Yesterday Hillary Clinton met with NEA president Lily Eskelsen Garcia to take her shot at winning the recommendation of the nation's biggest union. This is a challenging moment for the union because, frankly, their last recommendation turned out to be a giant eight-year suckfest for education.
I'm a registered Democrat, and I vote in every election. Like most of my generation, I vote for candidates and not parties. And while the GOP has been more consistent in its general assault on public ed, the Democratic Party harbors some of the worst opponents of public education and the teachers who work in it (looking at you, Andy Cuomo). It has been particularly striking how much the Obama administration's education policies have been simply an extension of the Bush administration's policies. It is no surprise that Jeb Bush has been a big fan of Arne Duncan, or that Duncan turned to Bush 3.0 for education policy advice.
I would say that the jury is still out on Hillary, but honestly, I'd be lying. Hillary is pretty clearly tied to the same charter-loving, reform-pushing, corporate-driven, test-and-punishing reformsters as our last two Presidents. CAP, one of the fiercest reformster-driven advocacy groups in DC, was simply a holding pen for Clinton campaign leaders like John Podesta; they are close to Hillary and they have never, ever, been a friend to public education or public school teachers. DFER, a group that absolutely loathes teachers and the teachers union, is delighted that Hillary is running.
In the NEA's press release, Garcia says that she and Clinton had "a frank and robust conversation about what is a stake in this coming election." That's followed by a few words from Clinton, none of which are terribly convincing.
Some of it is a plate or verbal twinkies, a pretty puff of empty ear calories.
What we can do together to deal with the issues we know are at the real core of making it possible to look at every little boy and girl and say "yes, you will have the best chances we can give you."
So, we will do stuff for children, and it will be stuff that is good. Glad we clarified that. This clearly sets Clinton apart from all other candidates. But what about education?
Are tests important? Yes. Do we need accountability? Yes.
Are tests important? Really? Which tests? A first grade teacher's weekly spelling test? The useless abomination that is the PARCC?
And we need accountability? To whom? For what? Is she saying that the public should get to know what's going on in their local schools, or is she saying that the burden of proof is on schools to prove to the government that they don't suck?
And then there's this baloney:
So many of our poorer schools have cut off all the extracurricular activities. We’ve taken away band, in so many places we’ve taken away a lot of the sports. We’ve taken away arts classes. We’ve taken away school productions.
Okay, I don't want to minimize what's here. The loss of extra-curriculars, music, sports, the arts-- these are all bad things. But if you're looking at our nation's poorest, most underserved schools, and this is what you see, I am concerned. Perhaps we could also talk about physical plants-- buildings that are crumbling and un-maintained. Perhaps we could talk about support for simple things like, say, textbooks. Or enough teachers to reduce crowded class sizes. We might even talk about the systematic silencing of poor, black voices in places like Newark and Philadelphia, where the non-wealthy non-white community members are being deprived of the fundamental democratic process that is supposed to be basic to our country.
This is just a weird thing to focus on, out of all the issues that face high-poverty schools and communities.
[Update: In Washington Post's coverage of the interview, the stress was on Clinton's promise to listen. Which, I suppose, is better than a statement that she will absolutely ignore teachers. But talk is cheap, and listening is even cheaper.
“She basically said ‘What kind of fool would be making public policy
without listening to the people who live in those communities, the
people who know the names of the kids’?” Garcia said. “I loved that.”
Well, I love that, too. But the answer to her question is "Everybody in the current administration and all her good friends at CAP." And no, you don't get any credit for Listening To Teachers when the only ones you listen to are ones that are carefully vetted and selected. And you don't get credit for listening to teachers if you then ignore everything they say.
Every major policy decision about education in the last decade has been made without any serious significant input from actual teachers. Clinton's promise to "listen" does not move me.]
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Hillary Clinton is a better option than Scott Walker. And having just your legs chopped off is a better option than having both your arms and legs chopped off. I'm sick to death of the Democrats arguing, well, yeah, we suck, and we're going to punch you in the face, but that guy over there is going to kick you in the junk, so choose us. And frankly, at this point, when it comes to education I don't see a lot of real policy airspace between Clinton 2.0 and Bush 3.0.
I'm happy see Clinton court the NEA vote, but I remain unconvinced, and an endorsement from my union leaders will not sway my vote in the slightest. They're political animals, and they will make a political choice. But I'm a teacher, and I am so deeply and profoundly tired of voting for people who don't respect me, or my work, or the institution that is both the foundation of this country and the object of my life's work. I'll vote for Sanders or Nader before I throw my vote away on one more politician who's just going to kick me in the face.
Tuesday, June 9, 2015
Monday, June 8, 2015
The Graduation Rate
If you want a quick, clear look at the story behind the awesometastic grad rate miracle rate of 81%, this NPR piece from Anya Kanenetz is a good place to start (it's also pretty).
Kamanetz boils down the possible explanations to three:
1) Intervention
2) Making it easier
3) Cheating
The intervention option is clearly the best one. But it is also expensive and time-consuming. So it's no wonder that many districts resort to 2 and 3. We don't have them in these parts, but I keep hearing about recovery credits, which sound suspiciously like cheap extra credit/makeup work projects that allow schools to say a student passed a course. Beyond the official institutional ways to lower the bar, most teachers have also encountered the unofficial approach-- the one where a guidance counselor or a principal or a special ed department head calls you in to explain why you need to offer some extra credit or make-up work or just plain re-compute your final grades in order to achieve the desired result for Chris McSadstudent.
The article also notes that Texas has miraculous improvements in graduation rate, which we can just add to the list of Texas miracles that aren't (like miraculous economic growth or their earlier education miracles). But many states have figured out how to make students disappear before they can hurt the numbers.
I don't dispute the value of graduation rate as a measure of How Well We're Doing. Well, I don't dispute it as long as we change one simple thing.
Four years.
Why, exactly, is the four year part important?
I have taught so many students sooooooo many students who struggled and finally got a handle on things or broke through to understanding or just plain grew up enough that after a tough start in high school, they finally graduated-- proudly and honestly. But they did it in four years. So they don't count.
Here's Pat, who was a hellion in ninth grade and couldn't focus and was defiant and tried to Teach The School a Lesson by flunking everything on purpose. And then sometime around birthday #16, Pat just settled down and figured it out. But by then Pat was a year behind. Pat graduates in five years.
