A colleague tells the story of taking an on-line graduate course and being chastised for calling out fellow students for some fairly low-information posts on the topic. Could my colleague please be more polite, reword the posts so they were less "offensive." So he did, and the original posts were erased. The punchline, of course, is that the topic was censorship.
For some reason, it is often a problem in our profession that teachers value niceness over truth.
We sit in a professional development session and listen to a presenter give instructions that we know are questionable at best and just plain dead wrong at worst, but we nod and smile and politely avoid asking any questions or making any comments. After all, we don't want to be rude. We wouldn't like to make anybody uncomfortable. So the presenter leaves thinking he's hit a home run and we go back to our rooms and tell each other how terrible it was (but we don't tell our principal, because that would be rude).
When I was president of a striking union, I had many members who simply didn't want to do anything that might make anybody uncomfortable. Some members were pretty sure that the board and their attorney would be more giving and conciliatory if we were just nicer.
Sometimes this conflict avoidance turns teachers into institutional enablers. A principal creates a new policy that causes some problems, but rather than confront him with the problems, some classroom teachers go out of their way to fix the problem. In the worst version of this scenario, they then sulk because fixing the problem makes them sad, and they think the administration should see their sadness and feel compelled to address it. "Why don't they see the problem and fix it?" they ask. The answer-- because you fixed the problem already. The fact that you are now sad is not his problem. It is no more motivational than telling an alcoholic that you had to lie to cover up for him again.
This is not to say that we should not be team players and do our best for our schools. It is also not to say that we should be contentious shrews who pick a fight over every picayune peccadillo (how long have I waited for an excuse to stick those two words together).
Sometimes conflict happens, and you can only deal with it by dealing with it.
Trust me on this. It's one of the lessons I learned at Divorce School (or "Top Ten Ways I Blew Up My First Marriage") In ALL relationships in life, Rule #1 is You Must Show Up. When you run away or hide to avoid conflict, you break relationship rule #1.
People often blast Laziness as the big enemy of virtue; I think Comfort is far worse. We will go to amazing lengths to avoid being uncomfortable. Like a nice girl being pawed by a grade-A lout, we will allow ourselves to be victims of inexcusable indignities because we don't want to "be mean" or "cause a scene" or "make anyone uncomfortable."
Teachers do this way too much. Way too much. We avoid confronting or speaking out or just standing up and saying "I think that's wrong." We don't tell the truth, or we wrap it in comfortable layers of cotton until it is muffled and all its sharp edges are hidden.
But if you won't tell the truth, you can't be surprised that nobody hears it.
Given the choice between Being Nice and Telling the Truth (and we don't always have to choose between the two), pick Telling the Truth. Pick telling the truth. Show up. You cannot fix what's wrong in your relationship, whether it's with your spouse, your child, your students, your colleagues, your bosses, your profession-- you can't fix ANY of those relationships until you follow Rule #1 and Show Up. And you can't run away from an uncomfortable truth AND show up both at the same time.
Yes, sometimes conflict arrives when you wish it wouldn't. Sometimes we don't get to choose, just like the times that some student in a classroom does something so obvious and unmistakable that you sigh and think, "Well, dammit, now I have to do something." It's like your hungry crying baby or your parent with newly-diagnosed cancer or the spouse who announces they can't take it (whatever it is) one more minute-- you don't choose the fight, but to walk away from the fight is to walk away from the relationship. Sometimes you don't get to choose.
That's why it's generally no kindness to lie to people. And truthfully (and I say this as someone who used to, believe it or not, love Being Nice), Being Nice is basically a selfish impulse. It's not about making life easier for other people; it's about making life nicer, more comfy, for ourselves. Being Nice is not a virtue, particularly when it excuses running away from the truth.
The usual teacher niceness, our compliance, our love of rules, our belief in the hierarchy of schools, has been used against too often. Too many people feel they can kick us knowing that we will not complain, that we will in fact turn on any of our own number who do complain.
We don't have to be mean. We don't have to be unkind ("kind" and "nice" are not the same at all, but this post is already too long). But we do have to speak our truth. We do have to stop sitting silently when people say things in our hearing that are just not so. We have to stop taking attacks and slander on our profession because we don't want anyone to feel uncomfortable.
Believe it or not, I am not really a fighter. And one of my guiding principles is that life produces enough pain and challenge on its own, so it's a sin to make more pain and challenge in the world when you don't have to. Bu I also believe it's wrong to sit silent so that someone else can commit a wrong unnoticed and unchallenged. You can't just talk; you must also listen (also a whole other post). But you have to speak up. You have to value the truth over niceness.
Saturday, June 28, 2014
The Attack on Higher Ed Continues in the NYT
In the battle for American education, new fronts (aka new profit and growth opportunities) have been opening up steadily from Pre-K and Pre-Pre-K all the way up to colleges and universities. Today's New York Times includes a peek at what the attack on colleges and universities will look like.
Kevin Carey says not only do American public schools suck, but so do American colleges and universities.
Kevin Carey is the education policy program director for the New America Foundation. NAF bills itself as a non-partisan thinky tank based in DC. Eric Schmidt, Google's executive chairman, is chair of the NAF board. Their over-a-million-dollar funders include the Gates Foundation and the US State Department. They have their fingers in several pies in their search for bold new ideas that will make America sweller.
However, as presented in the NYT, their new ideas are not so new.
Carey's basis for saying that American public schools suck is that tired old chestnut, PISA scores. And his answer to the question, "How can we know how good our colleges are" is, "Another test from the OECD."
The new OECD project is called the Program for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies and it is stunningly dumb. The OECD gave a test to 166,000 grown men and women with college degrees between the ages of 16 and 65. The test itself, with its alleged emphasis on "real world" problems of literacy and math, sounds plenty dumb on its own. But we don't have to look at the test to see how pointless this exercise is. The test-takers were from the thirty-four member nations plus Russia and Cyprus. So that means roughly 4600 test takers per country, and only some of that small sample were college grads. Whatever tiny data slivers that remained were used to judge the quality of every iteration of every college over the past forty-ish years. That also means that the OECD gave a test to a sixty-year old person and assumed that his results were indicative of the college education he received forty-some years ago, and nothing that happened during those forty years.
This is quote possibly one of the dumbest studies I have ever seen touted as fact. But Carey's point is that American's need to stop thinking that our colleges and universities are any good. Actually, I suppose the point (although he stayed away from this, perhaps realizing it shows the ridiculousness of the study) is that American colleges have been sucking for the last forty-some years. It's funny, because if our colleges and universities had been so bad for so long we might have noticed. I guess those wily graduates of Giant Suck University have been covering it up successfully.
But this is going to be the new line of attack. We have this test, and it proves that our colleges and universities are terrible. I wonder if the solution will turn out to involve government regulation and private corporate take-overs. I would try to figure it all out, but gosh, I graduated from an American college in 1979, so I am probably too dumb.
[Edit: I made a huge mistake. When rereading the NYT piece, I realized that the test was not given to 16-65 year old college grads, but apparently all adults. Meaning that the sample of college grads being compared is even smaller. I have edited the text accordingly.]
Kevin Carey says not only do American public schools suck, but so do American colleges and universities.
Kevin Carey is the education policy program director for the New America Foundation. NAF bills itself as a non-partisan thinky tank based in DC. Eric Schmidt, Google's executive chairman, is chair of the NAF board. Their over-a-million-dollar funders include the Gates Foundation and the US State Department. They have their fingers in several pies in their search for bold new ideas that will make America sweller.
However, as presented in the NYT, their new ideas are not so new.
Carey's basis for saying that American public schools suck is that tired old chestnut, PISA scores. And his answer to the question, "How can we know how good our colleges are" is, "Another test from the OECD."
