. People suck unless you threaten them. Nobody threatens teachers enough; that's why they all suck. All the best businesses like, you know, big investment banks like Lehman Brothers or energy companies like Enron-- those totally function on accountability.
Fake Statistic Troll
It's a known fact that 63% of teachers failed high school shop class, and 43% are unable to even dress themselves. If you have a bad teacher in Kindergarten, it's a proven fact that you will make $1 trillion dollars less in life; also, you'll be plagued with adolescent acne until you're 34, and your children will be ugly. 92% of high school graduates last year were unable to read, and 46% of those were unable to even identify the English language. Also, 143% of urban teachers are "highly ineffective" and 52% of those are "grossly ineffective" and 24% of those actually give off waves that cause metal surfaces to rust. I ask you, how can we continue to support public education under these conditions.
Tin Hat Troll
Teachers are part of the Agenda 21 agenda, and will be used as tools to turn students into mindless puppets who will smother their parents in their beds at night. You can read all about it in the Codexes of the Postuleminatti.
Charter School Troll
All of these bad things only apply to public school. In charter schools, all students develop a cure for cancer and build pink unicorns from ordinary materials you can find around the house.
Accountability Troll
There are still poor children in this country who are doing poorly in school. That must be a teacher's fault. Hunt that teacher down and fire him, repeatedly.
Incoherent Rage Troll
Teachers just all suck with the suckiness think they're so smarty pants with their fancy college edumacations and don't even work a whole year or a whole day even they just work an hour and then twelve months off every summer resting up from just babysitting which any moron could do so fire them all because, suck gaaaaahhh.
If I missed any, you can just sign on as a Hey You Made A Serious Omission troll in the comments below.
If there is any group that has been emboldened by the California court's fact-free finding against teacher job protections, it has been the legion of anti-teacher trolls. From mainstreamish media like Slate to the usual bloggy outposts, teacher bashing trollery is in high gear.
So this seems like the perfect time to provide a directory of the basic varieties of internet teacher-haters you may encounter. (And remember-- don't feed them.)
Childless Troll
I don't have any kids, so why should I be paying any kinds of taxes to pay teachers salary? Cut their salary back to where I don't have to pay any taxes ever. Mind you, I still expect my doctor, neighbors, fellow voters, and every employed person I ever deal with to be an educated adult. I just don't want there to be any schools. I don't know how that's going to work. You're so smart, you figure it out.
Public Service Troll
People should work with children for free because it's such important work (also, musicians and artists should never want to be paid). When teachers complain about salary and benefits, it's unseemly. If they really cared about the children, teachers would happily live in a cardboard box just for the warm glow of satisfaction that comes from teaching. When teachers complain about no raise for eight years or trying to support their family, it just pisses me off-- don't they care about the children??
"Those Damn Unions" Troll
It's the damn teachers union. Teachers all want to go sleep at their desks because the union will protect them. The union does nothing but protect bad teachers. In fact, the union actually goes out, recruits bad teachers, and then cleverly forces administrations to give these crappy teachers tenure. The union also elected Obama President, and they have the power to bend all elected officials to their will (except for Rand Paul). Union leaders have a giant pile of money that they like to swim in a la Scrooge McDuck; they use it to buy all the elections and all the power.
Teacher Hater Troll
Teachers are the single biggest obstacle to education today. They are only in it for the power and the glory. Well, no-- they also became teachers because they knew that would put them in the best position to interfere with the education of American students, which is every teacher's goal. Teachers hate children, and they hate learning, so they become teachers so they can devote their entire lives to destroying those things. It's perfectly logical.
Race To The Bottom Troll
The guy who cooks the fries at McDonalds does not have tenure or make any more than minimum wage or get vacations, so neither should teachers. The guy who dropped out of school in tenth grade and now works part-time at Mega-Mart doesn't have job security, and he barely makes enough to pay his cellphone bill, so why should teachers not have to struggle, too? There are employers in this country who force their workers to toil in unconscionable conditions; why should we fight to improve those conditions when we can fight to drag teachers down to that crappy level instead.
Sad Bitter Memories Troll
I hated high school. My teachers were mean to me. I remember a couple who picked on me all the time just because I didn't do my work and slept in class a lot. And boy, they did a crappy job of teaching me anything. I sat in their classroom like a houseplant at least three days a week, and I didn't learn a thing. Boy, did they suck! Crappy teachers like that ought to be fired immediately! And that principal who yelled at me for setting fire to the library? That guy never liked me. Fire 'em all.