Here's Chris, who was basically homeless until age fifteen. Chris spent two years in ninth grade because there was nobody at home to get Chris to school more than two days a week. But Chris's mom finally got a job and a car and a stable relationship, and Chris did great work in 10th, 11th and 12th grade, graduating in the middle of the class. But Chris did it in five years.
Here's Sam, who decided that cyber school sounded pretty cool. Sam left for cyberia three months into tenth grade, and the entire rest of the year was a wash, and Sam was soon back in public school, where a repeat of tenth grade was necessary to get back to speed. Sam, now convinced there was no alternative except to make public school work out, finished strong. But in five years.
All of these students, on reports of graduation rate, count exactly the same as Hunter, who lost the path forward and just plain dropped out, never to return, never to graduate.
The problem with the four-year graduation rate is the same as with many other reformy measures-- it can't be easily fixed by legitimate means, it doesn't count circumstances that really are wins (see above examples), and it carries high stakes for the individual schools. Put it all together, and you have a high motivation to fudge, game, and cheat the system.
We really-- REALLY-- need a conversation about why, exactly, we believe that someone who takes five (or even six) years to successfully complete high school is a problem or a failure. Why is it so crucial that students graduate by a certain timetable-- and why is that actually MORE important than whether they graduate with a full education or not?
Let's keep counting the graduates, but let's stop counting the years.
Kamanetz boils down the possible explanations to three:
1) Intervention
2) Making it easier
3) Cheating
The intervention option is clearly the best one. But it is also expensive and time-consuming. So it's no wonder that many districts resort to 2 and 3. We don't have them in these parts, but I keep hearing about recovery credits, which sound suspiciously like cheap extra credit/makeup work projects that allow schools to say a student passed a course. Beyond the official institutional ways to lower the bar, most teachers have also encountered the unofficial approach-- the one where a guidance counselor or a principal or a special ed department head calls you in to explain why you need to offer some extra credit or make-up work or just plain re-compute your final grades in order to achieve the desired result for Chris McSadstudent.
The article also notes that Texas has miraculous improvements in graduation rate, which we can just add to the list of Texas miracles that aren't (like miraculous economic growth or their earlier education miracles). But many states have figured out how to make students disappear before they can hurt the numbers.
I don't dispute the value of graduation rate as a measure of How Well We're Doing. Well, I don't dispute it as long as we change one simple thing.
Four years.
Why, exactly, is the four year part important?
I have taught so many students sooooooo many students who struggled and finally got a handle on things or broke through to understanding or just plain grew up enough that after a tough start in high school, they finally graduated-- proudly and honestly. But they did it in four years. So they don't count.
Here's Pat, who was a hellion in ninth grade and couldn't focus and was defiant and tried to Teach The School a Lesson by flunking everything on purpose. And then sometime around birthday #16, Pat just settled down and figured it out. But by then Pat was a year behind. Pat graduates in five years.
Here's Chris, who was basically homeless until age fifteen. Chris spent two years in ninth grade because there was nobody at home to get Chris to school more than two days a week. But Chris's mom finally got a job and a car and a stable relationship, and Chris did great work in 10th, 11th and 12th grade, graduating in the middle of the class. But Chris did it in five years.
Here's Sam, who decided that cyber school sounded pretty cool. Sam left for cyberia three months into tenth grade, and the entire rest of the year was a wash, and Sam was soon back in public school, where a repeat of tenth grade was necessary to get back to speed. Sam, now convinced there was no alternative except to make public school work out, finished strong. But in five years.
All of these students, on reports of graduation rate, count exactly the same as Hunter, who lost the path forward and just plain dropped out, never to return, never to graduate.
The problem with the four-year graduation rate is the same as with many other reformy measures-- it can't be easily fixed by legitimate means, it doesn't count circumstances that really are wins (see above examples), and it carries high stakes for the individual schools. Put it all together, and you have a high motivation to fudge, game, and cheat the system.
We really-- REALLY-- need a conversation about why, exactly, we believe that someone who takes five (or even six) years to successfully complete high school is a problem or a failure. Why is it so crucial that students graduate by a certain timetable-- and why is that actually MORE important than whether they graduate with a full education or not?
Let's keep counting the graduates, but let's stop counting the years.
PA: The Big Bucks
Can you guess who the highest-paid educator in Pennsylvania is?
It's Abington School Superintendent Amy Sichel, who on July 1 will see her salary rise to a healthy $319,714.
Sichel may or may not be worth it. Okay, no-- nobody's worth that kind of money. But Sichel is also not the standard issue shiny bump-and-run superintendent that we see in so many districts. She has spent her entire career in the Abington School District (north of Philly), and she has held the superintendent job for fifteen years (which is roughly 143 in superintendent years).
A profile from 2012, when Sichel was tapped to lead the AASA (the school superintendents association), included praise from the teachers' union and from the school board:
“Amy is a tough cookie and a strong personality. When she comes into the room, you know she’s there,” Debra Lee, president of the Abington Education Association, says. “She’s a no-nonsense person. She expects the most of everyone, but she also gives us the most. She is a wonderful leader, someone you want to follow.”
“She doesn’t beat around the bush with good news or bad news,” [Board President Raymond] McGarry adds. “She has no hidden agendas. She tells you what she expects in terms of behavior and achievement. I appreciate that. There is nothing worse than a leader with unclear goals.”
She has made some gutsy choices, like eliminating all but college-bound tracks. But I give her points for making her changes and then sticking around to see them through. This puts her in a different class than superintendents who make some program changes and stick around just long enough to add those changes to their resume.
Sichel actually testified before Congress about rauthorizing ESEA-- in 2011. In that testimony she made seven recommendations based on the secrets of her own success:
1) Use a standards based model driven by assessment
2) Use a growth model to measure success
3) Make the growth model variable by individual students
4) Base ESEA on realistic and attainable goals
5) Encourage programs based on research on what works
6) Look to districts that are succeeding
7) Put locus of control at state and local level
There are other secrets of her success that she didn't list. For instance, I'll bet dollars to donut holes that she has benefited from having been in the district her whole professional career, thereby knowing the people and the history of her school and community. Building relationships and knowing the territory take time; the average curriculum cowboy riding in on a suprintendency steed cannot easily or quickly master those aspects of the job any more than you can get the person you just met this morning to marry you by tonight.