The new OECD project is called the Program for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies and it is stunningly dumb. The OECD gave a test to 166,000 grown men and women with college degrees between the ages of 16 and 65. The test itself, with its alleged emphasis on "real world" problems of literacy and math, sounds plenty dumb on its own. But we don't have to look at the test to see how pointless this exercise is. The test-takers were from the thirty-four member nations plus Russia and Cyprus. So that means roughly 4600 test takers per country, and only some of that small sample were college grads. Whatever tiny data slivers that remained were used to judge the quality of every iteration of every college over the past forty-ish years. That also means that the OECD gave a test to a sixty-year old person and assumed that his results were indicative of the college education he received forty-some years ago, and nothing that happened during those forty years.
This is quote possibly one of the dumbest studies I have ever seen touted as fact. But Carey's point is that American's need to stop thinking that our colleges and universities are any good. Actually, I suppose the point (although he stayed away from this, perhaps realizing it shows the ridiculousness of the study) is that American colleges have been sucking for the last forty-some years. It's funny, because if our colleges and universities had been so bad for so long we might have noticed. I guess those wily graduates of Giant Suck University have been covering it up successfully.
But this is going to be the new line of attack. We have this test, and it proves that our colleges and universities are terrible. I wonder if the solution will turn out to involve government regulation and private corporate take-overs. I would try to figure it all out, but gosh, I graduated from an American college in 1979, so I am probably too dumb.
[Edit: I made a huge mistake. When rereading the NYT piece, I realized that the test was not given to 16-65 year old college grads, but apparently all adults. Meaning that the sample of college grads being compared is even smaller. I have edited the text accordingly.]
Friday, June 27, 2014
CAP Releases New CCSS Baloney Sandwich
For a couple of days I have had CAP's new "report" open on my desktop, trying to slowly drag myself through it. From its odd cover image (uniformed school children, grasping gigantic pencils; one tries to nonchalantly look at the other's paper, while the cheatee looks back with an expression of "Oh, no, you didn't") to its final pages of "endnotes" cataloging references to everything short of wikipedia, this "report" is a fine embodiment of the Thinky Tank As PR Firm school of advocacy.
"Roadmap for a Successful Transition to the Common Core in States and Districts" caught my eye thanks to a CAP tweet touting it as a document that"shows" how CCSS, impemented well, totally works. I think CAP has confused "shows" with "says." The "report" is actually a set of recommendations. Let's look, shall we?
Introduction
At this point, these reformster puff pieces of CCSS praise pretty much write themselves. Roadmap of knowledge and skills needed for 21st century. End of rote memorization and bubble tests; it'll be all sunshine and critical thinking form now on. Evidence based. BUT despite the awesome, CCSS are in jeopardy Righties think feds overreach, but "no federal input" into standards (at least CAP doesn't try to claim they are teacher-written). And there have been some implementation bobbles that we need to work out. Teachers are "apprehensive" about test-based eval (nice word choice-- I hear many front-line soldiers are apprehensive about being shot and killed).
But good news-- we can save the Core. Just follow this handy list of recommendations and everything will be all hunky AND dory! The recommendations are summarized in the intro, but let's skip the foreplay and jump right into bed!
1. States and Districts should administer better, fairer and fewer.
So I see the heading and think, "Hey, something I can agree with," but CAP blows it in the very first sentence:
"Testing is critical to ensuring students receive a high-quality education..." Yes, just like a yardstick is necessary to growing tall and a scale is necessary to getting in shape.
It doesn't get any better. CAP's complaint is that the current tests aren't Common Core-y enough. They should be harder and more confusing. And states should all get in the national testing pool, because what good is a test if it doesn't let you compare your kid to a kid a thousand miles away. And we'll also invoke the children of military families because we need to remake the entire education system to accommodate that minute percentage of students, and yet there is no other subgroup we're worried about like, say, students with special needs or English Language Learners or primary grade students whose first encounter with a computer is to take a standardized tests. All of those students should suck it up and get some grit, but military students who move into new states should have a nation's education system designed around them. Also, if CCSS is not a curriculum, how does it help traveling students?
And with better tests, there should be no drilling or test prep. Because although the tests will show if a student is getting a complete education, it will not test anything related to actual knowledge? As long as there are standardized tests, there will be standardized test prep. Anyone who tells you otherwise is selling something.
2. States and Districts should phase in high stakes for teachers and students
I'm pretty sure the authors managed to write this section without including a single True Thing. Take this:
A meaningful system of teacher evaluation that assesses teacher performance across multiple measures, including multiple observations of classroom instruction, student feedback, and measures of achievement gains based on assessments over multiple years, can fairly and reliably identify effective teaching.
And so on. We'll use these VAMMY systems, even though they've been repeatedly debunked and proven inaccurate, invalid, and unreliable, and we will identify the best teachers and then we will, somehow, move them around so that students who previously had ineffective teachers will be given great ones. I've already explained how this is a massive crock.But let me do the short form.
In a 2011 study of 10 school districts across 7 states, the National Center for Education Evaluation found an “overall trend that indicates that low-income students have unequal access, on average, to the district’s highest-performing teachers,” and the distribution of effective teachers is uneven within
and across districts.
No. The study found that low-income students tend to get low scores on tests (not a new finding). The study then assumed that no other reason in the whole entire world could account for that except low-performing teachers, so that must be what kind of teachers the poor kids have.
CAP recognizes that teachers may have concerns about being evaluated by this cockamamie system, and while those concerns are valid, CAP recommends that schools do it anyway-- just not so fast that you spook the natives.
3. States should have statewide accountability systems that single out individual schools
Not how they put it, but my way has fewer words. Use tests to identify problem schools, redirect money and resources accordingly. Show no results because you didn't address the actual problems. Declare schools useless failures, announce that only closing them and bringing in charter operators will fix the schools. Fortunately, charter operators will not be hard to attract since area is receiving additional resources.
Okay, I actually skipped ahead. They only admit to the first couple of steps. I filled in the rest based on what we've already seen in great urban reformist areas.
4. States and schools must ensure that teachers are engaged in the development of—and have access to—comprehensive curricula and instructional materials aligned with the Common Core standards.
Least weaselly thing they've said so far. Giving teachers a fighting chance to adapt to new materials seems like a no-brainer, but a few years ago reformsters were so sure we could build the airplane while we were flying it that this objection was rolled over repeatedly. Nowadays fashionable reformistas are more into building the plane on the ground, so they're "discovering" this idea that teachers have been yelling at them for a while.
CAP points out that schools and states can do this design work on their own, but, hey, there are plenty of consultants out there just itching tocash in on the new standards help schools achieve excellence.
5. States and districts must invest in teacher preparation and ongoing professional development for educators.
Speaking of consultants, there are many that would love to take your money for help you out with teacher training. And don't forget, states-- all college and university teacher training programs should be assimilated as well. It's easier to train them properly if you catch them young.
6. States, districts, and schools should provide additional time for teachers to collaborate and plan together.
This is not stupid. Oddly enough, it's at this point that CAP chooses to bring up the example of what they do in high-performing school systems of other countries. You would think they would have already brought up examples of high-performing nations that organize their schools around a national system of standards-- oh! except there aren't any!
CAP points out that Finland, for example, has its teachers up in front of students several hundred hours per year fewer than we US teachers spend. And then CAP recommends that the solution here is to lengthen the school day. Damn, CAP. This was like shooting fish in a barrel and you still ended up spearing the family cat.
7. States and districts should engage educators, parents, and other stakeholders in the implementation effort
Parents, teachers, community members, businesses, institutions of higher education, and student advocates must be engaged regularly for the Common Core to be implemented successfully.
The fact that we're even talking about this as a recommendation is a sign of how far off track we've been. This is like including "put on pants before you leave the house" in a list of fashion recommendations. Put another way-- if this is news to you, shame on you.
But it does represent a change of direction for reformsters, who started this Journey to the New Status Quo thinking they could just snap their fingers and everyone would fall into line. Live and learn, I guess. Wouldn't it be wacky, though, if someone like David Coleman stepped up and said something like, "Yeah, I was kind of a dick about all of this, and I'd like to apologize for not considering your thoughts and feelings. I'd like to apologize, and I'd like to start over, and I'd like to begin our fresh start by listening to you, teachers, parents community members, etc."
