As the assault on public education continues, school leaders face an unprecedented challenge-- how to win the race to the bottom without being too obvious about it.
Occasionally, somebody notices that a district is becoming too successful in trashing its own mission. Just this week in Indianapolis, members of the school board noticed that about 200 teachers-- almost 10% of the entire teaching staff-- had bailed out in the last three months. Theories included that teachers were leaving for neighboring districts that paid better (which is apparently all of them). Solutions included signing up with TNTP to get more bodies shipped in toot de suite, and strengthening the policy on giving notice.
Of course, some regions don't worry about tipping their hands. Cleveland has been pretty straightforward about its desire to gut public schools for a charter system, staffed with TFA temps. And of course when it comes to destroying public education wholesale and ending teaching as a viable career, nobody holds a candle to North Carolina (although Florida would really like to try). In addition to being poached by its neighbors, folks have come all the way from Houston to convince North Carolina teachers that indeed, many things could be finer than to be in Carolina in September.
Some inequality of destruction is good. In particular, it allows teachers to hope that Somewhere Out There is a district that it doesn't suck to work for. Hope may keep them a little more quiet and pliable. Winning the race to the bottom is about being worse, but not too much worse.
It's conceivable (though we have no NC proof yet) that accelerating the destruction of your public ed system might make enough noise to wake people up. To trot out a well-worn but handy cliche, you've got a boiling frog problem, and some places are just cranking the heat too high, too fast. The trick is to race to the bottom slowly and carefully, so that you are not too noticeably worse than everyone else. If people will just be patient, I'm sure they can drag down most of the country's institutions of public education eventually.
Thursday, July 24, 2014
Mean What You Say
One of the surreal features of the reformster world is the degree to which words simply don't match actions. It's as if someone sold you a can of pop clearly labeled "cola" and when you opened it up, it was filled with furniture polish.
Suppose somebody said, "This is the most important new program we've ever rolled out. It will revolutionize the industry."
Imagine what would come next. Piles of money spent on training. Lots of time and effort preparing your people for the changes. Long strategic planning meetings to figure out how to most effectively roll out the new program. More money and planning devoted to putting the right supports in place, and a review process to catch and adjust any part of the rollout that turns out to have issues on the ground. Think about how a business rolls out a new product, or the work Disney and Pixar put into creating and releasing a new film.
And yet for Common Core, not so much. Instead, a race to get it implemented quickly and quietly, before anyone could stop or slow the adoption. Let's hurry up so we can get to the Corporations Making Money part.
Or imagine somebody said, "We must get great teachers into every classroom."
What would you think they were about to do? Raise great gouts of money so that they could aggressively recruit and retain the very best? Offer good teachers perks like offices and resources-- maybe hire administrative assistants so that teachers could spend less time dong clerical work and making copies. Perhaps offering teachers job security and retention bonuses. Lots of continuing education at no cost to the teacher, allowing her to keep her edge and grow. And an administrative system that focuses on getting those good teachers the tools they need and allowing them autonomy to use their best professional judgment. And you'd want to find highly trained, super-qualified people to hire (not folks who learned how to teach at a month or two of summer camp.0
And yet, the call for good teachers invariably travels hand in hand with a call to reduce teacher job security and let teachers know that we reserve the right to fire them at any time.
Most reformster teacher-related discussion is backwards. "We must give merit bonuses to the best teachers" invariably means "We must pay everyone else less." We pair a search to find and reward teacher greatness with an evaluation system that says nobody is great for more than an occasional spurt. We declare our interest in great teachers, and then we act as if looking for such teachers is an educational snipe hunt.
What if someone said, "We must put the needs of students ahead of the concerns of adults."
Wouldn't you imagine that this person was about to figure out the needs of students actually are? Might they not start by saying, "Damn! Look at how many children live in poverty. We'd better make sure that they are decently fed and clothed. No matter how much adults don't want to pay for it or talk about how to fix it, we are going to get on that."
Would a group that put students first not do things like, say, consult the vast body of research about how students develop and learn and demand--demand!!-- that educational policies reflect what the research tells us about the growth of human cognition and skills in children. Such a group would declare, "Sire, I do not care how much money you have invested in this program. It clearly does not meet the needs of our students, so good day to you, sir. I said, good day."
Would a group so concerned with the needs of students not consult and listen attentively to the groups of adults in this country professionally devoted to meeting the needs of children and working with those same children-- pediatricians, social workers, and, oh yeah, teachers. Would that group not work with parents, and might they not (cray thought) go out and find some actual students and listen to them.
Instead, we have reformsters who start with the assumption that, somehow, teacher needs and student needs are always diametrically opposed; therefor, if you are denying a teacher request, you must be doing something good for students.
Riding in the great clown car of reform is like riding with someone who keeps saying, "We need to turn right now," and then turns left. Eventually, you start to doubt your own understanding of right and left.
Well, don't doubt. One of the central features of the school reformsters is that the repeatedly say "right" and then turn "left." You are not crazy.
Suppose somebody said, "This is the most important new program we've ever rolled out. It will revolutionize the industry."
Imagine what would come next. Piles of money spent on training. Lots of time and effort preparing your people for the changes. Long strategic planning meetings to figure out how to most effectively roll out the new program. More money and planning devoted to putting the right supports in place, and a review process to catch and adjust any part of the rollout that turns out to have issues on the ground. Think about how a business rolls out a new product, or the work Disney and Pixar put into creating and releasing a new film.
And yet for Common Core, not so much. Instead, a race to get it implemented quickly and quietly, before anyone could stop or slow the adoption. Let's hurry up so we can get to the Corporations Making Money part.
Or imagine somebody said, "We must get great teachers into every classroom."
What would you think they were about to do? Raise great gouts of money so that they could aggressively recruit and retain the very best? Offer good teachers perks like offices and resources-- maybe hire administrative assistants so that teachers could spend less time dong clerical work and making copies. Perhaps offering teachers job security and retention bonuses. Lots of continuing education at no cost to the teacher, allowing her to keep her edge and grow. And an administrative system that focuses on getting those good teachers the tools they need and allowing them autonomy to use their best professional judgment. And you'd want to find highly trained, super-qualified people to hire (not folks who learned how to teach at a month or two of summer camp.0
And yet, the call for good teachers invariably travels hand in hand with a call to reduce teacher job security and let teachers know that we reserve the right to fire them at any time.