Another secret is her district itself. Abington School District does have some free and reduced lunch students, but they also have a median family income around $70K (the state and the nation median family income both come in around $49K). The district handles a bit over 7K students and employs about 550 teachers. They have one high school, one junior high, and seven elementary schools. It strikes me as a nearly perfect size and configuration for a school district. It is the kind of district that tells a new superintendent, "We want, during your tenure, for this district to be highlighted on the local, state, and national level" and doesn't balk at doing one-to-one computing for a few thousand students.
In other words, it may well take a village to raise a successful superintendent. I have no doubt that Sichel leads well (I have seen what happens in districts that have all the tools but no actual leadership), but it's also clear that where she is has contributed to her success. Nor is shy about saying she's earned her salary which (remember, this is where we started) the highest in the state, and comes loaded with various performance and retention bonuses on top. It's a huge pile of taxpayer dollars, but the whole story underline how much that rich school districts can do that poor districts cannot
It's Abington School Superintendent Amy Sichel, who on July 1 will see her salary rise to a healthy $319,714.
Sichel may or may not be worth it. Okay, no-- nobody's worth that kind of money. But Sichel is also not the standard issue shiny bump-and-run superintendent that we see in so many districts. She has spent her entire career in the Abington School District (north of Philly), and she has held the superintendent job for fifteen years (which is roughly 143 in superintendent years).
A profile from 2012, when Sichel was tapped to lead the AASA (the school superintendents association), included praise from the teachers' union and from the school board:
“Amy is a tough cookie and a strong personality. When she comes into the room, you know she’s there,” Debra Lee, president of the Abington Education Association, says. “She’s a no-nonsense person. She expects the most of everyone, but she also gives us the most. She is a wonderful leader, someone you want to follow.”
“She doesn’t beat around the bush with good news or bad news,” [Board President Raymond] McGarry adds. “She has no hidden agendas. She tells you what she expects in terms of behavior and achievement. I appreciate that. There is nothing worse than a leader with unclear goals.”
She has made some gutsy choices, like eliminating all but college-bound tracks. But I give her points for making her changes and then sticking around to see them through. This puts her in a different class than superintendents who make some program changes and stick around just long enough to add those changes to their resume.
Sichel actually testified before Congress about rauthorizing ESEA-- in 2011. In that testimony she made seven recommendations based on the secrets of her own success:
1) Use a standards based model driven by assessment
2) Use a growth model to measure success
3) Make the growth model variable by individual students
4) Base ESEA on realistic and attainable goals
5) Encourage programs based on research on what works
6) Look to districts that are succeeding
7) Put locus of control at state and local level
There are other secrets of her success that she didn't list. For instance, I'll bet dollars to donut holes that she has benefited from having been in the district her whole professional career, thereby knowing the people and the history of her school and community. Building relationships and knowing the territory take time; the average curriculum cowboy riding in on a suprintendency steed cannot easily or quickly master those aspects of the job any more than you can get the person you just met this morning to marry you by tonight.
Another secret is her district itself. Abington School District does have some free and reduced lunch students, but they also have a median family income around $70K (the state and the nation median family income both come in around $49K). The district handles a bit over 7K students and employs about 550 teachers. They have one high school, one junior high, and seven elementary schools. It strikes me as a nearly perfect size and configuration for a school district. It is the kind of district that tells a new superintendent, "We want, during your tenure, for this district to be highlighted on the local, state, and national level" and doesn't balk at doing one-to-one computing for a few thousand students.
In other words, it may well take a village to raise a successful superintendent. I have no doubt that Sichel leads well (I have seen what happens in districts that have all the tools but no actual leadership), but it's also clear that where she is has contributed to her success. Nor is shy about saying she's earned her salary which (remember, this is where we started) the highest in the state, and comes loaded with various performance and retention bonuses on top. It's a huge pile of taxpayer dollars, but the whole story underline how much that rich school districts can do that poor districts cannot
IN: Free Money for Charters
Governor Mike Pence of Indiana never gets tired of finding new ways to support charter schools, and he doesn't appear to be too worried about who he has to shaft to do it.
As reported in the Indy Star, Pence earlier this year convinced the Indiana legislature to set aside a few truckloads of free money for charter schools.
This was actually a compromise of sorts. Pence's goal had been to get a $1,500 bonus payment for each charter student, arguing that this would give charters the money to build to match the kind of money that public schools get through property taxes, an argument that kind of hurts my head because of course those same property tax dollars are used to fund charter schools. So Pence's argument was, I guess, that charter schools should get public tax dollars, and then they should get more public tax dollars.
Why is that "conservative" lawmakers so often support the most inefficient, expensive system of education possible? As public school systems are strapped for cash, the universally react the same way-- they close schools, because fewer buildings are cheaper to operate. But in charterland, we open more buildings and flood the school system with excess capacity, all of which must be paid for by the taxpayers.
Charter supporters are the shoppers saying, "Look. A 12 oz can of Dr. Pepper costs less than a two-liter bottle. There for, instead of getting one two-liter bottle, we should get a case of cans. That's cheaper, right?"
Ultimately, lawmakers balked at the $20 million price tag for the charter bonus, and as a "compromise" okayed only $500, plus a charter loan fund of $50 million.
Charters will pay a whopping 1% interest on the loans, meaning that the taxpayers of Indiana could have done almost as well taking $50 million and burying it in a jar in the back yard. And that's assuming that the loans are paid back. Back in 2013 the state paid off $90 million dollars in charter loans, which makes it all the more impressive that charters in Indiana are back in sorts of debt-- over half the charters in Indiana are collectively in debt to the tune of $120 million. Of course, if you could borrow money at rates somewhere between 1% and -100%, wouldn't you?
Supporters of the public money giveaway say that it's a good deal because the state ends up with a building as security. But noting that charters can close up shop any time they like, John O'Neal of ISTA comes up with the on-point quote:
"In the last couple years, there have been about 15 or more school closures in Indiana alone," said John O'Neal, policy and research coordinator for the Indiana State Teachers Association. "I think it's definitely something to question whether it's a good use of tax dollars when these schools can just pick up and leave."