But I digress. What CAP actually advocates is that districts should " partner with supportive nonprofits and other organizations across the state." So, not actual people. Just get hooked up with the right groups.
Schools should prepare parents and families for the revelation that their children suck (probably not looking to Arne for a model here). As for teachers--"States and districts must similarly engage teachers. Not only will it increase teacher readiness to teach to the Common Core, but it also recognizes that teachers are trusted ambassadors with parents and other stakeholders." CAP's point, driven home through the paragraph, is that teacher support is a great marketing tool. They even cite a 50CAN (another fine CCSS advocacy group) study indicating that teachers are most trusted when it comes to evaluating educational changes. No kidding! Who knew?
8. States should help districts get enough computers to take tests.
These tests are supposed to be taken online, because, computers. But thosetest-taking terminals computers aren't going to buy themselves. There's a boatload of money to be handed over, and it will have to some form somewhere.
9. States and districts should use available resources andguidance to improve the Common Core implementation process
That turns out to mean that states and districts should pick up some of these handy papers from various other CCSS-promotion groups. So, like a last "buy our t-shirts in the lobby" announcement.
Conclusion
Insert rewrite of introduction.
Bonus Round
Each recommendation comes with some tales from particular districts. Tales from Hartford's teacher eval system, North Carolina's Move Teachers Around program, Colorado's Involve Teachers in Writing Programs program. Some are just filler-- after the first (fewer tests) section, the anecdotes were of school districts that are definitely looking into probably doing something about that. I didn't find any of them compelling; perhaps you'll feel differently.
Notes!
CAP wants you to see how researchy this paper is. However, almost none of the notes reference actual scholarly studies of any of the standards in action. There are plenty of newspaper articles, many commentaries from other reformsters on the topic of "What I Think You Should Do."In short, there is "proof" in this paper on the same order of the "proof" I include in this blog when I link to myself and to other bloggers.
Finishing Up
Since falling down the reformy rabbit hole, I've become kind of fascinated with this kind of faux scholarly paper product. CAP hasn't done anything more rigorous than what I do here at the blog-- state my opinion in a semi-organized manner, arguing for it based on my own ideas about what's right, what should be right, and how I think the world works. The less-than-serious tone and language I use is my way of acknowledging that this blog is just me, shooting off steam, generally based on nothing except my own powers of observation, logic and language. It would be foolish to use anything I've ever posted as "proof" of anything.
But this type of faux paper dresses it all up in the appearance of scholarship (look! endnotes!!) and slick layout, attached to an organization with a fancy name and slick production values. All of these fake thinky tank PR groups are doing their best to convey some sort of Great Authority when in fact they are just like the rest of us-- bullshitting some words about what they happen to believe is right and true, using some sort of political PR theater to add weight.
It makes me wonder how much undeserved power I could gather if I were an organization instead of a guy, and somebody had given me a huge grant to fancy things up around here. I don't begrudge CAP the right to get on line and express their own sets of beliefs about education, but the only difference between CAP and a Mercedes Schneider or a Jersey Jazzman or a Paul Thomas is that CAP comes wrapped in the finest veneer that money can buy (well, and the number of actual facts used, but let's let that slide for the moment). [Added value addendum: And it's a good pile of money too. From Schneider's research, we learn that CAPS got a nice piece of the Gate$ Foundation pie-- $6.4 million since 2008, with $550,000 specifically for CCSS.]
In other words, stripped of its glossy pdf file, using links instead of endnotes, and attached to its three authors instead of a big PR group, this would just be one more unremarkable blog post, and would probably sink into the same couple-hundred views ephemeracy as most blog posts. Beyond its repackaged same-old-baloney content, this "report" is one more example of how the reformsters depend on money to keep their point of view alive in the marketplace of ideas.
"Roadmap for a Successful Transition to the Common Core in States and Districts" caught my eye thanks to a CAP tweet touting it as a document that"shows" how CCSS, impemented well, totally works. I think CAP has confused "shows" with "says." The "report" is actually a set of recommendations. Let's look, shall we?
Introduction
At this point, these reformster puff pieces of CCSS praise pretty much write themselves. Roadmap of knowledge and skills needed for 21st century. End of rote memorization and bubble tests; it'll be all sunshine and critical thinking form now on. Evidence based. BUT despite the awesome, CCSS are in jeopardy Righties think feds overreach, but "no federal input" into standards (at least CAP doesn't try to claim they are teacher-written). And there have been some implementation bobbles that we need to work out. Teachers are "apprehensive" about test-based eval (nice word choice-- I hear many front-line soldiers are apprehensive about being shot and killed).
But good news-- we can save the Core. Just follow this handy list of recommendations and everything will be all hunky AND dory! The recommendations are summarized in the intro, but let's skip the foreplay and jump right into bed!
1. States and Districts should administer better, fairer and fewer.
So I see the heading and think, "Hey, something I can agree with," but CAP blows it in the very first sentence:
"Testing is critical to ensuring students receive a high-quality education..." Yes, just like a yardstick is necessary to growing tall and a scale is necessary to getting in shape.
It doesn't get any better. CAP's complaint is that the current tests aren't Common Core-y enough. They should be harder and more confusing. And states should all get in the national testing pool, because what good is a test if it doesn't let you compare your kid to a kid a thousand miles away. And we'll also invoke the children of military families because we need to remake the entire education system to accommodate that minute percentage of students, and yet there is no other subgroup we're worried about like, say, students with special needs or English Language Learners or primary grade students whose first encounter with a computer is to take a standardized tests. All of those students should suck it up and get some grit, but military students who move into new states should have a nation's education system designed around them. Also, if CCSS is not a curriculum, how does it help traveling students?
And with better tests, there should be no drilling or test prep. Because although the tests will show if a student is getting a complete education, it will not test anything related to actual knowledge? As long as there are standardized tests, there will be standardized test prep. Anyone who tells you otherwise is selling something.
2. States and Districts should phase in high stakes for teachers and students
I'm pretty sure the authors managed to write this section without including a single True Thing. Take this:
A meaningful system of teacher evaluation that assesses teacher performance across multiple measures, including multiple observations of classroom instruction, student feedback, and measures of achievement gains based on assessments over multiple years, can fairly and reliably identify effective teaching.
And so on. We'll use these VAMMY systems, even though they've been repeatedly debunked and proven inaccurate, invalid, and unreliable, and we will identify the best teachers and then we will, somehow, move them around so that students who previously had ineffective teachers will be given great ones. I've already explained how this is a massive crock.But let me do the short form.
In a 2011 study of 10 school districts across 7 states, the National Center for Education Evaluation found an “overall trend that indicates that low-income students have unequal access, on average, to the district’s highest-performing teachers,” and the distribution of effective teachers is uneven within
and across districts.
No. The study found that low-income students tend to get low scores on tests (not a new finding). The study then assumed that no other reason in the whole entire world could account for that except low-performing teachers, so that must be what kind of teachers the poor kids have.
CAP recognizes that teachers may have concerns about being evaluated by this cockamamie system, and while those concerns are valid, CAP recommends that schools do it anyway-- just not so fast that you spook the natives.
3. States should have statewide accountability systems that single out individual schools
Not how they put it, but my way has fewer words. Use tests to identify problem schools, redirect money and resources accordingly. Show no results because you didn't address the actual problems. Declare schools useless failures, announce that only closing them and bringing in charter operators will fix the schools. Fortunately, charter operators will not be hard to attract since area is receiving additional resources.
Okay, I actually skipped ahead. They only admit to the first couple of steps. I filled in the rest based on what we've already seen in great urban reformist areas.
4. States and schools must ensure that teachers are engaged in the development of—and have access to—comprehensive curricula and instructional materials aligned with the Common Core standards.