Most reformster teacher-related discussion is backwards. "We must give merit bonuses to the best teachers" invariably means "We must pay everyone else less." We pair a search to find and reward teacher greatness with an evaluation system that says nobody is great for more than an occasional spurt. We declare our interest in great teachers, and then we act as if looking for such teachers is an educational snipe hunt.
What if someone said, "We must put the needs of students ahead of the concerns of adults."
Wouldn't you imagine that this person was about to figure out the needs of students actually are? Might they not start by saying, "Damn! Look at how many children live in poverty. We'd better make sure that they are decently fed and clothed. No matter how much adults don't want to pay for it or talk about how to fix it, we are going to get on that."
Would a group that put students first not do things like, say, consult the vast body of research about how students develop and learn and demand--demand!!-- that educational policies reflect what the research tells us about the growth of human cognition and skills in children. Such a group would declare, "Sire, I do not care how much money you have invested in this program. It clearly does not meet the needs of our students, so good day to you, sir. I said, good day."
Would a group so concerned with the needs of students not consult and listen attentively to the groups of adults in this country professionally devoted to meeting the needs of children and working with those same children-- pediatricians, social workers, and, oh yeah, teachers. Would that group not work with parents, and might they not (cray thought) go out and find some actual students and listen to them.
Instead, we have reformsters who start with the assumption that, somehow, teacher needs and student needs are always diametrically opposed; therefor, if you are denying a teacher request, you must be doing something good for students.
Riding in the great clown car of reform is like riding with someone who keeps saying, "We need to turn right now," and then turns left. Eventually, you start to doubt your own understanding of right and left.
Well, don't doubt. One of the central features of the school reformsters is that the repeatedly say "right" and then turn "left." You are not crazy.
Wednesday, July 23, 2014
My Doctoral Thesis
I've been following the problems of Dr. Terrence Carter in Connecticut with some interest. It seems that the Dr., "hand picked by Arne Duncan" might not have an actual PhD. Not even a super-easy PhD, but a PhD he just bought. Faked the whole thing. And he's not remotely alone in this.
How can somebody do that, I wondered. Seriously, how do you do that?
Turns out the answer is, "Very easily." Googling "get PhD on line" turns up a ton of paid placements. Walden, Trident, Capella-- they are all jostling for the top of the google heap. But these still require the performance of some nominal classwork. That would be just tooooo haaaaardd. I want to be a school superintendent next week. Can I do better?
Sure can. Just halfway down the second page of results, I found these guys.
They are not particularly subtle or sneaky. "BUY A PHD" says the opening headline. "We are waiting for your order to buy a PhD from us." But let them explain further.
Although quite demanding, people would still prefer to reach for greater heights in terms of academic qualifications. This is the reason why a doctorate is being offered to maximize the potential of an individual. Being called a doctor even if you are not a medical doctor by degree is such music in the ears. To buy a doctorate degree gives a level of competency. Since it is the highest possible academic degree, you can explore a lot of opportunities if you have credentials that would prove a doctorate degree.
"To buy a doctorate degree gives a level of competency." Well, there you have it. Don't waste your time in classes. It's the degree itself that magically confers prowess on the person. Don't laugh too hard unless you can tell me that you don't know people with "real" doctorates that think the same way.
You can see why a place like this might appeal to someone like Dr. Terrence Carter.
If you buy a PhD you will achieve promotions at your workplace without having to write complex projects and attending classes that will ruin your family or work life.
Yeah, projects and classes that take time just suck.
They do require that you provide some information about work history and prior education (if any). And while the doctorate is their marquee degree-for-sale, these folks offer everything all the way from Associate Degrees up to Honorary Doctorates.
Prices? A Doctorate will run you $250. You can have a professorship for $290. The top-of-the-line honorary doctorate runs $400, while the associate's is a mere $150. You can also indicate how you got the degree-- on line, part time, whatevs. This will "make your documents better."
You can get lots of fine extras. A transcript is $100 (don't forget to indicate what grades you want on it). You can also get up to three letters of recommendation from your professors (boy, do I wish I could see some of those professors' names), and graduation caps, gown and hood. If you're in a real hurry, you can opt for four day delivery by fedex or DHL.
If you doubt the awesomeness, they do have a page of testimonials:
I am a teenage mom and after giving birth to my daughter, i never had time studying in college. I have wanted to become an accountant and land a stable job to support my child. When i got my diploma at expreesuniversitydegree.com oppertuinities for me flooded. My dilemma now is what job i should choose ?? Mommy Tine
It has always been my dream to earn a degree in Doctorate. I have searched for many sites only at expressuinversitydegree i become satisfied. the service is perfect, the degrees are accredited, and the documents are delivered on time. Sally Girbauch, Ph.D
I have enjoyed my previliges being a doctor ! I get the best sit in the plane, I get discounts in restrurants, I get the best promo in my travels. My Ph.D is such as wonder. Dr. Morgan Elenor, Ph.D in Social Science
Are you beginning to suspect that we have some ELL students working on this site? And no-- no school superintendents offer testimonials.
There is some faith-based leaping involved here. The site would like all your credit card information, plus a piece of id (including a scanned copy). I suppose when you are buying fake credentials on line, you must always consider the possibility that you are dealing with a university run by a Nigerian prince.
It's tempting. A doctorate would give me such clout and importance, and I, too, want the previlige of discounts at restrurants. But even at these prices, I can't really afford it. maybe a kickstarter launch is in order, to con my loyal readers into making my dream come true. Maybe I should ask for some career advice from Dr. Terrence Carter, who appears to have plenty of free time in his future.
How can somebody do that, I wondered. Seriously, how do you do that?
Turns out the answer is, "Very easily." Googling "get PhD on line" turns up a ton of paid placements. Walden, Trident, Capella-- they are all jostling for the top of the google heap. But these still require the performance of some nominal classwork. That would be just tooooo haaaaardd. I want to be a school superintendent next week. Can I do better?