Unlikely Anecdote Troll
There was this one teacher in the town just over from where I went to school, and one day he brought in a nine millimeter machine gun and mowed down every kid in his first three classes. The principal was going to fire him, but the union said he couldn't because of tenure, so that guy just kept working there. They even put kids in his class who were related to the ones he shot. Tenure has to be made illegal right away.
Just Plain Wrong Troll
Tenure actually guarantees teachers a job for life, and then for thirty years after they retire and fifty years after they die. It's true. Once you get hired as a teacher you are guaranteed a paycheck with benefits for the next 150 years.
Confused Baloney Troll
If you really care about children and educational excellence, then you want to see teachers slapped down. The only way to foster excellence in education is by beating teachers down so they know their place. Only by beating everyone in the bucket can we get the cream to rise to the top.
Like A Business Troll
You know, in every other job, you get judged on your performance and then rewarded or fired accordingly. Personally, I would have been a useless lazy bastard at my job except that my boss was always looking over my shoulder. People suck unless you threaten them. Nobody threatens teachers enough; that's why they all suck. All the best businesses like, you know, big investment banks like Lehman Brothers or energy companies like Enron-- those totally function on accountability.
Fake Statistic Troll
It's a known fact that 63% of teachers failed high school shop class, and 43% are unable to even dress themselves. If you have a bad teacher in Kindergarten, it's a proven fact that you will make $1 trillion dollars less in life; also, you'll be plagued with adolescent acne until you're 34, and your children will be ugly. 92% of high school graduates last year were unable to read, and 46% of those were unable to even identify the English language. Also, 143% of urban teachers are "highly ineffective" and 52% of those are "grossly ineffective" and 24% of those actually give off waves that cause metal surfaces to rust. I ask you, how can we continue to support public education under these conditions.
Tin Hat Troll
Teachers are part of the Agenda 21 agenda, and will be used as tools to turn students into mindless puppets who will smother their parents in their beds at night. You can read all about it in the Codexes of the Postuleminatti.
Charter School Troll
All of these bad things only apply to public school. In charter schools, all students develop a cure for cancer and build pink unicorns from ordinary materials you can find around the house.
Accountability Troll
There are still poor children in this country who are doing poorly in school. That must be a teacher's fault. Hunt that teacher down and fire him, repeatedly.
Incoherent Rage Troll
Teachers just all suck with the suckiness think they're so smarty pants with their fancy college edumacations and don't even work a whole year or a whole day even they just work an hour and then twelve months off every summer resting up from just babysitting which any moron could do so fire them all because, suck gaaaaahhh.
If I missed any, you can just sign on as a Hey You Made A Serious Omission troll in the comments below.
Thursday, June 12, 2014
Ineffective Forever
This old piece of reformster wisdom has been popping up again in the wake of Vergara.
I've explained this before, but let me lay out for you once again how the new interpretation of "ineffective" or "low-performing" guarantees that there will always be an endless supply of ineffective teachers.
The new definition of "ineffective teacher" is "teacher whose students score poorly on test."
Add to that the assumption that a student only scores low on a test because of the student had an ineffective teacher.
You have now created a perfect circular definition. And the beauty of this is that in order to generate the statistics tossed around in the poster above, you don't even have to evaluate teachers!
At Rich White Kid Academy, 50 out of 1000 students scored Below Basic on The Big Test. At Poor Brown Kid High, 100 out of 1000 scored Below Basic. Because the only admitted explanation for a Below Basic score is ineffective teaching, the only reason PBKH could have twice as many failing scores is because they have twice as many ineffective teachers! Voila! See how easy it is??
Look, I don't know what methodology these guys used. It's entirely possible that they inserted the extra step of doing actual teacher evaluations. It doesn't matter. As long as you don't consider the possibility that low-income students do poorly on standardized tests because they go to schools with chaotic administrations, high staff turnover, crumbling facilities, lack of resources, dangerous neighborhoods, and backgrounds that do not fit them for culturally-biased standardized tests-- as long as you don't consider any of that, one thing remains certain--
Low-income students will always be taught by ineffective low-performing teachers.
If you define "bad teacher" as "whoever is standing in front of these low-testing students," it doesn't matter who stands there. Whoever it is, he's ineffective.