Least weaselly thing they've said so far. Giving teachers a fighting chance to adapt to new materials seems like a no-brainer, but a few years ago reformsters were so sure we could build the airplane while we were flying it that this objection was rolled over repeatedly. Nowadays fashionable reformistas are more into building the plane on the ground, so they're "discovering" this idea that teachers have been yelling at them for a while.
CAP points out that schools and states can do this design work on their own, but, hey, there are plenty of consultants out there just itching to
5. States and districts must invest in teacher preparation and ongoing professional development for educators.
Speaking of consultants, there are many that would love to
6. States, districts, and schools should provide additional time for teachers to collaborate and plan together.
This is not stupid. Oddly enough, it's at this point that CAP chooses to bring up the example of what they do in high-performing school systems of other countries. You would think they would have already brought up examples of high-performing nations that organize their schools around a national system of standards-- oh! except there aren't any!
CAP points out that Finland, for example, has its teachers up in front of students several hundred hours per year fewer than we US teachers spend. And then CAP recommends that the solution here is to lengthen the school day. Damn, CAP. This was like shooting fish in a barrel and you still ended up spearing the family cat.
7. States and districts should engage educators, parents, and other stakeholders in the implementation effort
Parents, teachers, community members, businesses, institutions of higher education, and student advocates must be engaged regularly for the Common Core to be implemented successfully.
The fact that we're even talking about this as a recommendation is a sign of how far off track we've been. This is like including "put on pants before you leave the house" in a list of fashion recommendations. Put another way-- if this is news to you, shame on you.
But it does represent a change of direction for reformsters, who started this Journey to the New Status Quo thinking they could just snap their fingers and everyone would fall into line. Live and learn, I guess. Wouldn't it be wacky, though, if someone like David Coleman stepped up and said something like, "Yeah, I was kind of a dick about all of this, and I'd like to apologize for not considering your thoughts and feelings. I'd like to apologize, and I'd like to start over, and I'd like to begin our fresh start by listening to you, teachers, parents community members, etc."
But I digress. What CAP actually advocates is that districts should " partner with supportive nonprofits and other organizations across the state." So, not actual people. Just get hooked up with the right groups.
Schools should prepare parents and families for the revelation that their children suck (probably not looking to Arne for a model here). As for teachers--"States and districts must similarly engage teachers. Not only will it increase teacher readiness to teach to the Common Core, but it also recognizes that teachers are trusted ambassadors with parents and other stakeholders." CAP's point, driven home through the paragraph, is that teacher support is a great marketing tool. They even cite a 50CAN (another fine CCSS advocacy group) study indicating that teachers are most trusted when it comes to evaluating educational changes. No kidding! Who knew?
8. States should help districts get enough computers to take tests.
These tests are supposed to be taken online, because, computers. But those
9. States and districts should use available resources andguidance to improve the Common Core implementation process
That turns out to mean that states and districts should pick up some of these handy papers from various other CCSS-promotion groups. So, like a last "buy our t-shirts in the lobby" announcement.
Conclusion
Insert rewrite of introduction.
Bonus Round
Each recommendation comes with some tales from particular districts. Tales from Hartford's teacher eval system, North Carolina's Move Teachers Around program, Colorado's Involve Teachers in Writing Programs program. Some are just filler-- after the first (fewer tests) section, the anecdotes were of school districts that are definitely looking into probably doing something about that. I didn't find any of them compelling; perhaps you'll feel differently.
Notes!
CAP wants you to see how researchy this paper is. However, almost none of the notes reference actual scholarly studies of any of the standards in action. There are plenty of newspaper articles, many commentaries from other reformsters on the topic of "What I Think You Should Do."In short, there is "proof" in this paper on the same order of the "proof" I include in this blog when I link to myself and to other bloggers.
Finishing Up
Since falling down the reformy rabbit hole, I've become kind of fascinated with this kind of faux scholarly paper product. CAP hasn't done anything more rigorous than what I do here at the blog-- state my opinion in a semi-organized manner, arguing for it based on my own ideas about what's right, what should be right, and how I think the world works. The less-than-serious tone and language I use is my way of acknowledging that this blog is just me, shooting off steam, generally based on nothing except my own powers of observation, logic and language. It would be foolish to use anything I've ever posted as "proof" of anything.
But this type of faux paper dresses it all up in the appearance of scholarship (look! endnotes!!) and slick layout, attached to an organization with a fancy name and slick production values. All of these fake thinky tank PR groups are doing their best to convey some sort of Great Authority when in fact they are just like the rest of us-- bullshitting some words about what they happen to believe is right and true, using some sort of political PR theater to add weight.
It makes me wonder how much undeserved power I could gather if I were an organization instead of a guy, and somebody had given me a huge grant to fancy things up around here. I don't begrudge CAP the right to get on line and express their own sets of beliefs about education, but the only difference between CAP and a Mercedes Schneider or a Jersey Jazzman or a Paul Thomas is that CAP comes wrapped in the finest veneer that money can buy (well, and the number of actual facts used, but let's let that slide for the moment). [Added value addendum: And it's a good pile of money too. From Schneider's research, we learn that CAPS got a nice piece of the Gate$ Foundation pie-- $6.4 million since 2008, with $550,000 specifically for CCSS.]
In other words, stripped of its glossy pdf file, using links instead of endnotes, and attached to its three authors instead of a big PR group, this would just be one more unremarkable blog post, and would probably sink into the same couple-hundred views ephemeracy as most blog posts. Beyond its repackaged same-old-baloney content, this "report" is one more example of how the reformsters depend on money to keep their point of view alive in the marketplace of ideas.
NEA Gives Unencouraging Assembly Preview
The NEA issued an open letter on behalf of itself and "the educators of America." It says something about my tortured relationship with my national union that when they speak, I become anxious. Are they going to say something useful, or are they going to embarrass me again? Let's see how things go this time.
We start with a history lesson. NCLB was a thing. It involved testing. The testing was swell insofar as it provided information "regarding students who struggle with basic math and reading skills." Really? It comes a little close to the whole "teachers don't know how students are doing without standardized tests to guide them" thing, but let's move on. "Test, label and punish" have failed. NCLB did not bring us any closer to edu-nirvana. And now, a video clip.
It's Dennis Van Roekel, trying to sound angry in a somewhat lifelike manner. As usual, he seems to shoot for "I'm angry and outraged that our profession is under attack" and comes up short, landing somewhere between "What do you mean, we're out of cucumber sandwiches" and "I am told that when humans get angry, they often exhibit some of these particular behaviors."
The clip puts us in the context of the upcoming NEA assembly. DVR opens with the NCLB history lesson, declaring that we don't want any more of this bad testing. "We want a new path. We want high standards for all students no matter where they live or their family background." Dammit, Dennis. There is certainly nothing wrong with that on the face of it, other than it borrows the rhetoric of reformsters in general and the Vergara plaintiffs in particular.
"We want assessments that help us truly understand where our students are struggling, but we are all tired over testing that now requires almost a third of our time." He follows up with more of the better testing complaints. Tests on materials that haven't been taught. Teachers evaluated on test scores of subjects they don't teach and students they never had in class.
"It is time to end this toxic testing and implement real accountability for our public education system." I appreciate the sentiment. I actually like that after decades of punting on the issue, the union finally wants to get involved in accountability. But the very structure of this sentence supports the premise that student testing and teacher accountability are inextricably linked.
"As educators, we know what works." Along with "toxic testing," I think this is a sting of words we can expect to hear repeated many times. It's a nice line, but we're going to have to figure out what comes after it. What is it we know?
DVR follows with an odd sentence about kindergartners and assessment, then jump-cuts to how race and class too often determine the line between "those who receive a quality education and those who do not." No. No no no. DVR here reinforces the reformster narrative that schools in poor and difficult areas just have a delivery problem, and not a cultural problem or poverty problem or readiness problem. Again, DVR isn't saying anything that the Vergara paintiffs wouldn't sign off on.