Sure can. Just halfway down the second page of results, I found these guys.
They are not particularly subtle or sneaky. "BUY A PHD" says the opening headline. "We are waiting for your order to buy a PhD from us." But let them explain further.
Although quite demanding, people would still prefer to reach for greater heights in terms of academic qualifications. This is the reason why a doctorate is being offered to maximize the potential of an individual. Being called a doctor even if you are not a medical doctor by degree is such music in the ears. To buy a doctorate degree gives a level of competency. Since it is the highest possible academic degree, you can explore a lot of opportunities if you have credentials that would prove a doctorate degree.
"To buy a doctorate degree gives a level of competency." Well, there you have it. Don't waste your time in classes. It's the degree itself that magically confers prowess on the person. Don't laugh too hard unless you can tell me that you don't know people with "real" doctorates that think the same way.
You can see why a place like this might appeal to someone like Dr. Terrence Carter.
If you buy a PhD you will achieve promotions at your workplace without having to write complex projects and attending classes that will ruin your family or work life.
Yeah, projects and classes that take time just suck.
They do require that you provide some information about work history and prior education (if any). And while the doctorate is their marquee degree-for-sale, these folks offer everything all the way from Associate Degrees up to Honorary Doctorates.
Prices? A Doctorate will run you $250. You can have a professorship for $290. The top-of-the-line honorary doctorate runs $400, while the associate's is a mere $150. You can also indicate how you got the degree-- on line, part time, whatevs. This will "make your documents better."
You can get lots of fine extras. A transcript is $100 (don't forget to indicate what grades you want on it). You can also get up to three letters of recommendation from your professors (boy, do I wish I could see some of those professors' names), and graduation caps, gown and hood. If you're in a real hurry, you can opt for four day delivery by fedex or DHL.
If you doubt the awesomeness, they do have a page of testimonials:
I am a teenage mom and after giving birth to my daughter, i never had time studying in college. I have wanted to become an accountant and land a stable job to support my child. When i got my diploma at expreesuniversitydegree.com oppertuinities for me flooded. My dilemma now is what job i should choose ?? Mommy Tine
It has always been my dream to earn a degree in Doctorate. I have searched for many sites only at expressuinversitydegree i become satisfied. the service is perfect, the degrees are accredited, and the documents are delivered on time. Sally Girbauch, Ph.D
I have enjoyed my previliges being a doctor ! I get the best sit in the plane, I get discounts in restrurants, I get the best promo in my travels. My Ph.D is such as wonder. Dr. Morgan Elenor, Ph.D in Social Science
Are you beginning to suspect that we have some ELL students working on this site? And no-- no school superintendents offer testimonials.
There is some faith-based leaping involved here. The site would like all your credit card information, plus a piece of id (including a scanned copy). I suppose when you are buying fake credentials on line, you must always consider the possibility that you are dealing with a university run by a Nigerian prince.
It's tempting. A doctorate would give me such clout and importance, and I, too, want the previlige of discounts at restrurants. But even at these prices, I can't really afford it. maybe a kickstarter launch is in order, to con my loyal readers into making my dream come true. Maybe I should ask for some career advice from Dr. Terrence Carter, who appears to have plenty of free time in his future.
Campbell Brown Can't Connect Dots
Monday, Campbell Brown, the new face of the attack on teacher job security, tried to "set the record straight." I suppose she did, a little, in the sense that she made it even clearer that her proposed lawsuit makes no sense. But I'm guessing that's not what she had in mind.
The tenacious New York parents who are challenging the state in court have one goal in mind: ensuring that all of our public school children have good teachers.
You know, I think I could comb the entire country, every state, every school, every teacher's lounge, every grocery store, every ballpark, every haberdashery, every Starbucks, every back alley with bad lighting-- I think I would be hard pressed to find someone who would say, "What I want is for some of the public school children in this country to have crappy teachers. That's what I would like to see."
So let's start out by setting the record straight on that goal-- it's like coming out in favor of air or food or cute puppies. It means nothing.
Lots of people want to see that every student gets a good teacher. Teachers become teachers because they dream of personally being that good teacher. The real issue is how to make that good chicken in every classroom pot dream come true.
An organization devoted to that goal might advocate for any number of things. They might advocate for more attractive teacher pay or working conditions to aid recruitment. They might advocate for a more robust system of professional support and development so that it's easy for teachers to keep getting better. They might demand better funding of ALL public schools from state and federal governments. They might even start by collecting some data beyond the anecdotal about exactly how widespread the problem of not-good teachers in classrooms actually is.
Any of these initiatives might make sense. But Campbell Brown wants us to believe that these parents sat down and said, "You know, of everything that makes it hard to insure a good teacher in every classroom, the biggest most central problem is that teachers have job security. Let's get rid of that."
Campbell says, in her straight record-setting way, "So let us dispense with the absurd: Seeking good teachers for all does not mean you are somehow going after teachers." I think she got it backwards. Going after teachers does not mean you are seeking good teachers.
Campbell tries to assert that her lawsuit is about "working to end laws that are not in the interests of children." But what she has failed to do, and what the Vergara plaintiffs failed to do, is connect these dots-- exactly how are tenure and FILO laws damaging to the interests of children? Or come at it from the other direction-- how would a school climate in which teachers were aware that they could be fired at any time for any reason help students get a better education?
This is central to these suits, and yet it has never been answered.
And in setting the record straight, she only fuzzes things up further. The lawsuit to end tenure would help students, somehow, and besides "for those who have the added due-process protections of tenure, the goal here is only to make sure that system actually makes sense, without undercutting our kids’ constitutional rights."
So, the lawsuit to end tenure is not supposed to end tenure??
And this quote from Arne Duncan "sums it up well." "Tenure itself is not the issue. Job protections for effective teachers are vital to keep teachers from being fired for random or political reasons."
So the longer Campbell works at setting things straight, the more crooked the whole things seems. Also, she adds, civil rights laws.
And tenure doesn't insure good teaching. Well, now, there you have us. Also, food and clothing and windows in a room also do not insure good teaching. If we are going to sue to get rid of everything that does not insure good teaching, we are going to be here a long time.
