This is the kind of thing I think of every time someone starts making noise about how teacher careers should live and die by merit, how pay should be tied to performance, and managers should be able to fire "bad" teachers instantly, at will.
You know. Just like in the "real world."
And then I think of guys like Darnell Earley.
At this point, you can find Earley's story everywhere (this coverage at eclectablog is a good one).. He's the man who poisoned the Flint, Michigan water supply so that he could save some bucks. And he did it almost single-handedly, because Flint is just one more city where, gosh, the only solution was to suspend democracy and appoint a local Czar to run the place.
Earley failed. By every conceivable measure, he failed. Even if you use the heartless metric of Saving Money, he has failed because the costs of cleaning up after the poisoning of an entire city will be huge. And that's before we even talk about the lifelong cost to the children whose health, talent and abilities have been stolen by lead poisoning. So let's be clear. Darnell Earley failed.
And his punishment was...?
Well, of course, we already know. His punishment was to be hired as the Czar for Detroit schools-- yet another place where the People in Charge decided that democracy had to be terminated.
For poisoning one feifdom, Earley got a new one, with a new hefty salary. And he is failing there as well. Detroit schools are such an appalling, unsafe miserable mess that teachers have been walking out, performing sickouts. How bad is it? The sickouts aren't even organized by the union-- they are just the actions of ordinary classroom teachers who have had enough.
In a meritocracy, Darnell Earley would be out of a job already. Not only would he be out of a job, but he would be unemployable.
Flint and Detroit schools aren't just about the failure of Darnell Earley (and a whole bunch of other people who have utterly failed at their jobs, all the way up to the governor). They are a real life full-on test of the current reformster theory of management.
Here's how it's supposed to work. You identify the very best people. You sweep democracy out of the way (because democracy let's the Wrong Sort of People have a say) and you put the Better People in charge, and give them free rein, making sure they don't have to deal with unions and government rules.
Here's how it actually works. A city poisoned. A school system in collapse. And leadership that can't tell the difference between merit and grotesque, dangerous, life-threatening incompetence. And because democracy has been suspended, no mechanism by which anybody can say, "Hey, wait a minute" or "Before we leap into this, let's talk about X" or "Convince me your plan is a good one."
Darnell Earley and all the politicians who helped enable and cover his incompetent butt are going to feel a ton of heat, and they should. But the rest of us should make note-- this is not the last time we're going to see this play out. When you substitute politician-appointed Czars for democracy, either in a city or a school system, this is what you get.
In the meantime, policy makers and thought leaders don't get to talk about meritocracy until they're willing to apply it to other members of the ruling class.
Saturday, January 16, 2016
Friday, January 15, 2016
Pearson's New CBE Product
Performance Based Education (or Competency Based Education or Outcome Based Education or personalized learning-- I do hope the industry comes up with standardized jargon for this soon) is coming. It has been given an extra boost by leveraging the anti-test movement in a clever ju-jitsu manuever. "Yes, we should get everyone out of that testing frying pan," declare policy makers and thought leaders and test manufacturers, as they usher the fleeing mob straight toward the CBE fire. Instead of one Big Standardized Test, why many standardized tests and quizzes and worksheets, all hooked into a giant data-hoovering monstrosity.
If you want to watch the onslaught arrive in agonizing detail, I recommend Emily Talmadge's Saving Maine Schools blog; Maine has been on the forefront of this, and Talmadge is on the forefront of catching it all.
But for the moment, let's just look at one particular example, courtesy of the folks at Pearson (because you know they are not going to be left out of the Next Big Goldmine).
Meet aimswebplus. It's "an efficient and effective formative assessment, data management, and reporting system." It uses "brief, valid and reliable measures of foundational skills in reading and math" and it "allows you to capture, manage and repor your assessment data in one seamless, web-based system." And you can use all that sweet, sweet data to "identify at-risk students early, to monitor progress, and to differentiate and track targeted instruction."
It's a multi-tier tool from Pearson, and while there's a whole "solution guide" you can download here, I think the short promo will give you the idea. Here's Pearson's quick, clear graphic explanation:
Tier I is the universal benchmark screening.