DVR would like us to join him in a national campaign to put the focus "back on student learning." Wait! What? Where else does he think the focus has been? That's not the problem-- reformsters will swear up and down that their whole focus is on student learning, or "outputs," or what we used to call "learning objectives (TSWBAT)." Everybody on all sides of the issues is focused on student learning (or at least pretending they are). The problem here is that some folks think a standardized test on a couple of subjects is the be-all and end-all of measuring student learning.
"We must call on leaders such as secretary Arne Duncan to start leading the effort to---" Wait!! Wait just a minute! Maybe some efforts could be lead by someone like, I don't know, the union leaders who represent millions of the teaching professionals in this country. Maybe they could be leaders!
All right-- this has degenerated quickly, but DVR has a list of things that somebody else should lead us in pursuing, so let's see what that list is, shall we.
-- bring an end to excessive toxic testing
-- provide equality of opportunity for each and every student
-- develop new accountability system that prioritizes learning over labels
-- provide best possible learning environment for our students
1 & 2 are swell. 4 is harmlessly broad. But 3-- what is that supposed to mean, exactly?
DVR is calling on everyone to sign on to this national campaign for...um... something. Also, parents and civil rights community and everyone who is a friend and supporter of public education. "Too many people want to isolate and divide us." So DVR would like us to join in a national campaign for student success. Meanwhile, the chyron touts a national campaign against toxic tests. So, something.
For a finish, DVR reminds us that together we can reclaim our schools, our profession, and the future of our students. Did we already forget "the promise of public education," which was a really nice line.
The remaining text of the letter is a sort of different draft of DVR's speech. It actually has some better lines, like
It is now 2014, the year that NCLB declared that all our students would be proficient. They are not. What they are is tired of testing, and we are too.
It also expands on some of the parts of the speech, like explaining more clearly why poverty marks the line between educational haves and have-nots. This is a problem I've noticed with DVR (or his press flack) before-- when needing to edit for length, he does the job with a chainsaw and invariably cuts critical bits.
Remember DVR's list of four goals? In the text, it's three
-- end the excessive and toxic testing in our schools
-- develop a real accountability system that prioritizes learning over labels
-- ensure that each public school is a place in which every student thrive
Sort of the same, sort of not. It's like this release was prepared by a committee of people who only communicated through e-mail, and not very often.
The letter ends with an opportunity to sign on in support.
It is nominally a step forward in the NEA stance, but still amounts to shuffling deck chairs, challenging some of the specifics of the high stake standardized tests corporate status quo, but not challenging any of the premises that create the foundation for everything else. I can support resistance that focuses on testing because high stakes testing is glue that holds the rest of the reformster complex together. But let's actually oppose standardized testing as a measure of all education. NEA is taking the stance that we object to being punched in the face too hard and too often; let's just come out against face-punching entirely.
Likewise, I would like to believe that NEA's use of reformster language is clever. After all, reformsters sold many of their programs by co-opting the language of civil rights, thereby presenting proposals that their opponents couldn't really oppose. It's a rhetorical ju-jitsu that has been alarmingly effective. So it would be cool if NEA were cleverly doing the reverse and presenting programs in language that reformsters couldn't object to. Sadly, at this stage of the game, I don't think the NEA is that clever. I'm inclined to think that the NEA proposals sound like something that reformsters wouldn't object to because they are something that reformsters wouldn't object to.
I hope that this years RA assembly will not be as disastrously anti-teacher as last year's, but there's not a lot to grab onto here. "Not as bad as last year" is a pretty low bar to set; clearing it would not be a great achievement, but it beats the alternative.
We start with a history lesson. NCLB was a thing. It involved testing. The testing was swell insofar as it provided information "regarding students who struggle with basic math and reading skills." Really? It comes a little close to the whole "teachers don't know how students are doing without standardized tests to guide them" thing, but let's move on. "Test, label and punish" have failed. NCLB did not bring us any closer to edu-nirvana. And now, a video clip.
It's Dennis Van Roekel, trying to sound angry in a somewhat lifelike manner. As usual, he seems to shoot for "I'm angry and outraged that our profession is under attack" and comes up short, landing somewhere between "What do you mean, we're out of cucumber sandwiches" and "I am told that when humans get angry, they often exhibit some of these particular behaviors."
The clip puts us in the context of the upcoming NEA assembly. DVR opens with the NCLB history lesson, declaring that we don't want any more of this bad testing. "We want a new path. We want high standards for all students no matter where they live or their family background." Dammit, Dennis. There is certainly nothing wrong with that on the face of it, other than it borrows the rhetoric of reformsters in general and the Vergara plaintiffs in particular.
"We want assessments that help us truly understand where our students are struggling, but we are all tired over testing that now requires almost a third of our time." He follows up with more of the better testing complaints. Tests on materials that haven't been taught. Teachers evaluated on test scores of subjects they don't teach and students they never had in class.
"It is time to end this toxic testing and implement real accountability for our public education system." I appreciate the sentiment. I actually like that after decades of punting on the issue, the union finally wants to get involved in accountability. But the very structure of this sentence supports the premise that student testing and teacher accountability are inextricably linked.
"As educators, we know what works." Along with "toxic testing," I think this is a sting of words we can expect to hear repeated many times. It's a nice line, but we're going to have to figure out what comes after it. What is it we know?
DVR follows with an odd sentence about kindergartners and assessment, then jump-cuts to how race and class too often determine the line between "those who receive a quality education and those who do not." No. No no no. DVR here reinforces the reformster narrative that schools in poor and difficult areas just have a delivery problem, and not a cultural problem or poverty problem or readiness problem. Again, DVR isn't saying anything that the Vergara paintiffs wouldn't sign off on.
DVR would like us to join him in a national campaign to put the focus "back on student learning." Wait! What? Where else does he think the focus has been? That's not the problem-- reformsters will swear up and down that their whole focus is on student learning, or "outputs," or what we used to call "learning objectives (TSWBAT)." Everybody on all sides of the issues is focused on student learning (or at least pretending they are). The problem here is that some folks think a standardized test on a couple of subjects is the be-all and end-all of measuring student learning.
"We must call on leaders such as secretary Arne Duncan to start leading the effort to---" Wait!! Wait just a minute! Maybe some efforts could be lead by someone like, I don't know, the union leaders who represent millions of the teaching professionals in this country. Maybe they could be leaders!
All right-- this has degenerated quickly, but DVR has a list of things that somebody else should lead us in pursuing, so let's see what that list is, shall we.
-- bring an end to excessive toxic testing
-- provide equality of opportunity for each and every student
-- develop new accountability system that prioritizes learning over labels
-- provide best possible learning environment for our students
1 & 2 are swell. 4 is harmlessly broad. But 3-- what is that supposed to mean, exactly?
DVR is calling on everyone to sign on to this national campaign for...um... something. Also, parents and civil rights community and everyone who is a friend and supporter of public education. "Too many people want to isolate and divide us." So DVR would like us to join in a national campaign for student success. Meanwhile, the chyron touts a national campaign against toxic tests. So, something.
For a finish, DVR reminds us that together we can reclaim our schools, our profession, and the future of our students. Did we already forget "the promise of public education," which was a really nice line.
The remaining text of the letter is a sort of different draft of DVR's speech. It actually has some better lines, like
It is now 2014, the year that NCLB declared that all our students would be proficient. They are not. What they are is tired of testing, and we are too.
It also expands on some of the parts of the speech, like explaining more clearly why poverty marks the line between educational haves and have-nots. This is a problem I've noticed with DVR (or his press flack) before-- when needing to edit for length, he does the job with a chainsaw and invariably cuts critical bits.
Remember DVR's list of four goals? In the text, it's three
-- end the excessive and toxic testing in our schools
-- develop a real accountability system that prioritizes learning over labels
-- ensure that each public school is a place in which every student thrive
Sort of the same, sort of not. It's like this release was prepared by a committee of people who only communicated through e-mail, and not very often.
The letter ends with an opportunity to sign on in support.