So what's say we go ahead and stick with things that support good teaching. Like, say, the knowledge that you can't be fired for arbitrary reasons or being too expensive.
Campbell Brown has tried to set the record straight, and yet it is more murky than ever. She is suing-- oh, no, wait-- a group of "tenacious" parents is suing, and Campbell Brown is just--what? Their new BFF? A concerned rich citizen who's now laid off and depending on her husband the charter school magnate to support her? The nice lady who writes their press for them? If this is a tenacious parent lawsuit, why are you here, Campbell? Anyway, somebody is suing in order to-- do something? Get rid of tenure, but not really hoping to fully succeed? Make it easier to fire teachers, but you know, only some teachers, because that will get students a better education... somehow?
As an exercise in record straightening, this was not very successful. I hope the next attempt by America's newest ed crusader is more helpful.
The tenacious New York parents who are challenging the state in court have one goal in mind: ensuring that all of our public school children have good teachers.
You know, I think I could comb the entire country, every state, every school, every teacher's lounge, every grocery store, every ballpark, every haberdashery, every Starbucks, every back alley with bad lighting-- I think I would be hard pressed to find someone who would say, "What I want is for some of the public school children in this country to have crappy teachers. That's what I would like to see."
So let's start out by setting the record straight on that goal-- it's like coming out in favor of air or food or cute puppies. It means nothing.
Lots of people want to see that every student gets a good teacher. Teachers become teachers because they dream of personally being that good teacher. The real issue is how to make that good chicken in every classroom pot dream come true.
An organization devoted to that goal might advocate for any number of things. They might advocate for more attractive teacher pay or working conditions to aid recruitment. They might advocate for a more robust system of professional support and development so that it's easy for teachers to keep getting better. They might demand better funding of ALL public schools from state and federal governments. They might even start by collecting some data beyond the anecdotal about exactly how widespread the problem of not-good teachers in classrooms actually is.
Any of these initiatives might make sense. But Campbell Brown wants us to believe that these parents sat down and said, "You know, of everything that makes it hard to insure a good teacher in every classroom, the biggest most central problem is that teachers have job security. Let's get rid of that."
Campbell says, in her straight record-setting way, "So let us dispense with the absurd: Seeking good teachers for all does not mean you are somehow going after teachers." I think she got it backwards. Going after teachers does not mean you are seeking good teachers.
Campbell tries to assert that her lawsuit is about "working to end laws that are not in the interests of children." But what she has failed to do, and what the Vergara plaintiffs failed to do, is connect these dots-- exactly how are tenure and FILO laws damaging to the interests of children? Or come at it from the other direction-- how would a school climate in which teachers were aware that they could be fired at any time for any reason help students get a better education?
This is central to these suits, and yet it has never been answered.
And in setting the record straight, she only fuzzes things up further. The lawsuit to end tenure would help students, somehow, and besides "for those who have the added due-process protections of tenure, the goal here is only to make sure that system actually makes sense, without undercutting our kids’ constitutional rights."
So, the lawsuit to end tenure is not supposed to end tenure??
And this quote from Arne Duncan "sums it up well." "Tenure itself is not the issue. Job protections for effective teachers are vital to keep teachers from being fired for random or political reasons."
So the longer Campbell works at setting things straight, the more crooked the whole things seems. Also, she adds, civil rights laws.
And tenure doesn't insure good teaching. Well, now, there you have us. Also, food and clothing and windows in a room also do not insure good teaching. If we are going to sue to get rid of everything that does not insure good teaching, we are going to be here a long time.
So what's say we go ahead and stick with things that support good teaching. Like, say, the knowledge that you can't be fired for arbitrary reasons or being too expensive.
Campbell Brown has tried to set the record straight, and yet it is more murky than ever. She is suing-- oh, no, wait-- a group of "tenacious" parents is suing, and Campbell Brown is just--what? Their new BFF? A concerned rich citizen who's now laid off and depending on her husband the charter school magnate to support her? The nice lady who writes their press for them? If this is a tenacious parent lawsuit, why are you here, Campbell? Anyway, somebody is suing in order to-- do something? Get rid of tenure, but not really hoping to fully succeed? Make it easier to fire teachers, but you know, only some teachers, because that will get students a better education... somehow?
As an exercise in record straightening, this was not very successful. I hope the next attempt by America's newest ed crusader is more helpful.
Tuesday, July 22, 2014
NY Poll Delivers Bad News For CCSS
Sienna College Research Institute conducted a poll of 774 likely registered NY voters regarding the upcoming elections. Most of the results are predictably unremarkable. Actually, all of them are unremarkable if you've been paying attention. But if, like David Weigel at Slate, you'd bought the storyline of Common Core opposition as a "fringe" position, then there is news for you in this poll.
The Common Core is losing in New York State.
In total, 13% of voters didn't know enough or just didn't have an opinion.
39% said implementation should be continued.
49% said the Core should be stopped.
If CCSS were a candidate, it would be calling an emergency meeting of its election team right now.
The poll information breaks down in some interesting ways. Broken down by parties, GOP and Independents oppose the Core. Democrats support it 47%- 40%.
Broken down by political spectrum, liberals support it. Moderates and conservatives do not.
Broken down by regions of the state, CCSS is beloved in NYC (52% to 34%) but fails in all other parts of the state.
Broken down by ethnicity, the Core is in a dead heat with Latinos and is overwhelmingly supported by African Americans (60% to 25%).
Broken down by age group, CCSS comes closest to winning the 35-54 group. It flat out fails in all others.
Broken down by religion, it's a dead heat with Protestants and Other, has slight support from Jewish voters, and is solidly opposed by Catholics.
Broken down by income, CCSS is dead even in the less-than 50K crowd, and loses in the other divisions.
Union affiliation did not help. In non-union head of household..um..households, it lost 46% to 42%. With union households, it was stomped 57%-34%.
For "Don't have enough information," Jewish and Republican voter categories topped at 10%. Among Latino voters, 0% considered themselves insufficiently informed.