It is like concluding that the people running up the side of the mountain are slower runners than the people running down the mountain. It is like concluding that people who stand outside in the rain are worse at keeping their clothes dry than inside-standers. It is like concluding that people who are standing in ten-foot holes have poorer distance vision than people who are standing on ladders.
You can have people trade places all day-- you will always find roughly the same distribution of slow/fast, wet/dry. good/bad vision.
It is literally--literally-- like drawing an X on a classroom floor and saying, "Any teacher who stands here is an ineffective teacher."
How do reformsters think this approach will affect their stated plan of putting a great teacher in front of those low-income students? How many teachers (or TFA temp bodies) do they plan to run through that meat grinder before they admit that other factors might be in play? And how do they plan to recruit teachers to stand on that big X, to volunteer for an "ineffective" rating?
So am I saying the poverty and chaos and crumbling building and all the rest is an excuse?
I am not. In fact, once we realize it's not an excuse, we can start to see that for those schools, the situation is actually worse than what I've described so far.
Because that allegedly ineffective teacher may be, by virtue of connecting with students and hard work and love and, yes, even grit, may be accomplishing great things in the face of tremendous odds-- just not super-duper standardized test scores.
Because I've talked so far about all these people as if they are easily interchangeable when in fact they are not. A teacher who is awesomely effective in one school setting might be meh in another. That teacher you've rated "ineffective" because of test scores might, in fact, be the most awesomely perfect person for the job. They might have accomplished great things in spite of the chaos and crumbling and underfunding and lack of admin support and resources, and if you had just fixed any of those things, that teacher would have accomplished miracles for you. But instead you want to fire her and replace her with someone who may have no idea how to face the specific challenges of that classroom.
In other words, by focusing on a bogus definition of effectiveness, you actually have no idea of which teachers are great for a particular classroom. It's not just that the reformster definition of effective is unjust and unfair; its innate wrongness will actively thwart any attempts to make anything better. It's almost-- almost-- as if reformsters actually want public schools to fail.
I've explained this before, but let me lay out for you once again how the new interpretation of "ineffective" or "low-performing" guarantees that there will always be an endless supply of ineffective teachers.
The new definition of "ineffective teacher" is "teacher whose students score poorly on test."
Add to that the assumption that a student only scores low on a test because of the student had an ineffective teacher.
You have now created a perfect circular definition. And the beauty of this is that in order to generate the statistics tossed around in the poster above, you don't even have to evaluate teachers!
At Rich White Kid Academy, 50 out of 1000 students scored Below Basic on The Big Test. At Poor Brown Kid High, 100 out of 1000 scored Below Basic. Because the only admitted explanation for a Below Basic score is ineffective teaching, the only reason PBKH could have twice as many failing scores is because they have twice as many ineffective teachers! Voila! See how easy it is??
Look, I don't know what methodology these guys used. It's entirely possible that they inserted the extra step of doing actual teacher evaluations. It doesn't matter. As long as you don't consider the possibility that low-income students do poorly on standardized tests because they go to schools with chaotic administrations, high staff turnover, crumbling facilities, lack of resources, dangerous neighborhoods, and backgrounds that do not fit them for culturally-biased standardized tests-- as long as you don't consider any of that, one thing remains certain--
Low-income students will always be taught by ineffective low-performing teachers.
If you define "bad teacher" as "whoever is standing in front of these low-testing students," it doesn't matter who stands there. Whoever it is, he's ineffective.
It is like concluding that the people running up the side of the mountain are slower runners than the people running down the mountain. It is like concluding that people who stand outside in the rain are worse at keeping their clothes dry than inside-standers. It is like concluding that people who are standing in ten-foot holes have poorer distance vision than people who are standing on ladders.
You can have people trade places all day-- you will always find roughly the same distribution of slow/fast, wet/dry. good/bad vision.
It is literally--literally-- like drawing an X on a classroom floor and saying, "Any teacher who stands here is an ineffective teacher."
How do reformsters think this approach will affect their stated plan of putting a great teacher in front of those low-income students? How many teachers (or TFA temp bodies) do they plan to run through that meat grinder before they admit that other factors might be in play? And how do they plan to recruit teachers to stand on that big X, to volunteer for an "ineffective" rating?
So am I saying the poverty and chaos and crumbling building and all the rest is an excuse?
I am not. In fact, once we realize it's not an excuse, we can start to see that for those schools, the situation is actually worse than what I've described so far.
Because that allegedly ineffective teacher may be, by virtue of connecting with students and hard work and love and, yes, even grit, may be accomplishing great things in the face of tremendous odds-- just not super-duper standardized test scores.