It is nominally a step forward in the NEA stance, but still amounts to shuffling deck chairs, challenging some of the specifics of the high stake standardized tests corporate status quo, but not challenging any of the premises that create the foundation for everything else. I can support resistance that focuses on testing because high stakes testing is glue that holds the rest of the reformster complex together. But let's actually oppose standardized testing as a measure of all education. NEA is taking the stance that we object to being punched in the face too hard and too often; let's just come out against face-punching entirely.
Likewise, I would like to believe that NEA's use of reformster language is clever. After all, reformsters sold many of their programs by co-opting the language of civil rights, thereby presenting proposals that their opponents couldn't really oppose. It's a rhetorical ju-jitsu that has been alarmingly effective. So it would be cool if NEA were cleverly doing the reverse and presenting programs in language that reformsters couldn't object to. Sadly, at this stage of the game, I don't think the NEA is that clever. I'm inclined to think that the NEA proposals sound like something that reformsters wouldn't object to because they are something that reformsters wouldn't object to.
I hope that this years RA assembly will not be as disastrously anti-teacher as last year's, but there's not a lot to grab onto here. "Not as bad as last year" is a pretty low bar to set; clearing it would not be a great achievement, but it beats the alternative.
Buy Mercedes Schneider's Book
Mercedes Schneider is pissed.
There are many things that come through in her book A Chronicle of Echoes, but what's most immediately palpable is her anger at what has been done to public education in this country. And as each chapter unrolls, it's impossible not to see why she is so angry.
Schneider is one of the most important bloggers in the edublogosphere. She is a tireless researcher, with a careful command both of statistical research tools and the tortured depths of government forms. What Schneider has done, time and time again, is use her research skills to act out the most standard, and yet most valuable, imperative-- follow the money. While many edubloggers stick to bold strokes or the part of the ice berg that sticks up in their particular neighborhood, Schneider repeatedly completes the painstaking job of connecting the dots.
Her blog is required reading for anyone concerned about the current battle for Amerian public education. Seriously-- over to the right of your screen is a list of blog links and you should be following the link to her blog (deursch29). But there were topics of enough complexity and detail that to really address them, Schneider needed to write a book.
A Chronicle of Echoes is a sprawling narrative the connects the dots, follows the money, and lays out how the reformsters have gotten their hands around the throat of public education. And I guarantee you-- no matter how closely you've followed events of the past several years, there is information in this book that A) you didn't know yet and B) you knew, but didn't know just how bad it was.
Here's the subject list by chapter:
1) Joel Klein
2) Eva Moskowitz
3) Wendy Kopp
4) Michelle Rhee
5) Erik Hanushek
6) Chicago Connect: Daley-Vallas
7) Chicago Connection: Duncan (and Obama)
8) Chicago Connection: Emanuel (with Obama)
9) Paul Vallas (Philadelphia)
10) Paul Vallas (New Orleans, Bridgeport)
11) David Coleman and the Common Core
12) Chester Finn and Frederick Hess
13) Jeb Bush (Florida miracle)
14) Jeb Bush (beyond the miracle)
15) Bush's Foundation for Excellence in Education and Chiefs for Change
16) TNTP and StudentsFirst
17) Democrats for Education Reform and Education Reform Now
18) National Council on Teacher Quality
19) Stand for Children
20) Black Alliance for Education Options and Parents Revolution
21) Knowledge Is Power Program (KIPP)
22) Aspen and Pahara Institutes
23) The Big Three Foundations: Gates, Walton and Broad
24) ALEC
Followed by almost 100 pages of endnotes (just in case you doubt her research chops.
The chapters are all stand-alone. Although an overall narrative emerges in the book, what Schneider has really written here is a reference book, an encyclopedia of reformster leaders and organizations. With meticulous research and plenty of quotes excavated throughout, this is a book to return to when one of your colleagues or even a civilian asks, "So what's that ALEC thing?" or "But doesn't TFA do great work?" or "Why do you turn purple and bulgy-eyed when I bring up David Coleman?"
The book is, in short, great arsenal support for you as you try to educate yourself or others.
A word of warning about Schneider's tone. I'm a big fan of her powerful mix of scathing wit and damning facts, but it is likely that someone who is new to these, a casual civilian, or just generally on the fence about ed reform issues may be put off by her tone. This is not a dispassionate attempt to lead the reader to a conclusion; this is "I'm pissed and I'm going to tell you why." It's justified, it's powerful, and it's appropriate, but not all audiences are going to make it past her anger to the mountain of facts it rests on.
If you are the kind of person who wishes everyone would just talk nicely about these things, I'm not going to have that argument with you now, but I am going to encourage you as strongly as possible to get this book and read for the facts and the details. If you know that person, your best approach may not be to simply hand them the book, but to share the facts from it.
Like Schneider's blog, this book is hugely important because it empowers a whole world of people in the resistance with facts, dates, details, quotes-- all the specifics that show what is really happening. It's the facts and figures, names and places, connections and quotes that help build a case and distinguish us from crazy-pants conspiracy theorists. This is a book to read and to keep on your shelf for ready reference. This is a book that tells you who did this, and how they did it.
If you weren't sure about picking this up when it first came out, or you meant to but didn't get around to it, I am telling you now-- buy this book. Mercedes Schneider is pissed, and she is also smart, witty, and well-grounded in facts and research. This is essential reading for anyone who supports public education. Get a copy today-- here, I'll even make it easy for you.
There are many things that come through in her book A Chronicle of Echoes, but what's most immediately palpable is her anger at what has been done to public education in this country. And as each chapter unrolls, it's impossible not to see why she is so angry.
Schneider is one of the most important bloggers in the edublogosphere. She is a tireless researcher, with a careful command both of statistical research tools and the tortured depths of government forms. What Schneider has done, time and time again, is use her research skills to act out the most standard, and yet most valuable, imperative-- follow the money. While many edubloggers stick to bold strokes or the part of the ice berg that sticks up in their particular neighborhood, Schneider repeatedly completes the painstaking job of connecting the dots.
Her blog is required reading for anyone concerned about the current battle for Amerian public education. Seriously-- over to the right of your screen is a list of blog links and you should be following the link to her blog (deursch29). But there were topics of enough complexity and detail that to really address them, Schneider needed to write a book.
A Chronicle of Echoes is a sprawling narrative the connects the dots, follows the money, and lays out how the reformsters have gotten their hands around the throat of public education. And I guarantee you-- no matter how closely you've followed events of the past several years, there is information in this book that A) you didn't know yet and B) you knew, but didn't know just how bad it was.
Here's the subject list by chapter:
1) Joel Klein
2) Eva Moskowitz
3) Wendy Kopp
4) Michelle Rhee
5) Erik Hanushek
6) Chicago Connect: Daley-Vallas
7) Chicago Connection: Duncan (and Obama)
8) Chicago Connection: Emanuel (with Obama)
9) Paul Vallas (Philadelphia)
10) Paul Vallas (New Orleans, Bridgeport)
11) David Coleman and the Common Core
12) Chester Finn and Frederick Hess
13) Jeb Bush (Florida miracle)
14) Jeb Bush (beyond the miracle)
15) Bush's Foundation for Excellence in Education and Chiefs for Change
16) TNTP and StudentsFirst
17) Democrats for Education Reform and Education Reform Now
18) National Council on Teacher Quality
19) Stand for Children
20) Black Alliance for Education Options and Parents Revolution
21) Knowledge Is Power Program (KIPP)
22) Aspen and Pahara Institutes
23) The Big Three Foundations: Gates, Walton and Broad
24) ALEC
Followed by almost 100 pages of endnotes (just in case you doubt her research chops.
The chapters are all stand-alone. Although an overall narrative emerges in the book, what Schneider has really written here is a reference book, an encyclopedia of reformster leaders and organizations. With meticulous research and plenty of quotes excavated throughout, this is a book to return to when one of your colleagues or even a civilian asks, "So what's that ALEC thing?" or "But doesn't TFA do great work?" or "Why do you turn purple and bulgy-eyed when I bring up David Coleman?"
The book is, in short, great arsenal support for you as you try to educate yourself or others.
