Man, there's nothing quite as sad as having a birthday that everybody ignores. Nobody throws you a party, nobody sings you a song, nobody even plunks a candy in a store-bought cupcake.
You may have missed it, but June 2 was technically the Common Core State Standards fifth birthday.
You may have missed it because nobody threw the Core a party. The closest we got was a piece in Huffington Post in which Rebecca Klein did a listicle of five of the sillier arguments made against the Core. It was an odd piece, a nostalgic call-back to the days when Core opponents could be broad-brushed with the image of tin-hat reactionaries.
Mercedes Schneider responded with her own birthday piece, reminding us of such highlights as Common Core's enthusiastic adoption by states before it was even actually written. Schneider's piece also recaps the various bogus claims (it will emphasize critical thining!), its tortured creation by a small group of not-teachers, and its odd ownership and copyright by a pair of lobbying groups. Oh, and it's sponsorship by Bill Gates and super-but-totally-not-illegal support form the feds.
This is not the sort of valedictory salute that we'd expect for a five-year-old piece of policy that was going to revitalize public education in this country. But it's not exactly a surprise.
First of all, in order to have that kind of celebration, you need to be able to point to your big successes. And as we survey the five-plus years of Common Core, we can see... well, nothing. The CCSS advocates can't point to a single damn accomplishment. Nothing.
Yes, we get the periodic pieces from classroom teachers lauding the standards. These pieces follow a simple outline:
1) It used to be that I didn't know what the heck I was doing in the classroom, but then
2) I discovered Common Core and so I
3) Began doing [insert teaching techniques that any competent teacher already knew about long before the Core ever happened]
These aren't convincing a soul, and other than these various testimonials, we have been treated to exactly zero evidence that US education has been improved in any way by the Core.
Second, it's hard to throw a party for someone who has no friends. The game has tilted against the Core, and the same "friends" who embraced it when such embraces served a political purpose have now dis-embraced it for the same reason. In fact, the Core has been pierced repeatedly by the same swords it once wielded; for example, having used politics to get the Core installed, supporters now routinely complain that politics are being used against it. So yeah, some of the complaints against the Core are, in fact, crazy and unfounded and even bizarre (CCSS has been created by the One World Order to turn everyone into a gay atheist Commie, etc)-- but the Core boosters created a playing field where that kind of foolishness was fair game, and now they get to pay the price.
Even the Core's reformy allies have dumped it. The Core was going to be useful to push charters, but they no longer need it. Test manufacturers are getting more traction from civil rights rhetoric and the "college and career ready" line. Data overlords have been thwarted by direct opposition and the collapse of the National Test Dream; though they aren't giving up any time soon, the Core is no longer as useful a tool for them.
With the exception of Jeb Bush who, God bless him, may not be right, but at least he's loyal, the Core is out of high profile friends who will so much as speak its name in public.
We come not to praise the Core, but to bury it
As I noted back in March, the term "Common Core" is now essentially meaningless. It means whatever people in a particular place and time want it to mean, and because its creators have moved on to other profitable jobs, there isn't anybody to keep an eye on how the term is used.
We have multiple tests all claiming to be CCSS aligned, none of which are able to assess all the standards. Except for the ones that are aligned to state standards that are kind of the same as Common Core and kind of not. We have a mountain of textbooks claiming to be Common Core aligned with varying degrees of accuracy. We have a whole host of people who have fuzzied up the question of whether it is standards or curriculum. We have tens of thousands of local versions of the Core and programs allegedly aligned. And we have the Core itself swathed in lies like "internationally benchmarked."
Ze'ev Wurman, from the Bush administration, pointed out in Breitbart that the Core is dead because states have slowly but surely reclaimed their right to local control, effectively ending the dream of having every state on the same educational page. He's right in particular because the real driver of curriculum and standards is the Big Standardized Test, and states have been slowly but surely stepping away from the Big National Test dream and installing their own version of a large pointless standardized test that gathers no real useful data but does waste lots of time and money (because all the cool kids want one). Since the test is the curriculum and standards guide, different tests means different standards and curriculum.
So happy fifth birthday and/or wake, Common Core. I could say we never knew you, but the truth is, the better we got to know you, the less we liked you (and we didn't like you very much to begin with). There will be a variety of educational initiatives floating around that take your name in vain, but as a national policy uniting the country behind a single set of clear standards, you are dead as a month-old smear of roadkill.
Tuesday, June 9, 2015
Threading Cake (Part II)
Ordinarily when I get into these sorts of cyber-dialogues, I try to make each piece stand on its own. I'm making no such attempt here-- this is part of an ongoing dialogue with Nate Bowling and assorted other folks. You can find the first installments here and here. I'm responding to Bowling's latest entry in this discussion.
Bowling reflects on how cool it is that these kinds of layered and nuanced conversation can break out (I agree-- this to me remains one of the most amazing things about the internet) and then he moves on one of his bedrock assertions, in bold type.