Because I've talked so far about all these people as if they are easily interchangeable when in fact they are not. A teacher who is awesomely effective in one school setting might be meh in another. That teacher you've rated "ineffective" because of test scores might, in fact, be the most awesomely perfect person for the job. They might have accomplished great things in spite of the chaos and crumbling and underfunding and lack of admin support and resources, and if you had just fixed any of those things, that teacher would have accomplished miracles for you. But instead you want to fire her and replace her with someone who may have no idea how to face the specific challenges of that classroom.
In other words, by focusing on a bogus definition of effectiveness, you actually have no idea of which teachers are great for a particular classroom. It's not just that the reformster definition of effective is unjust and unfair; its innate wrongness will actively thwart any attempts to make anything better. It's almost-- almost-- as if reformsters actually want public schools to fail.
Let's (Not) Pay Teachers More
In education reformster land, words often mean the opposite of what they say. So, for instance, "Let's protect excellent teachers" actually means "Let's fix it so that any teachers can be fired at any time."
But a popular new opposites-land reformster refrain is "We need to pay teachers more."
It has been featured in a many StudentsFirst campaigns (including a crowdsourcing plea on a breast cancer site?!) and is a prominent feature of new initiatives like the one being discussed in Indianapolis. Arne Duncan has said, "Let's pay great teachers $150K"
You would think "Let's pay teachers more" would be a fairly straightforward proposal. We could raise state taxes or even use some of that free federal money that DC makes appear out of nowhere. Whatever the source, we could fulfill this goal with a simple two-step process:
1) Gather up more money
2) Give it to teachers
The problem with that plan is Step 1. If there is anything reformsters are in absolute agreement on, it is that public school systems should cost less. So how are we going to pay more and make schools cost less?
The Indianapolis proposal shows part of how this works. "It... challenges the traditional step salary scale by proposing a cut in the pay for experience to instead create a funding pool for bonuses." By cutting the traditional experience-based scale, districts can free up a bunch of money which can then be divided up based on extra responsibilities and rewards for excellence. In other words, the new process would be:
1) Gather up money that used to be for raises
2) Let teachers fight over it
There are, to put it mildly, many challenges in a system like this. One is the damage to any sort of collegial atmosphere as everyone has to fight over a slice of the pie. This is not just a matter of greed; depending on how this system is structured, I may need to beat you out in order to pay my gas bills this winter so, no, I will not help you figure out a better way to teach that unit, and under no circumstances will I stand by and let you transfer Johnny Rocksforbrains from your class into mine.
Another huge problem with this system is the same problem with almost everything proposed by reformsters. When StudentsFirst says "Those who show they can move kids along academically should be compensated accordingly" what it means is "Pay teachers whose students get good test scores."
So, get a good class, get a bonus. Get a lousy class, get no bonus. And you teachers who teach subjects that aren't one The Test? Sucks to be you. And if school has many excellent teachers? Too bad. I've always maintained that one of the reasons schools can't do true merit pay is that no school board is ever going to say to the public, "Hey, we have so many excellent teachers that deserve merit bonuses that we must raise taxes to do it up right." That pie is never going to get bigger.
Some systems may fold test scores in with observations, but most of us have already heard the refrain-- "Super-duper awesome excellence (or whatever your state calls it) is a place you visit, not a place where you live." Translation: you will only get bonus-worthy evaluations occasionally. Reformsters are willing to offer big money to "great" teachers because they are so certain that most teachers aren't great at all.
So would people want to pursue a career where their pay might not even keep pace with inflation over the course of their professional lives? Actually, North Carolina has been experimenting with this very approach, and the busloads of teachers quitting North Carolina schools is our answer. Even people who love teaching find it hard-to-impossible to devote their lives (and their family's support) to a job where the pay starts out mediocre and then shrinks ever year afterwards.
But it turns out that's a feature, not a bug. Mike Petrilli from the Fordham Institute (motto: the best thinky tank money can buy) states it plain in the New York Times: "Our public education system is among the only institutions in the land still pretending that professionals will spend their whole careers in a single job." Petrilli is pretty sure that millennials don't even want lifelong careers, which is great, because "lifers" are a drag on the education system.
Part of the reformster model of a perfect school is one where the staff churns and turns regularly. This not only keeps direct staff costs down, but also solves the problem of those nasty pensions, which can get so expensive if someone spends a whole career in education.