A word of warning about Schneider's tone. I'm a big fan of her powerful mix of scathing wit and damning facts, but it is likely that someone who is new to these, a casual civilian, or just generally on the fence about ed reform issues may be put off by her tone. This is not a dispassionate attempt to lead the reader to a conclusion; this is "I'm pissed and I'm going to tell you why." It's justified, it's powerful, and it's appropriate, but not all audiences are going to make it past her anger to the mountain of facts it rests on.
If you are the kind of person who wishes everyone would just talk nicely about these things, I'm not going to have that argument with you now, but I am going to encourage you as strongly as possible to get this book and read for the facts and the details. If you know that person, your best approach may not be to simply hand them the book, but to share the facts from it.
Like Schneider's blog, this book is hugely important because it empowers a whole world of people in the resistance with facts, dates, details, quotes-- all the specifics that show what is really happening. It's the facts and figures, names and places, connections and quotes that help build a case and distinguish us from crazy-pants conspiracy theorists. This is a book to read and to keep on your shelf for ready reference. This is a book that tells you who did this, and how they did it.
If you weren't sure about picking this up when it first came out, or you meant to but didn't get around to it, I am telling you now-- buy this book. Mercedes Schneider is pissed, and she is also smart, witty, and well-grounded in facts and research. This is essential reading for anyone who supports public education. Get a copy today-- here, I'll even make it easy for you.
Thursday, June 26, 2014
Why Do Feds Love Scalability?
It's time once again for the DOE's Charter Schools Program Grants for Replication and Expansion of High-Quality Charter Schools competition.
This program nominally supports the administrations love affair with scalability. The scenario that has been alluded to time after time is this:
1) Many charters experiment with many educational thingies
2) One of the educational thingies turns out to be super-duper awesome
3) Super-duper awesome educational thingy is reproduced in every school in America
So, on the list of values that reformsters have simply presented as virtues without examination or discussion, let's add scalability-- the ability to take a product or service and expand it to the national market.
Scalability is not necessarily a great idea. Take the Krispy Kremes story. Krispy Kreme donuts started out as a regional success story, donuts that were hot and fresh and far above ordinary mass market donutry. And then they decided to go national, and turned out the best way to move the brand across the country was to make donuts that were pretty much the same as other mass market donuts. It used to be that you could only find Krispy Kremes in certain areas, and when you did it was a special treat. Now you can find them everywhere-- but there's nothing special about them at all.
Here in Western PA we have a convenience store called Sheetz. They are awesome, and not awesome in a Doing What Nobody Else Can Dream Of way, but in a We're Doing What Everybody Is Trying To Do But We're Doing It Right Way. Sheetz are what every sad 7-11 Kwickee Mart Gas and Speedy Food place in the country want to be. And they have studiously avoided scaling up to national size, and have instead remained regional and awesome.
What are the great successes in scalability? Well, McDonalds, Wal-Mart, various other fast food chains. I'm trying to think of an example of a product or service that has been scaled up to the national level and which is also synonymous with the very best in its field, and.... I've got nothing. Instead, it would seem that a big lesson of scalability is that it requires easily reproduced mediocrity.
If customers want the very best, they don't generally look for a nationally-scaled business.
Of course, if we stop looking at scalability from a customer standpoint and start looking it from the business operator's perspective, scalability shines up prettier than a semi-attractive bar patron viewed through 3 AM beer goggles.
For business operators, scalability is absolutely great. It is a super-effective way to make more money, move more of a product that is produced with inexpensive standardization, and force the market to bend to your concerns instead of your trying to react to the market.
Scalability is great for business operators and provides good enough-ish service for the customers.
Why would we want that as a goal for America's schools? Under what circumstances would it make sense to say, "You know this is a great way to teach our students here at Local High School, because the program is scalable"? Why would I as a classroom teacher decide that a program I designed myself specifically to fit the exact students in front of me-- why would I throw out that program in favor of some standardized scalable pablum that is supposedly good for any classroom in the country?
Scalability is a value for entrepreneurs. It has no value for students, teachers, schools and communities. It's unfortunate that the DOE sees it as a quality to seek out and reward. I look forward to DOE grants for Programs Producing Extreme Boredom and Schools With Exceptional Disregard For Individual Differences of Its Students.
This program nominally supports the administrations love affair with scalability. The scenario that has been alluded to time after time is this:
1) Many charters experiment with many educational thingies
2) One of the educational thingies turns out to be super-duper awesome
3) Super-duper awesome educational thingy is reproduced in every school in America
So, on the list of values that reformsters have simply presented as virtues without examination or discussion, let's add scalability-- the ability to take a product or service and expand it to the national market.
Scalability is not necessarily a great idea. Take the Krispy Kremes story. Krispy Kreme donuts started out as a regional success story, donuts that were hot and fresh and far above ordinary mass market donutry. And then they decided to go national, and turned out the best way to move the brand across the country was to make donuts that were pretty much the same as other mass market donuts. It used to be that you could only find Krispy Kremes in certain areas, and when you did it was a special treat. Now you can find them everywhere-- but there's nothing special about them at all.
Here in Western PA we have a convenience store called Sheetz. They are awesome, and not awesome in a Doing What Nobody Else Can Dream Of way, but in a We're Doing What Everybody Is Trying To Do But We're Doing It Right Way. Sheetz are what every sad 7-11 Kwickee Mart Gas and Speedy Food place in the country want to be. And they have studiously avoided scaling up to national size, and have instead remained regional and awesome.
What are the great successes in scalability? Well, McDonalds, Wal-Mart, various other fast food chains. I'm trying to think of an example of a product or service that has been scaled up to the national level and which is also synonymous with the very best in its field, and.... I've got nothing. Instead, it would seem that a big lesson of scalability is that it requires easily reproduced mediocrity.
If customers want the very best, they don't generally look for a nationally-scaled business.
Of course, if we stop looking at scalability from a customer standpoint and start looking it from the business operator's perspective, scalability shines up prettier than a semi-attractive bar patron viewed through 3 AM beer goggles.
For business operators, scalability is absolutely great. It is a super-effective way to make more money, move more of a product that is produced with inexpensive standardization, and force the market to bend to your concerns instead of your trying to react to the market.
Scalability is great for business operators and provides good enough-ish service for the customers.
Why would we want that as a goal for America's schools? Under what circumstances would it make sense to say, "You know this is a great way to teach our students here at Local High School, because the program is scalable"? Why would I as a classroom teacher decide that a program I designed myself specifically to fit the exact students in front of me-- why would I throw out that program in favor of some standardized scalable pablum that is supposedly good for any classroom in the country?
Scalability is a value for entrepreneurs. It has no value for students, teachers, schools and communities. It's unfortunate that the DOE sees it as a quality to seek out and reward. I look forward to DOE grants for Programs Producing Extreme Boredom and Schools With Exceptional Disregard For Individual Differences of Its Students.
Seven Trends in the Teacher Work Force
In April, the Consortium for Policy Research in Education released a paper entitled "Seven Trends: the Transformation of the Teaching Force." What the title lacks in sass and flash it makes up for in accuracy, and although the most recent data are from 2012, it still makes for interesting reading. Let's look at the seven trends.
Larger
Between the late 80s and 2008, the teaching force grew, and grew far faster than the student population.What happened? CPRE notes a couple of interesting trends.
Private schools added staff far faster than they added students, and charter school growth has contributed to the total number of teaching jobs. CPRE rejects these as large factors because those types of schools are a small portion of the total teaching world. Class size reduction, particularly on the state legislative scale like California, led to an increase in number of teachers needed.
The other three big growth areas were special area elementary teachers, ESL teachers, and (a biggie) pre-K teachers. High school math and science saw large gains. And the likely biggest contributing area-- special education.
The paper notes that the information is not supportive for either end of the political spectrum. Liberals who posit that rehiring all the laid-off teachers from recent years overlook the ballooning of the field before the massive layoffs of the economic crash. Conservatives who like to cry "bureaucratic bloating" at larger staffs ignore that it's private schools that did the most bloating.