It is something to question, but it doesn't look like the Indiana legislature is prepared to do the questioning (or even allow it-- the new loan package was passed at the 11th hour without debate or discussion). But they have certainly done their best to make sure that taxpayers foot the bill for as many extra school systems as their are privateers interested in profiting from them. Congratulations, Indiana taxpayers!
As reported in the Indy Star, Pence earlier this year convinced the Indiana legislature to set aside a few truckloads of free money for charter schools.
This was actually a compromise of sorts. Pence's goal had been to get a $1,500 bonus payment for each charter student, arguing that this would give charters the money to build to match the kind of money that public schools get through property taxes, an argument that kind of hurts my head because of course those same property tax dollars are used to fund charter schools. So Pence's argument was, I guess, that charter schools should get public tax dollars, and then they should get more public tax dollars.
Why is that "conservative" lawmakers so often support the most inefficient, expensive system of education possible? As public school systems are strapped for cash, the universally react the same way-- they close schools, because fewer buildings are cheaper to operate. But in charterland, we open more buildings and flood the school system with excess capacity, all of which must be paid for by the taxpayers.
Charter supporters are the shoppers saying, "Look. A 12 oz can of Dr. Pepper costs less than a two-liter bottle. There for, instead of getting one two-liter bottle, we should get a case of cans. That's cheaper, right?"
Ultimately, lawmakers balked at the $20 million price tag for the charter bonus, and as a "compromise" okayed only $500, plus a charter loan fund of $50 million.
Charters will pay a whopping 1% interest on the loans, meaning that the taxpayers of Indiana could have done almost as well taking $50 million and burying it in a jar in the back yard. And that's assuming that the loans are paid back. Back in 2013 the state paid off $90 million dollars in charter loans, which makes it all the more impressive that charters in Indiana are back in sorts of debt-- over half the charters in Indiana are collectively in debt to the tune of $120 million. Of course, if you could borrow money at rates somewhere between 1% and -100%, wouldn't you?
Supporters of the public money giveaway say that it's a good deal because the state ends up with a building as security. But noting that charters can close up shop any time they like, John O'Neal of ISTA comes up with the on-point quote:
"In the last couple years, there have been about 15 or more school closures in Indiana alone," said John O'Neal, policy and research coordinator for the Indiana State Teachers Association. "I think it's definitely something to question whether it's a good use of tax dollars when these schools can just pick up and leave."
It is something to question, but it doesn't look like the Indiana legislature is prepared to do the questioning (or even allow it-- the new loan package was passed at the 11th hour without debate or discussion). But they have certainly done their best to make sure that taxpayers foot the bill for as many extra school systems as their are privateers interested in profiting from them. Congratulations, Indiana taxpayers!
Sunday, June 7, 2015
Arizona's Teacher Desert
This week in the New York Times, Fernando Santos and Motoko Rich took a look at the continuing teacher shortage in Arizona, where leaders continue to demonstrate that they understand neither education nor the free market forces that they claim to love.
Arizona's history with reformster nonsense goes way back. Bill McCallum was a professor at the University of Arizona back when he became one of the co-authors of the Common Core. Arizona has long camped out at the bottom of most education lists-- spending, test results, you name it, they've sucked at it. When reformy governor Jan Brewer backed Tea Party fave Doug Ducey all the way to the capital, that was not good news for education.
Ducey brought in reformsters Paul Pastorek, obliterator-in-chief of New Orleans schools, and Joel Klein, who never met a public school that he didn't want to shut down. Pastorek and Klein showed up to help promote the idea of a charter-choice non-public school system where children carrying tax dollars in their backpacks travel from school to school begging to be admitted. At that same event, Ducey (previous job: CEO of Cold Stone Creamery) declared a need for more positive view of Arizona:
"I believe that too many have fallen into a doom-and-gloom cycle where everything is wrong, where the cynic is winning, telling others that nothing is right," Ducey said. "I say it's time we shed an inferiority complex inside this state."
It's funny-- I would think that an acolyte of Competition and Free Market Forces would recognize that a good way to shed an inferiority complex would be to take steps to stop being inferior.
That has not always been the Arizona way. A year ago their legislature was seriously discussing a bill to shut educators up, barring them from "distributing electronic materials to influence the outcome of an election or to advocate support for or opposition to pending or proposed legislation." (It was shouted down in the 11th hour.) Arizona has also led the country in anti-Hispanic legislation, banning Mexican-American studies from the classroom.
Through all of this, Arizona has continued to have a teacher problem.
Last fall, Arizona schools were trying to fill teaching positions by recruiting in the Philipines. An Arizona Department of Education task force on teacher retention and recruitment issued a report in January of this year, and the picture was not pretty. Two years ago Arizona schools began the year with around a thousand unfilled teaching positions (out of a complete teaching force of a bit over 60,000). Going forward, things just look worse, with the impending retirement of up to a quarter of the current teaching force.
The report also shows the level of experience plummeting. In 1987-88, the most common experience level for teachers was 15 years. In 2011-12, it was five years. In 2013-14, 24% of first year teachers and 20% of second year teachers left their jobs "and were not reported as teaching in Arizona." In other words, just under a quarter of Arizona's newest teachers either left teaching or Arizona.
There are not too many mysteries about why Arizona cannot hold onto a complete teaching force. For starters, if you live anywhere else, you may think you know what low spending on schools looks like. But take a guess at what Arizona's per-pupil spending is, according to most recent reports--
$3,400.
That puts Arizona dead last in the US. So teachers in Arizona get bupkus in financial resources for meeting the needs of their students.
Can't they just fill in the gap out of their own pockets, like other teachers all across America? I'm sure they'd like to, and I'll bet many do-- but the pockets of an Arizona teacher do not run very deep. The report says that the average starting salary is $31,874. Keep in mind-- that's an average, which means that all sorts of folks are starting out a even less than that. The report notes that is an increase of 20% over 2003 starting salaries, meaning that teaching has grown far slower than "other degreed professions."
In the NYT article, we meet John-David Bowman, the 2015 Arizona Teacher of the Year. He hasn't had a raise since 2008. If he retires in twenty years, he'll do so with a salary under $50K.
Unsurprisingly, many Arizona school districts have frozen or cut spending. As the visit of Pastorek and Klein would suggest, Arizona has for years been pursuing a policy of cutting state spending, which leaves three options for local districts: A) raise local taxes to make up difference, B) let school spiral downward and be declared a distressed failure, or C) all of the above.