So "Let's pay teachers more" really means "Let's pay some teachers a little more for one or two years and hope they go away before they start to really care." It definitely does not mean "Let's turn teaching into a career that features really impressive career earnings."
But a popular new opposites-land reformster refrain is "We need to pay teachers more."
It has been featured in a many StudentsFirst campaigns (including a crowdsourcing plea on a breast cancer site?!) and is a prominent feature of new initiatives like the one being discussed in Indianapolis. Arne Duncan has said, "Let's pay great teachers $150K"
You would think "Let's pay teachers more" would be a fairly straightforward proposal. We could raise state taxes or even use some of that free federal money that DC makes appear out of nowhere. Whatever the source, we could fulfill this goal with a simple two-step process:
1) Gather up more money
2) Give it to teachers
The problem with that plan is Step 1. If there is anything reformsters are in absolute agreement on, it is that public school systems should cost less. So how are we going to pay more and make schools cost less?
The Indianapolis proposal shows part of how this works. "It... challenges the traditional step salary scale by proposing a cut in the pay for experience to instead create a funding pool for bonuses." By cutting the traditional experience-based scale, districts can free up a bunch of money which can then be divided up based on extra responsibilities and rewards for excellence. In other words, the new process would be:
1) Gather up money that used to be for raises
2) Let teachers fight over it
There are, to put it mildly, many challenges in a system like this. One is the damage to any sort of collegial atmosphere as everyone has to fight over a slice of the pie. This is not just a matter of greed; depending on how this system is structured, I may need to beat you out in order to pay my gas bills this winter so, no, I will not help you figure out a better way to teach that unit, and under no circumstances will I stand by and let you transfer Johnny Rocksforbrains from your class into mine.
Another huge problem with this system is the same problem with almost everything proposed by reformsters. When StudentsFirst says "Those who show they can move kids along academically should be compensated accordingly" what it means is "Pay teachers whose students get good test scores."
So, get a good class, get a bonus. Get a lousy class, get no bonus. And you teachers who teach subjects that aren't one The Test? Sucks to be you. And if school has many excellent teachers? Too bad. I've always maintained that one of the reasons schools can't do true merit pay is that no school board is ever going to say to the public, "Hey, we have so many excellent teachers that deserve merit bonuses that we must raise taxes to do it up right." That pie is never going to get bigger.
Some systems may fold test scores in with observations, but most of us have already heard the refrain-- "Super-duper awesome excellence (or whatever your state calls it) is a place you visit, not a place where you live." Translation: you will only get bonus-worthy evaluations occasionally. Reformsters are willing to offer big money to "great" teachers because they are so certain that most teachers aren't great at all.
So would people want to pursue a career where their pay might not even keep pace with inflation over the course of their professional lives? Actually, North Carolina has been experimenting with this very approach, and the busloads of teachers quitting North Carolina schools is our answer. Even people who love teaching find it hard-to-impossible to devote their lives (and their family's support) to a job where the pay starts out mediocre and then shrinks ever year afterwards.
But it turns out that's a feature, not a bug. Mike Petrilli from the Fordham Institute (motto: the best thinky tank money can buy) states it plain in the New York Times: "Our public education system is among the only institutions in the land still pretending that professionals will spend their whole careers in a single job." Petrilli is pretty sure that millennials don't even want lifelong careers, which is great, because "lifers" are a drag on the education system.
Part of the reformster model of a perfect school is one where the staff churns and turns regularly. This not only keeps direct staff costs down, but also solves the problem of those nasty pensions, which can get so expensive if someone spends a whole career in education.
So "Let's pay teachers more" really means "Let's pay some teachers a little more for one or two years and hope they go away before they start to really care." It definitely does not mean "Let's turn teaching into a career that features really impressive career earnings."
Are Reformsters Under Attack?
I have generally avoided picking on quotes from That Woman that appear in her joint blogventure with Jack Schneider, mostly because I think it's a worthy experiment that deserves some place to breathe. But recently she dropped an extraordinary quote that I can't let pass. It happened in a discussion of unions, specifically discussing the need for bridge-building if any collaboration is going to occur.
You say that would require a cease-fire against the unions; but I'd say that the cease-fire needs to be mutual. Reformers are under attack every day from unions as well.
This is a false equivalency of the rankest kind. Let us look, for instance, at my state of Pennsylvania.