I wholeheartedly reject the geographical determinism and “poor kids can’t” thinking
I think the "geography" issue is a real area of controversy and concern. I bristle at the "helping kids escape their zip code" rhetoric for a couple of reason. One, folks who push that are never talking about rescuing ALL students-- just a few, and in the process of rescuing those few, they make the situation worse for those left behind. That's not a solution. Two, I believe there is enormous power in community and the "social capital" that's built by community, and it worries me that so much "reform" is done in ways that erode that community-- taking away local control, dispersing children to the four corners of other communities. I believe these approaches are in the long term corrosive and destructive, and I also find it concerning that the implication is that there are certain zip codes that we should just go ahead a write off. This strikes me as an even larger, worse version of "poor kids can't"-- "that entire community can't."
At the same time, I recognize that we're on the clock, and telling parents, "Just leave your kids in that burning building while we try to fix the whole structure," isn't going to help them. Man, if we could just bring the kind of resolve we bring to wars-- whip up a few billion dollars, hire the personnel, and just drop a huge educational "surge" into our poorest communities.
As for "poor kids can't"-- I still feel that on this point people in the edu-debate are talking past each other (and some, frankly, are pretending not to understand what other folks are saying). Let's say that one set of kids is living in lower Manhattan and another is living in Sandusky, Ohio. All of them want to go to Philadelphia. Here's the conversation between their parents:
Manhattan Mom: It's easy. You just pick up the Megabus on 34th between 11th and 12th Avenue. It will take less than three hours.
Sandusky Dad: We can't get to that bus stop. But we can take the train and it will take us about fourteen hours.
Manhattan Mom: What do you mean, your kids can't possibly go to Philadelphia.
All of our students are starting from different places (actually, they're going to different places, too, but I'm trying not to over-torture the metaphor), and so they all have different requirements for the trip. Yes, there are people who write certain kids of for one reason or another. I like to call those people "Persons Who Don't Belong in Education." But the problem with most of our large-scale testing is that it checks progress toward Philadelphia by having everybody check in as they pass through Buffalo, which means that both the Manhattan and the Sandusky students have to travel far out of their way just to make the check-in (which doesn't yield any useful information anyway).
Side note on Pro Public Ed
Nate, you dislike my use of "Pro public education," and I understand why. The whole education debate is hampered by the lack of good labeling. I've resisted the use of "reform" for that same reason-- using it admits that public ed is messed up in a major way, and while I agree that constant and eternal moving and searching and growing is required, I reject the notion that public ed is infested with such a deep dysfunctional evil that it needs to be reformed. For my side of things, I've moved on from "resistance" (which seems too reactive) to "pro public education" because it at least hits what I am in favor of. I recognize that there are people who are in favor of certain reformy things who are public ed (and also many who do, in fact, want to dismantle public ed as we know it).
But in this case, I should have simply identified myself as anti-testing, which was the pertinent part of what I was talking about.
Moving toward a solution
I appreciated the comment from Bowling's student, which mirrors what many of my own students say. Testing is so focused on a small piece of the whole person, like taking a picture of their left forefinger knuckle as a way of judging their attractiveness.
As always, I recognize that I am far to one side on the testing issue-- I see no value in standardized testing to justify its use, and I would simply scrap the whole business. It's wasting our time and resources, and that is particularly damaging in communities where time and resources are already scarce and stretched.
Yet I agree that the public (all the public and not just parents) should know how schools are doing. (This is actually one of the reasons I'm also largely anti-charter-- because charter schools as currently practiced are less accountable than public schools).
So how do we do that without standardized tests?
1) Trust classroom teachers. Bowling offers a challenge to design an EOC test for Bio, and my answer would be that I can't create that test unless I taught the class. My own classes do not unfold exactly the same year after year (Hamlet, for instance, is "about" something different every year I teach it) and my tests reflect the shape of the year. I can predict the general shape (think strange attractors in chaos theory).
But to some extent my students shape what the course does. And I create assessments based on what we learned. My instruction drives assessment. If you're going to ask, "But how can you compare students across boundaries of city, state, and time," I'm going to ask, "Why do we need to?"
2) Transparency. The best bosses do not demand that their people drop their work and create and present a report about what they're doing. To do that is to live in a Dilbertesque world in which people can't get work done because they're constantly preparing reports on why their project is behind.
No, the best bosses go and see. Any administrator, parent, elected official-- anybody at all who wants to come sit in my classroom every single day and watch is perfectly welcome. And my students quickly learn that if they ask, "Why are we doing this" I will tell them. Much of the time I tell them even when they don't ask.
Schools should be glass houses. Why did you teach that? What were the test questions? Why doesn't that teacher have enough books? Why isn't that ceiling fixed? How did you use your time today? What did you learn in class today? How much do the suppliers charge for this material? Schools should be able to answer any and all questions.
The more authetically transparent a school is, the less time it has to waste on creating "reports" that are mainly proof that somebody is good at writing reports. And the Big Standardized Tests are just reports with an extra step.
Bowling promises that his next installment will offer some solutions to the testing issues. I look forward to seeing what he has to say.
Bowling reflects on how cool it is that these kinds of layered and nuanced conversation can break out (I agree-- this to me remains one of the most amazing things about the internet) and then he moves on one of his bedrock assertions, in bold type.