That man-made disaster suits some folks just fine. Among Arizona's many low, low grades in education, there is one high mark. The Center for Education Reform, a group devoted to pushing charters anywhere and everywhere, gave Arizona one of a handful of A's for being a great state for charters. The NYT article includes a quote from a parent who has reluctantly gone charter rather than send her small children into a classroom of forty students.
Protection for teachers? Well, the Fordham Institute issued a report back in 2012 ranking state teacher unions for power an influence in their states, and there we find Arizona dead last on yet another list. Arizona is a right to work state, with no collective bargaining rights. Tenure ("continuing status") still exists, but low test scores can be a reason to fire "tenured" teachers. And when furloughs are called for, districts may not consider seniority as a factor. (By which I don't mean "it might not happen" but rather "they aren't allowed to do it")
How bad is the attitude about education in Arizona? That same study of retention and recruitment includes recommendations for improving the situation. It includes recommendations for policymakers including:
* Elevate positive reinforcement for the role our educators play in ensuring success for all students
* Publicly acknowledge the value of the teaching profession and the critical need for effective teachers in all Arizona classrooms
* Help to improve the respect afforded educators
* Publicly acknowledge the value of the teaching profession
Let those sink in. The Arizona Department of Education thought these were things that policymakers needed to be told, implying that these are things policymakers didn't already know (after all, campaign consultants don't tell their candidates "Kiss babies. Say nice things about America. Remember to keep breathing.") It is bad enough in Arizona that "show teachers respect" qualifies as bold new policy advice.
So. Low pay, poor workplace resources, no job security, difficult work conditions, and no respect from state leaders. How could Arizona possibly have a teacher shortage?
You would think free market conservatives could figure this one out. If I walk into Cold Stone Creamery and say, "Give me a four scoop hot chocolate sundae with crushed nuts and strawberries, and I want to stand on that side of the counter and poke you in the nose while you make it. I'll pay you a quarter" I am not going to get my wish. If you want to purchase goods and/or services, and people won't sell them to you under the conditions you set, you have to up your offer. This is not rocket science. The invisible hand does not set prices based on what we'd like to pay; otherwise, we would all buy new cars for $1.50. But free marketeers always seem to want to bite the invisible hand that feeds them when it says that they have to fork over real money to pay for labor and materials.
The solution to Arizona's teacher shortage is neither mysterious or complicated. Pay a living wage. Take care of your schools properly. Provide the resources needed to do the job. Treat your teachers, both by word and by policy, with respect.
Ducey may have caught on, at least a little. Last Thursday he announced a plan to pump an additional $2 billion into schools. This will be financed by dipping into Arizona's state land trust permanent fund, a fund that gains money from sale of land and resources of the land held in trust by the state; currently that fund is enjoying success from stock market investments. So, yeah-- selling off publicly held resources and investing the money in the market. There's no way this could end badly.
It is tossing a bone to public schools. (Universities, which continue to take heavy hits, get no such bone.) It was greeted with "cautious optimism." But for now, I would not put Arizona on my list of Great Places To Pursue a Teaching Career. Not until Arizona policymakers indicate they have found stopped wandering in the desert and have finally located a clue.
Arizona's history with reformster nonsense goes way back. Bill McCallum was a professor at the University of Arizona back when he became one of the co-authors of the Common Core. Arizona has long camped out at the bottom of most education lists-- spending, test results, you name it, they've sucked at it. When reformy governor Jan Brewer backed Tea Party fave Doug Ducey all the way to the capital, that was not good news for education.
Ducey brought in reformsters Paul Pastorek, obliterator-in-chief of New Orleans schools, and Joel Klein, who never met a public school that he didn't want to shut down. Pastorek and Klein showed up to help promote the idea of a charter-choice non-public school system where children carrying tax dollars in their backpacks travel from school to school begging to be admitted. At that same event, Ducey (previous job: CEO of Cold Stone Creamery) declared a need for more positive view of Arizona:
"I believe that too many have fallen into a doom-and-gloom cycle where everything is wrong, where the cynic is winning, telling others that nothing is right," Ducey said. "I say it's time we shed an inferiority complex inside this state."
It's funny-- I would think that an acolyte of Competition and Free Market Forces would recognize that a good way to shed an inferiority complex would be to take steps to stop being inferior.
That has not always been the Arizona way. A year ago their legislature was seriously discussing a bill to shut educators up, barring them from "distributing electronic materials to influence the outcome of an election or to advocate support for or opposition to pending or proposed legislation." (It was shouted down in the 11th hour.) Arizona has also led the country in anti-Hispanic legislation, banning Mexican-American studies from the classroom.
Through all of this, Arizona has continued to have a teacher problem.
Last fall, Arizona schools were trying to fill teaching positions by recruiting in the Philipines. An Arizona Department of Education task force on teacher retention and recruitment issued a report in January of this year, and the picture was not pretty. Two years ago Arizona schools began the year with around a thousand unfilled teaching positions (out of a complete teaching force of a bit over 60,000). Going forward, things just look worse, with the impending retirement of up to a quarter of the current teaching force.
The report also shows the level of experience plummeting. In 1987-88, the most common experience level for teachers was 15 years. In 2011-12, it was five years. In 2013-14, 24% of first year teachers and 20% of second year teachers left their jobs "and were not reported as teaching in Arizona." In other words, just under a quarter of Arizona's newest teachers either left teaching or Arizona.
There are not too many mysteries about why Arizona cannot hold onto a complete teaching force. For starters, if you live anywhere else, you may think you know what low spending on schools looks like. But take a guess at what Arizona's per-pupil spending is, according to most recent reports--
$3,400.
That puts Arizona dead last in the US. So teachers in Arizona get bupkus in financial resources for meeting the needs of their students.
Can't they just fill in the gap out of their own pockets, like other teachers all across America? I'm sure they'd like to, and I'll bet many do-- but the pockets of an Arizona teacher do not run very deep. The report says that the average starting salary is $31,874. Keep in mind-- that's an average, which means that all sorts of folks are starting out a even less than that. The report notes that is an increase of 20% over 2003 starting salaries, meaning that teaching has grown far slower than "other degreed professions."
In the NYT article, we meet John-David Bowman, the 2015 Arizona Teacher of the Year. He hasn't had a raise since 2008. If he retires in twenty years, he'll do so with a salary under $50K.