Currently I, as a teacher, am under attack by StudentsFirst. Their national Let's Trash Tenure & FILO tour has been here for a few months, complete with slick advertising, video clips, and well-heeled lobbying.
As a teacher with thirty-some years of experience, I am directly in the cross-hairs of this campaign. StudentsFirst asserts that I need to live with the constant threat of being fired or else I will just default to Lazy Slacker status. They would like career status to be based on PA's version of VAM which includes the results of a bad test and, among other things, points for the number of AP courses my school pays the College Board to teach.
I, on the other hand, have a blog.
So let's look at the fire that needs to be mutually ceased.
Attacks against me from StudentsFirst:
1) Undermine my professional reputation by suggesting I must be lazy, cause I'm old.
2) Threaten me with ending my career at will.
3) Using both 1 and 2 to undermine my co-workers and destabilize my workplace
4) Thereby threatening the educational well-being of the students that I am pledged to serve
Attacks against StudentFirst (and That Woman) from me:
1) Sophomoric mockery
Shall we count my union's actions? Let's stick to the state, because to say that the NEA has attacked reformsters is ludicrous; they have been cheerful collaborators. But PSEA? Perhaps a bit more feisty, but have they done anything that would threaten, say, the continued existence of StudentsFirst, or That Woman's ability to make a living in her chosen profession?
There is a name for this technique in contract negotiations-- it's called stripping, and it consists of answering a proposal with a full-out attack (that simply takes things away that were already there), and then pretending that moderating that attack is "meeting you half way."
Union: We'd like to see a $1/hour raise and the addition of some flex time.
Management: We are going to cut off all workers' arms and legs.
Union: What the hell?!
Management: All right. We'll just cut off the legs. Now we've given something; you have to give, too.
The teachers whose careers have been damaged, whose job protections have been stripped, whose employment and wages are being made contingent on damaging junk science, and the manner in which all teachers are working in an environment that is being made increasingly hostile to us-- that's all the work of reformsters and their huge bankrolls and their connections to power.
How have reformsters been hurt? Which thinky tank consultants have had their jobs put in jeopardy? Which astro-turf group operators have had to worry about feeding their children? Which reformers have been forced to listen to teachers telling them how to do their jobs?
Reformsters and teachers are not locked in some struggle between equally powerful opponents who chose to attack each other. This is a battle between rich and powerful people who are being surprised that the less powerful, less rich, less important people they attacked are trying to fight back. No teacher-- certainly no teachers' union-- started any part of this fight, any more than the defense team at the Vergara trial initiated that bogus case.
Yes, reformsters' characters are being impugned. They should stop making it so easy to do that. And they should stop being surprised that when you attack peoples' lives, professions, the very work by which they support and define themselves, those people will not just roll over and play dead. It's flattering that, for just a moment, a reformster would pretend that what we teachers are doing in our own defense is hurting her somehow. But for more than just that moment, I don't believe it. And if I struggle while your foot is on my neck, I'm not sure less struggling from me is the solution to our problem.
You say that would require a cease-fire against the unions; but I'd say that the cease-fire needs to be mutual. Reformers are under attack every day from unions as well.
This is a false equivalency of the rankest kind. Let us look, for instance, at my state of Pennsylvania.
Currently I, as a teacher, am under attack by StudentsFirst. Their national Let's Trash Tenure & FILO tour has been here for a few months, complete with slick advertising, video clips, and well-heeled lobbying.
As a teacher with thirty-some years of experience, I am directly in the cross-hairs of this campaign. StudentsFirst asserts that I need to live with the constant threat of being fired or else I will just default to Lazy Slacker status. They would like career status to be based on PA's version of VAM which includes the results of a bad test and, among other things, points for the number of AP courses my school pays the College Board to teach.
I, on the other hand, have a blog.
So let's look at the fire that needs to be mutually ceased.
Attacks against me from StudentsFirst:
1) Undermine my professional reputation by suggesting I must be lazy, cause I'm old.
2) Threaten me with ending my career at will.
3) Using both 1 and 2 to undermine my co-workers and destabilize my workplace
4) Thereby threatening the educational well-being of the students that I am pledged to serve
Attacks against StudentFirst (and That Woman) from me:
1) Sophomoric mockery
Shall we count my union's actions? Let's stick to the state, because to say that the NEA has attacked reformsters is ludicrous; they have been cheerful collaborators. But PSEA? Perhaps a bit more feisty, but have they done anything that would threaten, say, the continued existence of StudentsFirst, or That Woman's ability to make a living in her chosen profession?