The student benchmark scores are "established" three times per year "using unique standardized assessment forms" and I think "unique standardized" might be my favorite new oxymoron, replacing the tired old jumbo shrimp.
If you want to watch the onslaught arrive in agonizing detail, I recommend Emily Talmadge's Saving Maine Schools blog; Maine has been on the forefront of this, and Talmadge is on the forefront of catching it all.
But for the moment, let's just look at one particular example, courtesy of the folks at Pearson (because you know they are not going to be left out of the Next Big Goldmine).
Meet aimswebplus. It's "an efficient and effective formative assessment, data management, and reporting system." It uses "brief, valid and reliable measures of foundational skills in reading and math" and it "allows you to capture, manage and repor your assessment data in one seamless, web-based system." And you can use all that sweet, sweet data to "identify at-risk students early, to monitor progress, and to differentiate and track targeted instruction."
It's a multi-tier tool from Pearson, and while there's a whole "solution guide" you can download here, I think the short promo will give you the idea. Here's Pearson's quick, clear graphic explanation:
Tier I is the universal benchmark screening.
The student benchmark scores are "established" three times per year "using unique standardized assessment forms" and I think "unique standardized" might be my favorite new oxymoron, replacing the tired old jumbo shrimp.
The Walton Billion Dollar Plan
It's only eight pages long, but it is simultaneously depressing and disturbing. It's no fun to read, but if you want to understand how the charter boosters are coming at public education, you need to read it. It's the Walton Family Foundation 2015-2020 K-12 Strategic Overview, and yes, I've read it so that you don't have to, but you probably should, anyway.
This is the story of how The Walton is going to spend $1 Billion-with-a-B on charter schools over the next five years (twice as much as Eli Broad is spending to take over the Los Angeles school district). And when that much money talks, we need to listen. Here's what it's saying.
The Baloney Kickoff
The plan kicks off with some basic background, and we know immediately that we've entered a zone high on spin and low on reality. What's the WFF mission?
They aimed to improve lives by expanding access to educational and economic opportunity. Since then, the Walton family has carried forward this vision — working to foster equal opportunity and build a more just society.
They believe they are "uniquely qualified" for this work. You know what the largest private employer in America is uniquely qualified to do? Make sure that all of its employees have a great living wage and superior benefits package. But no-- we're just going to blow up the building that is Retail America, make a bundle off the demolition, and spend a fraction of that just cleaning up the shrubberies around the charred ruins.
WFF Education History Baloney
The Walton wants to provide a little background. They've spent $1 Billion-with-a-B "investing" in order "to improve educational opportunities for America's children-- and to prove wrong the prevailing wisdom that poverty and ZIP code determine destiny." Which leads me to ask, where exactly does that "wisdom" prevail? With a billion dollars, could you not attack actual problems rather than going toe-to-toe with a big straw man?
Fun fact: One out of every four charter schools has gotten Walton money.
Next, the Walton repeats some dubious research about how awesomely better charters are, including a silly study from CREDO that claims that charters give students extra "days" of learning. The Walton blithely skips past all of the issues with charter claims to assert that if you just put poor kids in a charter school, they do way better. "Charter schools are proving that these students can learn at levels comparable to, or even higher than, their peers with greater advantages. Today, there are hundreds of examples of schools beating the odds, and doing so at scale." Well, no. There aren't. But it's a useful rhetorical strategy. I saw a dozen Yeti in my backyard this morning. I did! Go ahead and try to prove I didn't. Wiser men than I have laid out the problems with studies "proving" charter swellness, but the bottom line is that charters do not have any more success with students than public schools, and often they have considerably less.
The Walton is also proud to have helped create an entire shadow network of unqualified teachers and administrators, citing support for Relay Graduate School of Education, Teach for America, and The New Teacher Project (TNTP), all exercises in giving unqualified people a huge budget to hand each other accreditations.
Next comes the scary statistic parade to show that there's still a crisis a'brewin'. Here's the College Board's bogus "only 43% of high school students are college ready" and some chicken littling about the PISA scores-- they're low low LOW! (but we'll not mention they always have been). Achievement gaps! Opportunity gaps! Waiting lists! Teacher shortages! Every reformy talking point ever launched, no matter how often it has been debunked, is here, leading us to the overwhelming question, "How will America's schools survive?"