Unsurprisingly, many Arizona school districts have frozen or cut spending. As the visit of Pastorek and Klein would suggest, Arizona has for years been pursuing a policy of cutting state spending, which leaves three options for local districts: A) raise local taxes to make up difference, B) let school spiral downward and be declared a distressed failure, or C) all of the above.
That man-made disaster suits some folks just fine. Among Arizona's many low, low grades in education, there is one high mark. The Center for Education Reform, a group devoted to pushing charters anywhere and everywhere, gave Arizona one of a handful of A's for being a great state for charters. The NYT article includes a quote from a parent who has reluctantly gone charter rather than send her small children into a classroom of forty students.
Protection for teachers? Well, the Fordham Institute issued a report back in 2012 ranking state teacher unions for power an influence in their states, and there we find Arizona dead last on yet another list. Arizona is a right to work state, with no collective bargaining rights. Tenure ("continuing status") still exists, but low test scores can be a reason to fire "tenured" teachers. And when furloughs are called for, districts may not consider seniority as a factor. (By which I don't mean "it might not happen" but rather "they aren't allowed to do it")
How bad is the attitude about education in Arizona? That same study of retention and recruitment includes recommendations for improving the situation. It includes recommendations for policymakers including:
* Elevate positive reinforcement for the role our educators play in ensuring success for all students
* Publicly acknowledge the value of the teaching profession and the critical need for effective teachers in all Arizona classrooms
* Help to improve the respect afforded educators
* Publicly acknowledge the value of the teaching profession
Let those sink in. The Arizona Department of Education thought these were things that policymakers needed to be told, implying that these are things policymakers didn't already know (after all, campaign consultants don't tell their candidates "Kiss babies. Say nice things about America. Remember to keep breathing.") It is bad enough in Arizona that "show teachers respect" qualifies as bold new policy advice.
So. Low pay, poor workplace resources, no job security, difficult work conditions, and no respect from state leaders. How could Arizona possibly have a teacher shortage?
You would think free market conservatives could figure this one out. If I walk into Cold Stone Creamery and say, "Give me a four scoop hot chocolate sundae with crushed nuts and strawberries, and I want to stand on that side of the counter and poke you in the nose while you make it. I'll pay you a quarter" I am not going to get my wish. If you want to purchase goods and/or services, and people won't sell them to you under the conditions you set, you have to up your offer. This is not rocket science. The invisible hand does not set prices based on what we'd like to pay; otherwise, we would all buy new cars for $1.50. But free marketeers always seem to want to bite the invisible hand that feeds them when it says that they have to fork over real money to pay for labor and materials.
The solution to Arizona's teacher shortage is neither mysterious or complicated. Pay a living wage. Take care of your schools properly. Provide the resources needed to do the job. Treat your teachers, both by word and by policy, with respect.
Ducey may have caught on, at least a little. Last Thursday he announced a plan to pump an additional $2 billion into schools. This will be financed by dipping into Arizona's state land trust permanent fund, a fund that gains money from sale of land and resources of the land held in trust by the state; currently that fund is enjoying success from stock market investments. So, yeah-- selling off publicly held resources and investing the money in the market. There's no way this could end badly.
It is tossing a bone to public schools. (Universities, which continue to take heavy hits, get no such bone.) It was greeted with "cautious optimism." But for now, I would not put Arizona on my list of Great Places To Pursue a Teaching Career. Not until Arizona policymakers indicate they have found stopped wandering in the desert and have finally located a clue.
Saturday, June 6, 2015
The Transparent Testing Year
One of the dishonest things that schools do is to fold testing time into the rest of the year.
We get our "testing window" from the state and set the test prep elements of our year as we wish, and so testing appears to be going on while school is happening, suggesting that school and testing are related activities and also hiding from the public just how much time the state is using for the Big Standardized Test.
Imagine what would happen if we were honest about what is actually going on. Imagine this announcement from your state capital:
Next year, the school year will end on April 7. At that time, your local school district will issue report cards for the year. There will be a spring break, and then on April 14, students will report to school for the testing year. Schools will be given approximately two weeks to prepare for the test, and then test administration will begin. Students in non-testing grades will not need to report. At the conclusion of the testing year, students will be released for summer vacation. See you next fall!
There would be considerable advantages. For one, my high school ties itself in knots trying to accommodate both testing and non-testing students, not to mention bouncing teachers back and forth between covering classes, teaching classes, and proctoring tests. The testing year would allow schools to devote teaching staff to test proctoring and administration without having to pretend they're doing anything else.
Meanwhile, students could focus all their fear and loathing into one month (or so). And students who were in non-testing years would get a bonus vacation instead of a bonus study hall with some bad g-rated movie.
Now, some folks may say that it's a terrible idea to shorten the real school year by a month or more, but what do they think is happening now? Our actual teaching year is shortened by testing. It doesn't get any simpler than that. So let's stop pretending it isn't happening, cut the teaching year short and devote the testing season to testing.
We've shortened the teaching year, a move that I'm betting absolutely nobody thinks is a good idea. But we've done it in a sneaky, opaque manner without any discussion or debate. So let's put the choice we're making out there. Let's have folks try to argue that shortening the teaching year will be great for students with difficulties, that shortening the school year will help close the achievement gap, that fewer instructional hours will be a big benefit to non-white non-wealthy students, that a shorter school year is a great way to protect civil rights. Let's have that conversation instead of pretending we don't have to and that adding days or weeks of testing doesn't take a thing away from the actual business of school.
Let's stop hiding the time and opportunity cost of BS Testing. Let's have a transparent testing year.
We get our "testing window" from the state and set the test prep elements of our year as we wish, and so testing appears to be going on while school is happening, suggesting that school and testing are related activities and also hiding from the public just how much time the state is using for the Big Standardized Test.
Imagine what would happen if we were honest about what is actually going on. Imagine this announcement from your state capital:
Next year, the school year will end on April 7. At that time, your local school district will issue report cards for the year. There will be a spring break, and then on April 14, students will report to school for the testing year. Schools will be given approximately two weeks to prepare for the test, and then test administration will begin. Students in non-testing grades will not need to report. At the conclusion of the testing year, students will be released for summer vacation. See you next fall!