Yes, it's a small poll that was primarily focused on other matters entirely. But if it can wake up David Weigel, it can wake up a few other people, too. CCSS opposition (for the sixty gazillionth time) is NOT simply a bedbug of the tin hat crowd, and it's not just a problem of politics. New York State is not some wild wacky flyover territory live Utah that snooty Easterners can dismiss with a wave of their well-manicured, latte-holding hands. I don't care what your prejudices and biases are about people-- they won't explain away these results.
There are many people, many kinds of people, who don't like Common Core.
And for the rest of us, this poll is more information about where the message about this corporate driven reformy stuff is not getting through.
The Common Core is losing in New York State.
In total, 13% of voters didn't know enough or just didn't have an opinion.
39% said implementation should be continued.
49% said the Core should be stopped.
If CCSS were a candidate, it would be calling an emergency meeting of its election team right now.
The poll information breaks down in some interesting ways. Broken down by parties, GOP and Independents oppose the Core. Democrats support it 47%- 40%.
Broken down by political spectrum, liberals support it. Moderates and conservatives do not.
Broken down by regions of the state, CCSS is beloved in NYC (52% to 34%) but fails in all other parts of the state.
Broken down by ethnicity, the Core is in a dead heat with Latinos and is overwhelmingly supported by African Americans (60% to 25%).
Broken down by age group, CCSS comes closest to winning the 35-54 group. It flat out fails in all others.
Broken down by religion, it's a dead heat with Protestants and Other, has slight support from Jewish voters, and is solidly opposed by Catholics.
Broken down by income, CCSS is dead even in the less-than 50K crowd, and loses in the other divisions.
Union affiliation did not help. In non-union head of household..um..households, it lost 46% to 42%. With union households, it was stomped 57%-34%.
For "Don't have enough information," Jewish and Republican voter categories topped at 10%. Among Latino voters, 0% considered themselves insufficiently informed.
Yes, it's a small poll that was primarily focused on other matters entirely. But if it can wake up David Weigel, it can wake up a few other people, too. CCSS opposition (for the sixty gazillionth time) is NOT simply a bedbug of the tin hat crowd, and it's not just a problem of politics. New York State is not some wild wacky flyover territory live Utah that snooty Easterners can dismiss with a wave of their well-manicured, latte-holding hands. I don't care what your prejudices and biases are about people-- they won't explain away these results.
There are many people, many kinds of people, who don't like Common Core.
And for the rest of us, this poll is more information about where the message about this corporate driven reformy stuff is not getting through.
How To Win Hearts and Minds for Charterdom
My esteemed colleague at Edushyster has scored an awesome little handbook straight from the world of charter school marketing-- the Charter School Messaging Notebook. Prepared by the Glover Group for the National Alliance of Public Charter Schools, this handy guide tells you everything you need to know about launching your successful foray into the lucrative world of pretending to run schools. So tip, not just of the hat, but my entire head to her for turning this up.
Edushyster has already covered the areas dealing with some of the specific language choices of messaging ("Say This, Not That"), but there is so much more to learn from these eighteen pages of marketing gold. Because it's not what you do-- it's what you say.
The Notebook provides valuable information about winning hearts and minds. First, the researchers plumbed the depths of public knowledge. This pre-assessment determined
* 39% "know" charters are public, 37% think they're private
* 53% think achievement at charters is highers
* 25% think students are admitted by academic qualifications, 45% don't know
* 25% think charters can charge tuition
(Note that use of "think" or "know" in these hints that researchers know what's true and what's not.)
The researchers note (and we should, too) that even burdened with mis- and no- information, voters favor support for charters hits 50% (higher for Hispanic and African American voters). But here comes the really good news for charterpreneurs:
After being given key messages, support for increasing the number of charter schools increases to 81%.
Let's go ahead and read what the writers meant instead of what they actually said (I'm thinking we're not giving key messages to the support). Exactly what are those key messages that increase support dramatically for charter schools, and at whom should we hurl them?
Who are "Our People"?
The report shows who leads the pack in charter support without any extra information, and who leads the pack after getting key messages. Those are interesting lists, but what's really interesting is the list of people who can be moved the most by proper messaging. These are our targets, the people that we can turn from Doubting Charter Thomases into True Charter Believers, if only we smack them with the right messages.
* Women over 50
* Voters with a high school education or less
* Voters over the age of 65
* Voters in the Midwest and rural communities
* Voters from low-income families
* Women
* Registered independents
So with what messages shall we smack them?
The researchers tested twelve messages. Three turned out to be huntless dogs, but the remaining nine look like they can bring home the mail effectively. In order of swellness, they are-
1) Achievement.
This is the big winner. So keep pushing out those misleading stats like the high college enrollment or the 100% graduation rates. It goes without stating that you should avoid bringing up the lackluster student achievement or the humongous attrition rates.
2) Responsiveness
Actually surprised me with this one, but the idea that teachers in charters are free to adjust to individual student needs is attractive (if somewhat fictional), as is the idea that the school itself can be flexible. Not sure how "no excuses" schools are supposed to make use of this marketing trick.
3) Partnership
Charter schools provide partnership between students, teachers and parents where all are held accountable with freedom to innovate and stuff.
4) Innovation
Charters are on the cutting edge of public education reform. Really? So, they are further into Common Core and high-stakes testing than the rest of us? I'm pretty sure the charters that are advertising themselves as specifically NOT having Common Core are not using this page from the handbook.
5) Waiting Lists
This comes with an asterisk and a warning. Use it where people are trained to think "waiting list" means "huge demand" and not in places where people think "waiting list" means "huge PITA leading to no choice."
6) Options
When the public school won't treat your special snowflake properly, go to a charter. They'll understand.
7) Defining charters
This thread runs throughout the paper. Keep defining charters, so that you can replace peoples' many and varied misconceptions with more market-useful misconceptions. The go-to definition here is
Charter schools are unique public schools that are allowed the freedom to be more innovative while being held accountable for advancing student achievement. Like traditional public schools, they are publicly funded, do not charge tuition, do not have special entrance requirements, are not associated with any religion, and operate in all kinds of communities across the country-- urban, suburban, and rural.