Lessons Learned
Okay, I know you were nodding off at the billionth re-singing of the Reformster Chorus, but now you need to sit up and pay attention, because the Walton is going to tell you what they've learned. They understand now that their old theory of change was flawed.
The thought was that more choices would generate more competition. Competition would catalyze systematic improvement.
Let's think about this for a second. Let's really think about whose theory this was. This was the Walton theory, the theory of people whose entire fortune is built on being hugely competitive, leading to several results, over and over-- the systemic destruction of most retailers in a community who aren't Wal-Mart. Nor have they achieved this by pursuing excellence-- raise your hand if you associate the Wal-Mart brand with excellence. No, the Wal-Mart brand is built on "broad mediocirty that's cheap and good enough for unwealthy people" and the very goal of their competitiveness has been to win the retail competition by eradicating other choices. Wal-Mart's business plan is not, "We will go into a community, compete by providing excellent products to the community, and when we're done, there will be a broad range of excellent choices among many retailers."
I continue to be gobsmacked that the Waltons, of all people, would imagine that school choice would spark competition that would lead to excellence, because these are people who seem to have a pretty good idea of how the free market works-- and the free market does not work in ways that go well with public education.
But they have figured out that competition is not enough, and so they have a new theory.
In order for choice and opportunity — the ultimate forms of parent empowerment — to spur change, cities need to create environments that support choice. This means creating enrollment platforms, equitable transportation access, fair funding and readily accessible, current information on schools and student performance for families and other stakeholders.
Under its 2015-20 K-12 Education Strategic Plan, the Walton Family Foundation is aiming to enhance choice, spur innovation and build more of the environmental factors that support choice in cities. It will invest $1 billion over the five-year period to expand educational opportunity across the United States.
So here come the four initiatives, the four horsemen leading the billion-dollar Walton school choice charge.
Investing in Cities
This has become evident in the new vision of Walton and in that of Eli Broad in LA as well. It's not enough to buy your own school district-- you need to own a piece of the city it's in as well. The Walton lists some cities that make the grade with "conditions supporting systemwide educational improvement and where the foundation can have the greatest impact."
This is by far the largest section of the four, and the Walton targets several areas for investment.
* Supply. They want to "build and sustain high-quality schools." This would be a better idea if they knew how to identify such schools.
* Talent. Recruit and train "more effective teachers and school leaders." We've seen how much they know about this.
* Enabling choice. Pushing systems like, presumably, unified enrollment.
* Policy. Get local lawmakers to rig the game more in favor of charters and choice.
* Community support. "Organizing, communicating and engaging directly with people who live and work in cities to understand their needs and build authentic community partnerships." This presumably does not include asking them if they would rather not have a bunch of charters move into their community, or if they can think of other ways that their slice of Walton billiony largesse could be used to help them.
Supporting the High-Quality Choice Movement
More giving devoted to creating "local environments that are friendly to choice." That means "advocating for favorable policies," as well as supporting reformy groups, and supporting organizations that help choice/charter schools "find" the facilities they need. Nice choice, that "find," as it covers building new facilities or just wrestling existing school buildings away from the public schools that already occupy them.
Also, "investing in communications to build awareness and support for high-quality choice." So, more money for lobbying, advocacy, and PR.
Innovation
The Walton would particularly like to support "novel school models" (such as those focused on career and technical education), "citywide enrollment models," and-- uh-oh-- this last one is even more Reformy 2.0:
New ways — beyond test scores — to advance long-term success, including understanding noncognitive attributes
So Competency Based Education or Performance Based Learning or whatever we will eventually call all testing, all data collection, all the time. PLUS doing the same for personality traits!
When considering innovative ideas, The Walton will ask, "Does it solve a problem? Does it fit the WFF theory of change? Is there potential for a breakthrough? Is the idea transferable? Can its success be tested objectively?" Only one of those is a legitimate question-- does it solve a problem. But "can its success be tested objectively" guarantees that whatever they fund, it won't be particularly useful.
Research and Evaluation
The fourth horseman will be arranged around initiatives centered around:
1. Research that provides rigorous, actionable informationto inform the foundation’s city, high-quality choice and innovation investments.