There would be considerable advantages. For one, my high school ties itself in knots trying to accommodate both testing and non-testing students, not to mention bouncing teachers back and forth between covering classes, teaching classes, and proctoring tests. The testing year would allow schools to devote teaching staff to test proctoring and administration without having to pretend they're doing anything else.
Meanwhile, students could focus all their fear and loathing into one month (or so). And students who were in non-testing years would get a bonus vacation instead of a bonus study hall with some bad g-rated movie.
Now, some folks may say that it's a terrible idea to shorten the real school year by a month or more, but what do they think is happening now? Our actual teaching year is shortened by testing. It doesn't get any simpler than that. So let's stop pretending it isn't happening, cut the teaching year short and devote the testing season to testing.
We've shortened the teaching year, a move that I'm betting absolutely nobody thinks is a good idea. But we've done it in a sneaky, opaque manner without any discussion or debate. So let's put the choice we're making out there. Let's have folks try to argue that shortening the teaching year will be great for students with difficulties, that shortening the school year will help close the achievement gap, that fewer instructional hours will be a big benefit to non-white non-wealthy students, that a shorter school year is a great way to protect civil rights. Let's have that conversation instead of pretending we don't have to and that adding days or weeks of testing doesn't take a thing away from the actual business of school.
Let's stop hiding the time and opportunity cost of BS Testing. Let's have a transparent testing year.
The Big Bad Dragon
There are those books you heard about and you thought, "Yeah, I should read that," but you were busy and didn't get around to it and after the initial publicity blast, you don't hear about it much again and so you never get back to it.
Well, I'm here to remind you about Yong Zhao's important book, Who's Afraid of the Big Bad Dragon? The book came out last fall and was reviewed by Diane Ravitch in the New York Review of Books last November. Her review is excellent and insightful and will provide you with one more set of reasons that you need to grab and read this book.
Zhao was born and raised in the Sichuan Province of China, coming to the US as a visiting scholar in 1992. He's now a professor at the University of Oregon in the Department of Educational Measurement, Policy and Leadership, as well as a senior fellow at the Mitchell Institute of Victoria Institute in Australia. He has also created a college English learning system widely used in China over the last decade. He is also, as anyone who has ever seen him speak knows, both smart and hilarious.
When you look at the sort of educational system that reformsters have tried to create over the past ten-plus years, you might be tempted to ask, "What do we know about a system like this? What do we know about creating a system for making all pieces of the educational system accountable to a central authority via a high stakes test? Has anybody ever tried this before?"
The answer of course is, yes, the Chinese have been doing it for centuries. When it comes to demonstrating problems inherent in authoritarianism in both education and in society as a whole, the Chinese have been demonstrating all the problems that come with such a system since before the United States even dreamed of becoming a country. And it's those larger implications that Zhao looks at:
The damage done by authoritarianism is far greater than the instructional time taken away by testing, the narrowed educational experiences for students, and the demoralization of teachers. The deeper tragedy is the loss of values traditionally celebrated by American education-- values that helped make America the most prosperous and advanced nation in the world.
Zhao looks at China-idolization in the US and holds it up to the cold light of reality. China's testing system, keju, was instigated by an emperor who had couped his way to the throne and developed keju "to prevent anyone else from repeating the emperor's coup." China, like all other testing giants, achieved testing supremacy by homogenizing its population. Create a system driven by a standardized test, make it the gateway to everything valuable, and you will develop a nation of standardized people.
China is a living example, the full-sized laboratory for Campbell's law:
The more any quantitative social indicator (or even some qualitative indicator) is used for social decision-making, the more subject it will be to corruption pressures and the more apt it will be to distort and corrupt the social processes it is intended to monitor.
In an authoritarian society, every process is social, and "the emperor can never be disappointed." So when Mao declared that reports on steel production must surpass, the reported production did just that, even if the steel was lousy or even imaginary. When Mao demanded that the production numbers for food keep rising even as resources were diverted to the push for industry, the food production reports did just that. The Chinese farmers made their numbers, and millions of Chinese people starved. Today, told to beat the world in scholarship and innovation, the Chinese enjoy a booming industry in low-grade junk patents and fraudulent scholarly journals.
Zhao says that the authoritarian approach to goal achievement is doomed for three reasons, and all three of them remind me immediately of our own reformster problems.
First, the top down goals are based in a grand vision of wishful thinking. "Having a grand vision is not a problem in itself, but often the grand vision in a dictatorial system lacks sufficient information about reality." Because the system demands compliance, nobody gets to speak up and say, "Here's a different view if reality that you might want to consider." So you get some grand high poobah in an office somewhere saying "We must create more steel than the West" or "100% of students will be above average" or "All five-year-olds will be able to read." Anyone who suggests these are pipe dreams is Not a Team Player or simply ignored.
Second, upward accountability. The only way to survive or move up is to make the person above you happy. That's how things work in an authoritarian country. In a democracy, you have to make the voters happy, too, but reformsters have been trying to fix that. And so reformsters have paid big money to win elections and get their folks in high positions, so that they can start replacing their own underlings with more compliant types. So a governor installs a reformy state education chief, who works to bring in reformy superintendents, who find themselves assistants and teaching staffs that are more agreeable-- and whereever that process hits a hitch, reformsters squawk and complain and try to get the rules changed. After all, an education leader should be like a CEO, and a CEO's most basic right is the right to have only underlings who agree with him.
Third, a uniform and quantifiable standard. Uniformity means that the system has no flexibility. Quantifiable means that it is always gamable, because we will be looking at something that can be measured. That measure will be treated a s a proxy for reality, but it won't be. This can be because the numbers can be lies (the monthly numbers reported for grain production are not actual grain) or because the measurement is itself bogus (PARCC scores do measure education, but are just massaged data from a batch of questions).
All of this gives China an "educational system" that doesn't really have anything to do with getting an actual education, but in turning each student into a nearly-identical test-taking answer-producing machine. Compliance and uniformity are the core values of the system.
China has recognized this as a problem-- even Mao recognized this as a problem. But China has done such a good job of inculcating compliance and uniformity in pursuit of test scores that the system has become "the witch that cannot be killed." Chinese students want to do well on The Exam that will "prove" they are college and career ready, and the student's test score is ultimately all that matters (hence the infamous riot when teachers tried to keep students from cheating-- because if only the score matters, then there is no such thing as cheating, really. Whatever gets the job done.)