You may need to practice getting through that with a straight face.
8) Social Justice
Another asterisk. This works great with minority voters as long as you don't start comparing minority kids to white kids.
9) Resources
Tax money does not belong to the school district; it belongs to the students. This is an interesting legal notion. I assume you should not frame it by saying to childless taxpayers, "You deserve no say in how the school taxes that you pay are spent."
Other Research of Note
The researchers also asked voters what actions they thought would lead to improvements in student achievement in public schools.
Here are the winning ideas:
* Encouraging parent involvement
* Reducing class size
* Firing poor performing teachers
* Creating safer, more disciplined learning environment
Here are the losing ideas:
* Recruiting better principals/school leaders
* Creating smaller, more personalized schools
* Limiting the power of teacher unions
* Creating new PUBLIC schools so parents have more choices
It's worth noting that the very highest choices only scored 58% agreement.
Messaging messaging messaging
Throughout the notebook, the writers provide little sidebars called "Charter Schools That Work" in which they provide a sample word salad using the points they just made to create a winning message. This handbook is all about message. Message, message, message. At no point do the writers address how a charter should actually be operated-- this is strictly about how to talk about what they do. We're not concerned with the reality here-- only the marketing.
That leads us to a last page of final advice
Always focus on students. "Hands down, student focused messages perform better than anything else we can talk about."
Get your PhD in Messaging. "The more we Personalize, Humanize and Dramatize our messages, the better we do."
Research done by the Word Doctors, a world-renowned messaging firm (yes, that's a thing), shows that the most absolute golden message phrase is "effective schools that challenge students and prepare them for the future."
Also, "the right of every child to receive an excellent education" beats "the right of families to choose the public school that is best for their children" 4 to 1. Yes, that's what all of this leads to. Discussing rights not as things that people have or deserve or which conflict with each other, but as phrases that test well among voters/consumers.
Children are our most effective spokesperson. When choosing a positive image, go with a small child.
What can we learn here?
People who love public schools (I mean actual public schools or traditional public charter schools, not public-when-it-comes-to-scarfing-up-tax-dolars-but-not-so-much-when-it-comes-to-accountability charters) need to see this sort of thing.
Practically speaking, it's useful to know the sorts of things they will claim so that we can be prepared to point out. We know to ask questions such as, "100% graduation rate! That's awesome. How many of the freshmen you had four years ago were part of that graduating class?"
And we also need to take a good hard look at what the research tells us about the concerns and cares of taxpayers, voters and parents. We don't this kind of research often, or even ever, and we'd be fools not to take note of what is uppermost in the minds of the people we serve.
But we also need to know about this stuff because this is one of the fronts of this battle that we are just not prepared to fight. We invest a ton of time trying to adjust, align, argue about, fight with, overcome, and otherwise cope with reality. Meanwhile, charters just deal with their issues by making shit up. It is one of our disabilities in this fight-- we feel bound by reality, while they simply do not.
Odd, isn't it? One of the guiding principles of Schools These Days is data. Measurable, quantifiable facts, facts that can't be argued away or spun or shaded. Here's your reminder that even the reformsters know that's not how it works. It's not the facts. It's not what you actually do. It's how you talk about it.
Edushyster has already covered the areas dealing with some of the specific language choices of messaging ("Say This, Not That"), but there is so much more to learn from these eighteen pages of marketing gold. Because it's not what you do-- it's what you say.
The Notebook provides valuable information about winning hearts and minds. First, the researchers plumbed the depths of public knowledge. This pre-assessment determined
* 39% "know" charters are public, 37% think they're private
* 53% think achievement at charters is highers
* 25% think students are admitted by academic qualifications, 45% don't know
* 25% think charters can charge tuition
(Note that use of "think" or "know" in these hints that researchers know what's true and what's not.)
The researchers note (and we should, too) that even burdened with mis- and no- information, voters favor support for charters hits 50% (higher for Hispanic and African American voters). But here comes the really good news for charterpreneurs:
After being given key messages, support for increasing the number of charter schools increases to 81%.
Let's go ahead and read what the writers meant instead of what they actually said (I'm thinking we're not giving key messages to the support). Exactly what are those key messages that increase support dramatically for charter schools, and at whom should we hurl them?
Who are "Our People"?
The report shows who leads the pack in charter support without any extra information, and who leads the pack after getting key messages. Those are interesting lists, but what's really interesting is the list of people who can be moved the most by proper messaging. These are our targets, the people that we can turn from Doubting Charter Thomases into True Charter Believers, if only we smack them with the right messages.
* Women over 50
* Voters with a high school education or less
* Voters over the age of 65
* Voters in the Midwest and rural communities
* Voters from low-income families
* Women
* Registered independents
So with what messages shall we smack them?
The researchers tested twelve messages. Three turned out to be huntless dogs, but the remaining nine look like they can bring home the mail effectively. In order of swellness, they are-
1) Achievement.
This is the big winner. So keep pushing out those misleading stats like the high college enrollment or the 100% graduation rates. It goes without stating that you should avoid bringing up the lackluster student achievement or the humongous attrition rates.
2) Responsiveness
Actually surprised me with this one, but the idea that teachers in charters are free to adjust to individual student needs is attractive (if somewhat fictional), as is the idea that the school itself can be flexible. Not sure how "no excuses" schools are supposed to make use of this marketing trick.
3) Partnership
Charter schools provide partnership between students, teachers and parents where all are held accountable with freedom to innovate and stuff.
4) Innovation
Charters are on the cutting edge of public education reform. Really? So, they are further into Common Core and high-stakes testing than the rest of us? I'm pretty sure the charters that are advertising themselves as specifically NOT having Common Core are not using this page from the handbook.
5) Waiting Lists
This comes with an asterisk and a warning. Use it where people are trained to think "waiting list" means "huge demand" and not in places where people think "waiting list" means "huge PITA leading to no choice."
6) Options
When the public school won't treat your special snowflake properly, go to a charter. They'll understand.