I wholeheartedly reject the geographical determinism and “poor kids can’t” thinking
I think the "geography" issue is a real area of controversy and concern. I bristle at the "helping kids escape their zip code" rhetoric for a couple of reason. One, folks who push that are never talking about rescuing ALL students-- just a few, and in the process of rescuing those few, they make the situation worse for those left behind. That's not a solution. Two, I believe there is enormous power in community and the "social capital" that's built by community, and it worries me that so much "reform" is done in ways that erode that community-- taking away local control, dispersing children to the four corners of other communities. I believe these approaches are in the long term corrosive and destructive, and I also find it concerning that the implication is that there are certain zip codes that we should just go ahead a write off. This strikes me as an even larger, worse version of "poor kids can't"-- "that entire community can't."
At the same time, I recognize that we're on the clock, and telling parents, "Just leave your kids in that burning building while we try to fix the whole structure," isn't going to help them. Man, if we could just bring the kind of resolve we bring to wars-- whip up a few billion dollars, hire the personnel, and just drop a huge educational "surge" into our poorest communities.
As for "poor kids can't"-- I still feel that on this point people in the edu-debate are talking past each other (and some, frankly, are pretending not to understand what other folks are saying). Let's say that one set of kids is living in lower Manhattan and another is living in Sandusky, Ohio. All of them want to go to Philadelphia. Here's the conversation between their parents:
Manhattan Mom: It's easy. You just pick up the Megabus on 34th between 11th and 12th Avenue. It will take less than three hours.
Sandusky Dad: We can't get to that bus stop. But we can take the train and it will take us about fourteen hours.
Manhattan Mom: What do you mean, your kids can't possibly go to Philadelphia.
All of our students are starting from different places (actually, they're going to different places, too, but I'm trying not to over-torture the metaphor), and so they all have different requirements for the trip. Yes, there are people who write certain kids of for one reason or another. I like to call those people "Persons Who Don't Belong in Education." But the problem with most of our large-scale testing is that it checks progress toward Philadelphia by having everybody check in as they pass through Buffalo, which means that both the Manhattan and the Sandusky students have to travel far out of their way just to make the check-in (which doesn't yield any useful information anyway).
Side note on Pro Public Ed
Nate, you dislike my use of "Pro public education," and I understand why. The whole education debate is hampered by the lack of good labeling. I've resisted the use of "reform" for that same reason-- using it admits that public ed is messed up in a major way, and while I agree that constant and eternal moving and searching and growing is required, I reject the notion that public ed is infested with such a deep dysfunctional evil that it needs to be reformed. For my side of things, I've moved on from "resistance" (which seems too reactive) to "pro public education" because it at least hits what I am in favor of. I recognize that there are people who are in favor of certain reformy things who are public ed (and also many who do, in fact, want to dismantle public ed as we know it).
But in this case, I should have simply identified myself as anti-testing, which was the pertinent part of what I was talking about.
Moving toward a solution
I appreciated the comment from Bowling's student, which mirrors what many of my own students say. Testing is so focused on a small piece of the whole person, like taking a picture of their left forefinger knuckle as a way of judging their attractiveness.
As always, I recognize that I am far to one side on the testing issue-- I see no value in standardized testing to justify its use, and I would simply scrap the whole business. It's wasting our time and resources, and that is particularly damaging in communities where time and resources are already scarce and stretched.
Yet I agree that the public (all the public and not just parents) should know how schools are doing. (This is actually one of the reasons I'm also largely anti-charter-- because charter schools as currently practiced are less accountable than public schools).
So how do we do that without standardized tests?
1) Trust classroom teachers. Bowling offers a challenge to design an EOC test for Bio, and my answer would be that I can't create that test unless I taught the class. My own classes do not unfold exactly the same year after year (Hamlet, for instance, is "about" something different every year I teach it) and my tests reflect the shape of the year. I can predict the general shape (think strange attractors in chaos theory).
But to some extent my students shape what the course does. And I create assessments based on what we learned. My instruction drives assessment. If you're going to ask, "But how can you compare students across boundaries of city, state, and time," I'm going to ask, "Why do we need to?"
2) Transparency. The best bosses do not demand that their people drop their work and create and present a report about what they're doing. To do that is to live in a Dilbertesque world in which people can't get work done because they're constantly preparing reports on why their project is behind.
No, the best bosses go and see. Any administrator, parent, elected official-- anybody at all who wants to come sit in my classroom every single day and watch is perfectly welcome. And my students quickly learn that if they ask, "Why are we doing this" I will tell them. Much of the time I tell them even when they don't ask.
Schools should be glass houses. Why did you teach that? What were the test questions? Why doesn't that teacher have enough books? Why isn't that ceiling fixed? How did you use your time today? What did you learn in class today? How much do the suppliers charge for this material? Schools should be able to answer any and all questions.
The more authetically transparent a school is, the less time it has to waste on creating "reports" that are mainly proof that somebody is good at writing reports. And the Big Standardized Tests are just reports with an extra step.
Bowling promises that his next installment will offer some solutions to the testing issues. I look forward to seeing what he has to say.
Hillary's NEA Audition [updated]
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)