Grayer
The teaching force is getting older, though the trend has just about played out. If you are stuck in old-school thinking, you might conclude that this has great financial implications as a bunch of old guys retiring will reduce school costs. But nowadays, old teachers are a monetary nightmare because, pensions.
As a side note, the paper's authors note that retirements only represent 14% of teacher outflow! Fourteen percent!! The big math/science teacher shortage issue is not retirements, and it's not (see previous point) supply either-- it's people who just get out rather than make a lifetime career out of it. The "put great teachers in front of every student crowd" might want to chew on that one for a while.
Greener
So one big bump on the experience chart comes at the high end-- the other is at the newbie end. This point has been addressed in more depth elsewhere, but the bottom line is that the most common teacher is an inexperienced one.
There are interesting pieces of sub-data. For instance, of those newbs, roughly a third are over twenty-nine years old.
Greening has several implications. Instructionally, it can have an impact because, despite the anti-tenure crowd's complaints, most studies that show any link show that experinec generally goes with better teaching. Industry has long known the problems that come with too much turnover and the loss of institutional memory; schools can suffer form the same issue of simply having too few people left in the building who know how things work.
Greening also has implications for pension funds-- good ones, actually, as the number of people paying in can help bolster the system. And since this crop of newbies are highly likely to quit the profession early on, a large number of them will end up basically making contributions to the pension fund that will never have to be paid back to them. So thanks for helping to pay off my retirement, non-teaching newby.
More Female
I'll admit this one caught me by surprise, and it shouldn't have. In my own district we had an elementary building that didn't have a single male adult working in it-- not from teachers through secretaries through custodians.
The total number of male teachers has actually grown. But the number of females has grown twice as fast. The authors use several paragraphs trying to guess why, but nobody really knows. The implications are likewise unpredictable, though the guess that turning teaching back into "women's work" reducing the respect and clout of the profession seems like a good one, and amply reflected in mostly male, mostly white reformsters' disdain for the profession.
More Diverse by Race-Ethnicity
While teaching is still a predominantly white profession, minority teachers are entering the ranks at a far higher rate than white teachers. That's the good news. The bad news is that minority teachers are leaving teaching at a far greater rate than white teachers.
Consistent in Academic Ability
You know the issue. Do teachers really come from the bottom echelons of college grades or SAT scores? And more importantly, do academic achievements have anything to do with teaching awesomeness, anyway?
CPRE determined that, if we sort first-year teachers by selectivity of college, about a tenth come from the top, a fifth come from the bottom, and everybody else comes from the middle. That doesn't seem to be changing.
Less Stable
This has been implied by most of the other categories. Teaching has become steadily less stable, with both attrition and moving from school to school on the upswing, and especially more so for minority teachers.
These researchers, who include Ingersoll, creator of the infamous 50% attrition figure, have fine tuned that number to something like 41%, but they would like to point out that since the total number of teachers has increased, percentages do not capture the growing raw numbers of teachers fleeing the profession, most commonly in their beginning years. Reasons given for leaving?
* School Staffing Action-- 20.8%
* Family or persona- - 35.4%
* Pursuing another job-- 38.9%
* Dissatisfaction-- 45.3%
What do we know? That of all the topics brought up in discussions of teaching staffing, the biggest one that we don't address is retention.
When reformsters start talking about getting a great teacher in each classroom, what they should really be talking about is attracting and keeping them. It's all great to talk about getting highly effective teachers into problem schools-- but how will you convince them to go there, and how will you convince them to stay. Spoiler alert: making it clear that you can fire them easily is NOT the answer.
Larger
Between the late 80s and 2008, the teaching force grew, and grew far faster than the student population.What happened? CPRE notes a couple of interesting trends.
Private schools added staff far faster than they added students, and charter school growth has contributed to the total number of teaching jobs. CPRE rejects these as large factors because those types of schools are a small portion of the total teaching world. Class size reduction, particularly on the state legislative scale like California, led to an increase in number of teachers needed.
The other three big growth areas were special area elementary teachers, ESL teachers, and (a biggie) pre-K teachers. High school math and science saw large gains. And the likely biggest contributing area-- special education.
The paper notes that the information is not supportive for either end of the political spectrum. Liberals who posit that rehiring all the laid-off teachers from recent years overlook the ballooning of the field before the massive layoffs of the economic crash. Conservatives who like to cry "bureaucratic bloating" at larger staffs ignore that it's private schools that did the most bloating.
Grayer
The teaching force is getting older, though the trend has just about played out. If you are stuck in old-school thinking, you might conclude that this has great financial implications as a bunch of old guys retiring will reduce school costs. But nowadays, old teachers are a monetary nightmare because, pensions.
As a side note, the paper's authors note that retirements only represent 14% of teacher outflow! Fourteen percent!! The big math/science teacher shortage issue is not retirements, and it's not (see previous point) supply either-- it's people who just get out rather than make a lifetime career out of it. The "put great teachers in front of every student crowd" might want to chew on that one for a while.
Greener
So one big bump on the experience chart comes at the high end-- the other is at the newbie end. This point has been addressed in more depth elsewhere, but the bottom line is that the most common teacher is an inexperienced one.
There are interesting pieces of sub-data. For instance, of those newbs, roughly a third are over twenty-nine years old.
Greening has several implications. Instructionally, it can have an impact because, despite the anti-tenure crowd's complaints, most studies that show any link show that experinec generally goes with better teaching. Industry has long known the problems that come with too much turnover and the loss of institutional memory; schools can suffer form the same issue of simply having too few people left in the building who know how things work.
Greening also has implications for pension funds-- good ones, actually, as the number of people paying in can help bolster the system. And since this crop of newbies are highly likely to quit the profession early on, a large number of them will end up basically making contributions to the pension fund that will never have to be paid back to them. So thanks for helping to pay off my retirement, non-teaching newby.
More Female
I'll admit this one caught me by surprise, and it shouldn't have. In my own district we had an elementary building that didn't have a single male adult working in it-- not from teachers through secretaries through custodians.
The total number of male teachers has actually grown. But the number of females has grown twice as fast. The authors use several paragraphs trying to guess why, but nobody really knows. The implications are likewise unpredictable, though the guess that turning teaching back into "women's work" reducing the respect and clout of the profession seems like a good one, and amply reflected in mostly male, mostly white reformsters' disdain for the profession.
More Diverse by Race-Ethnicity
While teaching is still a predominantly white profession, minority teachers are entering the ranks at a far higher rate than white teachers. That's the good news. The bad news is that minority teachers are leaving teaching at a far greater rate than white teachers.
Consistent in Academic Ability
You know the issue. Do teachers really come from the bottom echelons of college grades or SAT scores? And more importantly, do academic achievements have anything to do with teaching awesomeness, anyway?
CPRE determined that, if we sort first-year teachers by selectivity of college, about a tenth come from the top, a fifth come from the bottom, and everybody else comes from the middle. That doesn't seem to be changing.
Less Stable
This has been implied by most of the other categories. Teaching has become steadily less stable, with both attrition and moving from school to school on the upswing, and especially more so for minority teachers.
These researchers, who include Ingersoll, creator of the infamous 50% attrition figure, have fine tuned that number to something like 41%, but they would like to point out that since the total number of teachers has increased, percentages do not capture the growing raw numbers of teachers fleeing the profession, most commonly in their beginning years. Reasons given for leaving?
* School Staffing Action-- 20.8%
* Family or persona- - 35.4%
* Pursuing another job-- 38.9%
* Dissatisfaction-- 45.3%
What do we know? That of all the topics brought up in discussions of teaching staffing, the biggest one that we don't address is retention.
When reformsters start talking about getting a great teacher in each classroom, what they should really be talking about is attracting and keeping them. It's all great to talk about getting highly effective teachers into problem schools-- but how will you convince them to go there, and how will you convince them to stay. Spoiler alert: making it clear that you can fire them easily is NOT the answer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)