7) Defining charters
This thread runs throughout the paper. Keep defining charters, so that you can replace peoples' many and varied misconceptions with more market-useful misconceptions. The go-to definition here is
Charter schools are unique public schools that are allowed the freedom to be more innovative while being held accountable for advancing student achievement. Like traditional public schools, they are publicly funded, do not charge tuition, do not have special entrance requirements, are not associated with any religion, and operate in all kinds of communities across the country-- urban, suburban, and rural.
You may need to practice getting through that with a straight face.
8) Social Justice
Another asterisk. This works great with minority voters as long as you don't start comparing minority kids to white kids.
9) Resources
Tax money does not belong to the school district; it belongs to the students. This is an interesting legal notion. I assume you should not frame it by saying to childless taxpayers, "You deserve no say in how the school taxes that you pay are spent."
Other Research of Note
The researchers also asked voters what actions they thought would lead to improvements in student achievement in public schools.
Here are the winning ideas:
* Encouraging parent involvement
* Reducing class size
* Firing poor performing teachers
* Creating safer, more disciplined learning environment
Here are the losing ideas:
* Recruiting better principals/school leaders
* Creating smaller, more personalized schools
* Limiting the power of teacher unions
* Creating new PUBLIC schools so parents have more choices
It's worth noting that the very highest choices only scored 58% agreement.
Messaging messaging messaging
Throughout the notebook, the writers provide little sidebars called "Charter Schools That Work" in which they provide a sample word salad using the points they just made to create a winning message. This handbook is all about message. Message, message, message. At no point do the writers address how a charter should actually be operated-- this is strictly about how to talk about what they do. We're not concerned with the reality here-- only the marketing.
That leads us to a last page of final advice
Always focus on students. "Hands down, student focused messages perform better than anything else we can talk about."
Get your PhD in Messaging. "The more we Personalize, Humanize and Dramatize our messages, the better we do."
Research done by the Word Doctors, a world-renowned messaging firm (yes, that's a thing), shows that the most absolute golden message phrase is "effective schools that challenge students and prepare them for the future."
Also, "the right of every child to receive an excellent education" beats "the right of families to choose the public school that is best for their children" 4 to 1. Yes, that's what all of this leads to. Discussing rights not as things that people have or deserve or which conflict with each other, but as phrases that test well among voters/consumers.
Children are our most effective spokesperson. When choosing a positive image, go with a small child.
What can we learn here?
People who love public schools (I mean actual public schools or traditional public charter schools, not public-when-it-comes-to-scarfing-up-tax-dolars-but-not-so-much-when-it-comes-to-accountability charters) need to see this sort of thing.
Practically speaking, it's useful to know the sorts of things they will claim so that we can be prepared to point out. We know to ask questions such as, "100% graduation rate! That's awesome. How many of the freshmen you had four years ago were part of that graduating class?"
And we also need to take a good hard look at what the research tells us about the concerns and cares of taxpayers, voters and parents. We don't this kind of research often, or even ever, and we'd be fools not to take note of what is uppermost in the minds of the people we serve.
But we also need to know about this stuff because this is one of the fronts of this battle that we are just not prepared to fight. We invest a ton of time trying to adjust, align, argue about, fight with, overcome, and otherwise cope with reality. Meanwhile, charters just deal with their issues by making shit up. It is one of our disabilities in this fight-- we feel bound by reality, while they simply do not.
Odd, isn't it? One of the guiding principles of Schools These Days is data. Measurable, quantifiable facts, facts that can't be argued away or spun or shaded. Here's your reminder that even the reformsters know that's not how it works. It's not the facts. It's not what you actually do. It's how you talk about it.
The Hole in the Bucket of Teachers
Many news outlets reported on a study from the Alliance for Excellent Education, which as you might guess from the buzzy name, is a DC based advocacy group that thinks CCSS is swell and aspires to have all students graduate with 21st century skills. Also, rigor.
What does the study say?
The study focuses on the attrition rate for teachers, and didn't provide much new information about those figures or their causes, instead recycling work from Ingersoll, Merrill and Stuckey done for the Consortium for Policy Research in Education. That particular paper was released back in April (I actually wrote about it earlier this year) but it didn't get quite the press that A4EE did. That would appear to be because A4EE called up Robert Ingersoll and worked with him to add something a little sexier to the mix-- a price tag.
The basic numbers remain the same. About a half million teachers move every year, that half mill about evenly split between Find Another Place To Work and Find Another Career To Work In. Difficult schools are more likely to lose teachers. The attrition rate is highest among newbies. Also, though A4EE doesn't port this info over from the CPRE report, it's worth noting that minority teachers have a higher rate of attrition-- bad news for meeting the need to have a teacher population that looks more like the students population.
The price tag is a sexy headline-writer (I don't think I've seen a single piece about this report that doesn't mention dollars in the headline). We throw the number $2.2 Billion around, based primarily on the cost of recruiting, hiring, and training new people (he also breaks it down by state). That has got to be a hard imaginary number to whip up, and in practice it has to vary greatly. I think my own district probably picks up new teachers for less than a grand, easily. But the number is effective counter-prop to those who think that if we could just fire all the old teachers and replace them with new ones, it would save us tons of money.
Why are we losing them ?
The report does link the attrition to more than money, saying that more experienced teachers help close the achievement gap.
Ingersol offers some explanations for the attrition:
Teachers departing because of job dissatisfaction link their decision to leave to inadequate administrative support,isolated working conditions, poor student discipline, low salaries, and a lack of collective teacher influence over schoolwide decisions. Ingersoll writes, “In short, the data suggest that school staffing problems are rooted in the way schools are organized and the way the teaching occupation is treated and that lasting improvements in the quality and quantity of the teaching workforce will require improvements in the quality of the teaching job."
The report cites research which indicates that social capitol-- the interactions and mutual support between teachers and staff-- has a positive effect on student achievement.
What should we do?
The report has several recommendations, led by an overhaul of new teacher induction for which they lean heavily on the work of the New Teacher Center, a group funded by the Usual Suspects, including Hewlet and Gates. But the NTC's ideas about teacher induction, on paper, are not bad. Radical things like, for instance, carefully selecting a good mentor and providing time for the mentor and new teacher to meet, yet another idea that doesn't exactly sound like rocket surgery, but which many schools can't quite get organized enough to actually do.