Zhao gives us a clear look at China's historical struggles with its system and the various attempts to try to change. He conveys a certain bemused frustration that even as China tries to imitate the best aspects of US education, so many US leaders are intent on imitating the worst aspects of Chinese education.
Along the way Zhao gives some striking close-up looks at China and issues, provides a full catalog of US leaders saying ridiculous things, and even takes down the infamous PISA. The book is a quick, clear, simple read-- well-supported and sourced, but not thick with scholarly jargon or discourse. It would make a great gift to someone who does not work in the education field. I recommend this book highly, and now that summer is here, you've got the time to read it, so order a copy today. And if you're still on the fence, check out the link to Zhao's speech at this year's Network for Public
Well, I'm here to remind you about Yong Zhao's important book, Who's Afraid of the Big Bad Dragon? The book came out last fall and was reviewed by Diane Ravitch in the New York Review of Books last November. Her review is excellent and insightful and will provide you with one more set of reasons that you need to grab and read this book.
Zhao was born and raised in the Sichuan Province of China, coming to the US as a visiting scholar in 1992. He's now a professor at the University of Oregon in the Department of Educational Measurement, Policy and Leadership, as well as a senior fellow at the Mitchell Institute of Victoria Institute in Australia. He has also created a college English learning system widely used in China over the last decade. He is also, as anyone who has ever seen him speak knows, both smart and hilarious.
When you look at the sort of educational system that reformsters have tried to create over the past ten-plus years, you might be tempted to ask, "What do we know about a system like this? What do we know about creating a system for making all pieces of the educational system accountable to a central authority via a high stakes test? Has anybody ever tried this before?"
The answer of course is, yes, the Chinese have been doing it for centuries. When it comes to demonstrating problems inherent in authoritarianism in both education and in society as a whole, the Chinese have been demonstrating all the problems that come with such a system since before the United States even dreamed of becoming a country. And it's those larger implications that Zhao looks at:
The damage done by authoritarianism is far greater than the instructional time taken away by testing, the narrowed educational experiences for students, and the demoralization of teachers. The deeper tragedy is the loss of values traditionally celebrated by American education-- values that helped make America the most prosperous and advanced nation in the world.
Zhao looks at China-idolization in the US and holds it up to the cold light of reality. China's testing system, keju, was instigated by an emperor who had couped his way to the throne and developed keju "to prevent anyone else from repeating the emperor's coup." China, like all other testing giants, achieved testing supremacy by homogenizing its population. Create a system driven by a standardized test, make it the gateway to everything valuable, and you will develop a nation of standardized people.
China is a living example, the full-sized laboratory for Campbell's law:
The more any quantitative social indicator (or even some qualitative indicator) is used for social decision-making, the more subject it will be to corruption pressures and the more apt it will be to distort and corrupt the social processes it is intended to monitor.
In an authoritarian society, every process is social, and "the emperor can never be disappointed." So when Mao declared that reports on steel production must surpass, the reported production did just that, even if the steel was lousy or even imaginary. When Mao demanded that the production numbers for food keep rising even as resources were diverted to the push for industry, the food production reports did just that. The Chinese farmers made their numbers, and millions of Chinese people starved. Today, told to beat the world in scholarship and innovation, the Chinese enjoy a booming industry in low-grade junk patents and fraudulent scholarly journals.
Zhao says that the authoritarian approach to goal achievement is doomed for three reasons, and all three of them remind me immediately of our own reformster problems.
First, the top down goals are based in a grand vision of wishful thinking. "Having a grand vision is not a problem in itself, but often the grand vision in a dictatorial system lacks sufficient information about reality." Because the system demands compliance, nobody gets to speak up and say, "Here's a different view if reality that you might want to consider." So you get some grand high poobah in an office somewhere saying "We must create more steel than the West" or "100% of students will be above average" or "All five-year-olds will be able to read." Anyone who suggests these are pipe dreams is Not a Team Player or simply ignored.
Second, upward accountability. The only way to survive or move up is to make the person above you happy. That's how things work in an authoritarian country. In a democracy, you have to make the voters happy, too, but reformsters have been trying to fix that. And so reformsters have paid big money to win elections and get their folks in high positions, so that they can start replacing their own underlings with more compliant types. So a governor installs a reformy state education chief, who works to bring in reformy superintendents, who find themselves assistants and teaching staffs that are more agreeable-- and whereever that process hits a hitch, reformsters squawk and complain and try to get the rules changed. After all, an education leader should be like a CEO, and a CEO's most basic right is the right to have only underlings who agree with him.
Third, a uniform and quantifiable standard. Uniformity means that the system has no flexibility. Quantifiable means that it is always gamable, because we will be looking at something that can be measured. That measure will be treated a s a proxy for reality, but it won't be. This can be because the numbers can be lies (the monthly numbers reported for grain production are not actual grain) or because the measurement is itself bogus (PARCC scores do measure education, but are just massaged data from a batch of questions).
All of this gives China an "educational system" that doesn't really have anything to do with getting an actual education, but in turning each student into a nearly-identical test-taking answer-producing machine. Compliance and uniformity are the core values of the system.
China has recognized this as a problem-- even Mao recognized this as a problem. But China has done such a good job of inculcating compliance and uniformity in pursuit of test scores that the system has become "the witch that cannot be killed." Chinese students want to do well on The Exam that will "prove" they are college and career ready, and the student's test score is ultimately all that matters (hence the infamous riot when teachers tried to keep students from cheating-- because if only the score matters, then there is no such thing as cheating, really. Whatever gets the job done.)
Zhao gives us a clear look at China's historical struggles with its system and the various attempts to try to change. He conveys a certain bemused frustration that even as China tries to imitate the best aspects of US education, so many US leaders are intent on imitating the worst aspects of Chinese education.
Along the way Zhao gives some striking close-up looks at China and issues, provides a full catalog of US leaders saying ridiculous things, and even takes down the infamous PISA. The book is a quick, clear, simple read-- well-supported and sourced, but not thick with scholarly jargon or discourse. It would make a great gift to someone who does not work in the education field. I recommend this book highly, and now that summer is here, you've got the time to read it, so order a copy today. And if you're still on the fence, check out the link to Zhao's speech at this year's Network for Public
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)