There is a name for this technique in contract negotiations-- it's called stripping, and it consists of answering a proposal with a full-out attack (that simply takes things away that were already there), and then pretending that moderating that attack is "meeting you half way."
Union: We'd like to see a $1/hour raise and the addition of some flex time.
Management: We are going to cut off all workers' arms and legs.
Union: What the hell?!
Management: All right. We'll just cut off the legs. Now we've given something; you have to give, too.
The teachers whose careers have been damaged, whose job protections have been stripped, whose employment and wages are being made contingent on damaging junk science, and the manner in which all teachers are working in an environment that is being made increasingly hostile to us-- that's all the work of reformsters and their huge bankrolls and their connections to power.
How have reformsters been hurt? Which thinky tank consultants have had their jobs put in jeopardy? Which astro-turf group operators have had to worry about feeding their children? Which reformers have been forced to listen to teachers telling them how to do their jobs?
Reformsters and teachers are not locked in some struggle between equally powerful opponents who chose to attack each other. This is a battle between rich and powerful people who are being surprised that the less powerful, less rich, less important people they attacked are trying to fight back. No teacher-- certainly no teachers' union-- started any part of this fight, any more than the defense team at the Vergara trial initiated that bogus case.
Yes, reformsters' characters are being impugned. They should stop making it so easy to do that. And they should stop being surprised that when you attack peoples' lives, professions, the very work by which they support and define themselves, those people will not just roll over and play dead. It's flattering that, for just a moment, a reformster would pretend that what we teachers are doing in our own defense is hurting her somehow. But for more than just that moment, I don't believe it. And if I struggle while your foot is on my neck, I'm not sure less struggling from me is the solution to our problem.
Wednesday, June 11, 2014
StudentsFirst Cynicism Truly Boundless
An alert reader shared with me an email she received with the subject line "Demand Better Compensation for Teachers." Turns out, it's just further proof of how cynical the reformsters at StudentsFirst are these days.
The email was generated by the site Greatergood.com, a website of the kickstarter crowdsourcing variety, aimed specifically at projects for, well, the greater good. Anybody can hop on there and set up a project and try to raise money, so somebody at StudentsFirst apparently said, "Hey, why not."
The "project," which is for some reason in the breast cancer section of the site, uses this copy:
During a speech, President Obama said, "Education is an investment that we need to win the future."
He's right. In order to invest in our kids' futures, we need to invest in teachers now.
The most important school-based factor in a child's education is teacher quality, and America's teachers are grossly underpaid. StudentsFirst is working to elevate the teaching profession by advocating teachers be rewarded for excellence. Those who show they can move kids along academically should be compensated accordingly.
Our great teachers are the ones who help shape our kids' lives, the ones who give them tools to succeed. Teachers help pave the way for children to become scientists, engineers, world leaders. Their impact on a child's life can't be underestimated.
Yes, as witnessed from California courts to the statehouse of Pennsylvania, this is how we're playing it these days. StudentsFirst is dedicated to getting recognition for teachers, and to do that, they are campaigning tireless to get rid of tenure, seniority, unions, and any kind of job protections.
Only by turning teaching into a job that no grown-up would want to take on as a career, only by destroying teaching as a profession, can StudentsFirst get teachers the rewards they deserve. StudentsFirst will keep advocating for excellence, by which they mean "high scores on standardized tests." And if teachers in certain school settings, teaching poor students in crumbling schools with no resources-- well, if those teachers have students with low test scores, it must be the teachers' fault, and they're not excellent.
What's impressively cynical about it is that it's the kind of rhetoric you can only use effectively if you know that you're full of baloney. You can't sell this stuff if you really believe in it, because it only holds up to reality for about five seconds. And as of right now, over 20,000 people have signed on, with heartwarming messages like "It is of grave importance that we value and compensate our teachers" with no idea that they are just props in a cynical ploy by people who place no value on teaching at all.
The email was generated by the site Greatergood.com, a website of the kickstarter crowdsourcing variety, aimed specifically at projects for, well, the greater good. Anybody can hop on there and set up a project and try to raise money, so somebody at StudentsFirst apparently said, "Hey, why not."
The "project," which is for some reason in the breast cancer section of the site, uses this copy:
During a speech, President Obama said, "Education is an investment that we need to win the future."
He's right. In order to invest in our kids' futures, we need to invest in teachers now.