The five recommendations are
* regular teacher eval with multiple measures
* develop systems to encourage high quality teaching
* comprehensive induction programs for newbs
* school improvement processes should include analyses of school teaching/learning conditions
* support and foster staff collegiality
Things the study does not say
The study does not say that we have a high teacher attrition rate because tenure and FILO keep chasing away brilliant young teachers.
The study does not say that more teachers would stick around if we had more merit pay.
The study also avoids some conclusions implicit in its own sources. Ingersoll clearly states that a lack of control over their own work is one of the frustrations that often drive teachers away. Based on that and my own interaction with, you know, reality, I'd recommend that school districts systemically structure themselves for greater teacher control and autonomy.
In other words, the study also does not suggest that giving teachers a program in a box and scripted lessons will make them more excited about staying in teaching.
Alternative theories
Are there other things to be learned from the attrition numbers. I think there might be. Let me take some shots here.
Teacher preparation. What are the odds that a significant number of those unhappy newbs are saying, "What the hell! This is nothing like what I expected!" Schools of education in my neck of the woods are increasingly struggling to keep up enrollment. They're also spending a lot of time teaching teachers how to do things like incorporate standards paperwork into their lesson plan paperwork. Are real live students in real live classrooms too much of a shock?
A slightly more radical notion-- is it possible that the high attrition rate is actually a good thing? Much of the discussion of teacher attrition talks about the departed as if they were all going to be super-duper teachers and it's a great loss to the system that they bailed. But is it possible that the attrittees include some people who really weren't suited for teaching, and they figured it out and got out and both they and teaching are better for it. Does a higher attrition rate mean we are getting a better crop?
There's more to figure out
The high teacher attrition rate is surely telling us something, and it's not that we need more merit pay or less job security. The sooner we can sort it out, the stronger we can make the profession.
What does the study say?
The study focuses on the attrition rate for teachers, and didn't provide much new information about those figures or their causes, instead recycling work from Ingersoll, Merrill and Stuckey done for the Consortium for Policy Research in Education. That particular paper was released back in April (I actually wrote about it earlier this year) but it didn't get quite the press that A4EE did. That would appear to be because A4EE called up Robert Ingersoll and worked with him to add something a little sexier to the mix-- a price tag.
The basic numbers remain the same. About a half million teachers move every year, that half mill about evenly split between Find Another Place To Work and Find Another Career To Work In. Difficult schools are more likely to lose teachers. The attrition rate is highest among newbies. Also, though A4EE doesn't port this info over from the CPRE report, it's worth noting that minority teachers have a higher rate of attrition-- bad news for meeting the need to have a teacher population that looks more like the students population.
The price tag is a sexy headline-writer (I don't think I've seen a single piece about this report that doesn't mention dollars in the headline). We throw the number $2.2 Billion around, based primarily on the cost of recruiting, hiring, and training new people (he also breaks it down by state). That has got to be a hard imaginary number to whip up, and in practice it has to vary greatly. I think my own district probably picks up new teachers for less than a grand, easily. But the number is effective counter-prop to those who think that if we could just fire all the old teachers and replace them with new ones, it would save us tons of money.
Why are we losing them ?
The report does link the attrition to more than money, saying that more experienced teachers help close the achievement gap.
Ingersol offers some explanations for the attrition:
Teachers departing because of job dissatisfaction link their decision to leave to inadequate administrative support,isolated working conditions, poor student discipline, low salaries, and a lack of collective teacher influence over schoolwide decisions. Ingersoll writes, “In short, the data suggest that school staffing problems are rooted in the way schools are organized and the way the teaching occupation is treated and that lasting improvements in the quality and quantity of the teaching workforce will require improvements in the quality of the teaching job."
The report cites research which indicates that social capitol-- the interactions and mutual support between teachers and staff-- has a positive effect on student achievement.
What should we do?
The report has several recommendations, led by an overhaul of new teacher induction for which they lean heavily on the work of the New Teacher Center, a group funded by the Usual Suspects, including Hewlet and Gates. But the NTC's ideas about teacher induction, on paper, are not bad. Radical things like, for instance, carefully selecting a good mentor and providing time for the mentor and new teacher to meet, yet another idea that doesn't exactly sound like rocket surgery, but which many schools can't quite get organized enough to actually do.
The five recommendations are
* regular teacher eval with multiple measures
* develop systems to encourage high quality teaching
* comprehensive induction programs for newbs
* school improvement processes should include analyses of school teaching/learning conditions
* support and foster staff collegiality
Things the study does not say
The study does not say that we have a high teacher attrition rate because tenure and FILO keep chasing away brilliant young teachers.
The study does not say that more teachers would stick around if we had more merit pay.
The study also avoids some conclusions implicit in its own sources. Ingersoll clearly states that a lack of control over their own work is one of the frustrations that often drive teachers away. Based on that and my own interaction with, you know, reality, I'd recommend that school districts systemically structure themselves for greater teacher control and autonomy.
In other words, the study also does not suggest that giving teachers a program in a box and scripted lessons will make them more excited about staying in teaching.
Alternative theories
Are there other things to be learned from the attrition numbers. I think there might be. Let me take some shots here.
Teacher preparation. What are the odds that a significant number of those unhappy newbs are saying, "What the hell! This is nothing like what I expected!" Schools of education in my neck of the woods are increasingly struggling to keep up enrollment. They're also spending a lot of time teaching teachers how to do things like incorporate standards paperwork into their lesson plan paperwork. Are real live students in real live classrooms too much of a shock?
A slightly more radical notion-- is it possible that the high attrition rate is actually a good thing? Much of the discussion of teacher attrition talks about the departed as if they were all going to be super-duper teachers and it's a great loss to the system that they bailed. But is it possible that the attrittees include some people who really weren't suited for teaching, and they figured it out and got out and both they and teaching are better for it. Does a higher attrition rate mean we are getting a better crop?
There's more to figure out
The high teacher attrition rate is surely telling us something, and it's not that we need more merit pay or less job security. The sooner we can sort it out, the stronger we can make the profession.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)