The most important school-based factor in a child's education is teacher quality, and America's teachers are grossly underpaid. StudentsFirst is working to elevate the teaching profession by advocating teachers be rewarded for excellence. Those who show they can move kids along academically should be compensated accordingly.
Our great teachers are the ones who help shape our kids' lives, the ones who give them tools to succeed. Teachers help pave the way for children to become scientists, engineers, world leaders. Their impact on a child's life can't be underestimated.
Yes, as witnessed from California courts to the statehouse of Pennsylvania, this is how we're playing it these days. StudentsFirst is dedicated to getting recognition for teachers, and to do that, they are campaigning tireless to get rid of tenure, seniority, unions, and any kind of job protections.
Only by turning teaching into a job that no grown-up would want to take on as a career, only by destroying teaching as a profession, can StudentsFirst get teachers the rewards they deserve. StudentsFirst will keep advocating for excellence, by which they mean "high scores on standardized tests." And if teachers in certain school settings, teaching poor students in crumbling schools with no resources-- well, if those teachers have students with low test scores, it must be the teachers' fault, and they're not excellent.
What's impressively cynical about it is that it's the kind of rhetoric you can only use effectively if you know that you're full of baloney. You can't sell this stuff if you really believe in it, because it only holds up to reality for about five seconds. And as of right now, over 20,000 people have signed on, with heartwarming messages like "It is of grave importance that we value and compensate our teachers" with no idea that they are just props in a cynical ploy by people who place no value on teaching at all.
The Kindergarten Cell
This little article has stirred up a small tempestita on facebook and the twitter. "Rethinking the Colorful Kindergarten Classroom" by Jan Hoffman, and the argument that has sprung up with it is one more signpost on our road to education hell.
Hoffman is simply passing on some research that says all the colors and pictures and decorations etc etc etc are a distraction for tiny minds, and perhaps our students are best served by a more spartan environment. "Grrr-reat!" say her detractors. "While we're at it, let's strip the walls bare, board up any windows and paint it all grey."
"Not so fast," say other teacher voices. "That's all easy to say if you've never tried to teach an over-stimulated five-year-old." And that's before we get to special needs or ADHD students.
Me? I haven't picked a side in this fight because I am too busy being horrified that we're having the argument in the first place. Seriously. Take a step back with me, please, and look at what's going on.
We are having an argument about the best environment for five year old academics. Our metric is test scores for five year olds. Test. Scores. For. Five. Year. Olds.
Ultimately this is an argument about the best way to cook and eat the family dog. It's an argument about the best club to use on your children. It's an argument about the best way to steer a car blindfolded.
It's an argument about the best way to do something that shouldn't be done in the first place.
This is how we're going to measure success in a Kindergarten classroom? Not happy children enjoying play and socializing with friends? Not joyous human beings learning how to be themselves and enjoy a broader bigger world? But test scores? Test scores???
Standardized tests have no place in Kindergarten. Academic instruction has no place in Kindergarten. We are arguing about whether to put small children in a pretty cell or a plain cell, when we should be fighting to keep them out of a cell in the first place.
Hoffman is simply passing on some research that says all the colors and pictures and decorations etc etc etc are a distraction for tiny minds, and perhaps our students are best served by a more spartan environment. "Grrr-reat!" say her detractors. "While we're at it, let's strip the walls bare, board up any windows and paint it all grey."
"Not so fast," say other teacher voices. "That's all easy to say if you've never tried to teach an over-stimulated five-year-old." And that's before we get to special needs or ADHD students.
Me? I haven't picked a side in this fight because I am too busy being horrified that we're having the argument in the first place. Seriously. Take a step back with me, please, and look at what's going on.
We are having an argument about the best environment for five year old academics. Our metric is test scores for five year olds. Test. Scores. For. Five. Year. Olds.
Ultimately this is an argument about the best way to cook and eat the family dog. It's an argument about the best club to use on your children. It's an argument about the best way to steer a car blindfolded.
It's an argument about the best way to do something that shouldn't be done in the first place.
This is how we're going to measure success in a Kindergarten classroom? Not happy children enjoying play and socializing with friends? Not joyous human beings learning how to be themselves and enjoy a broader bigger world? But test scores? Test scores???
Standardized tests have no place in Kindergarten. Academic instruction has no place in Kindergarten. We are arguing about whether to put small children in a pretty cell or a plain cell, when we should be fighting to keep them out of a cell in the first place.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)