2. Research investigating big questions related to the foundation’s theory of change.
So, research that supports how right The Walton is about what they're doing. They propose to use evidence to "refine" the theory of change and to "identify and support the most effective grantees" and that all is exactly the right thing to say and would be very heartening, except that the earlier section covering the Waltonian version of education history shows that they are not so much interested in following the evidence wherever it might lead as they are interested in finding evidence to prove what they have already concluded is the truth.
The Wrapup
We will work to help create an environment that fosters choice and opportunity, and we will empower more low-income, high-needs students to perform at the same level of excellence as students at today’s best public schools.
Again, note that it's no longer enough just to boost choice/charter schools-- we are now targeting the entire "environment." And the theory of change still assumes that once we get low-income, high-needs students out of those awful public schools and into awesome choice/charter schools, they will be "empowered" to do better because, I guess, it's the public school that's holding them back. The Walton, while acknowledging that "change takes time," ends with a call for urgency and a declaration that "we cannot and will not stand by while the extraordinary talents of children are squandered and the quintessential American dream of opportunity goes unfulfilled.
Should we conclude that public schools are doing the squandering? I guess so. But I can't help pointing out again that if they were really concerned about the effects of poverty and the opportunity gap, the largest private employer in America could certainly help by making it that much easier for folks to find full time jobs with better-than-minimum pay and full benefits.
This is the story of how The Walton is going to spend $1 Billion-with-a-B on charter schools over the next five years (twice as much as Eli Broad is spending to take over the Los Angeles school district). And when that much money talks, we need to listen. Here's what it's saying.
The Baloney Kickoff
The plan kicks off with some basic background, and we know immediately that we've entered a zone high on spin and low on reality. What's the WFF mission?
They aimed to improve lives by expanding access to educational and economic opportunity. Since then, the Walton family has carried forward this vision — working to foster equal opportunity and build a more just society.
They believe they are "uniquely qualified" for this work. You know what the largest private employer in America is uniquely qualified to do? Make sure that all of its employees have a great living wage and superior benefits package. But no-- we're just going to blow up the building that is Retail America, make a bundle off the demolition, and spend a fraction of that just cleaning up the shrubberies around the charred ruins.
WFF Education History Baloney
The Walton wants to provide a little background. They've spent $1 Billion-with-a-B "investing" in order "to improve educational opportunities for America's children-- and to prove wrong the prevailing wisdom that poverty and ZIP code determine destiny." Which leads me to ask, where exactly does that "wisdom" prevail? With a billion dollars, could you not attack actual problems rather than going toe-to-toe with a big straw man?
Fun fact: One out of every four charter schools has gotten Walton money.
Next, the Walton repeats some dubious research about how awesomely better charters are, including a silly study from CREDO that claims that charters give students extra "days" of learning. The Walton blithely skips past all of the issues with charter claims to assert that if you just put poor kids in a charter school, they do way better. "Charter schools are proving that these students can learn at levels comparable to, or even higher than, their peers with greater advantages. Today, there are hundreds of examples of schools beating the odds, and doing so at scale." Well, no. There aren't. But it's a useful rhetorical strategy. I saw a dozen Yeti in my backyard this morning. I did! Go ahead and try to prove I didn't. Wiser men than I have laid out the problems with studies "proving" charter swellness, but the bottom line is that charters do not have any more success with students than public schools, and often they have considerably less.
The Walton is also proud to have helped create an entire shadow network of unqualified teachers and administrators, citing support for Relay Graduate School of Education, Teach for America, and The New Teacher Project (TNTP), all exercises in giving unqualified people a huge budget to hand each other accreditations.
Next comes the scary statistic parade to show that there's still a crisis a'brewin'. Here's the College Board's bogus "only 43% of high school students are college ready" and some chicken littling about the PISA scores-- they're low low LOW! (but we'll not mention they always have been). Achievement gaps! Opportunity gaps! Waiting lists! Teacher shortages! Every reformy talking point ever launched, no matter how often it has been debunked, is here, leading us to the overwhelming question, "How will America's schools survive?"
Lessons Learned
Okay, I know you were nodding off at the billionth re-singing of the Reformster Chorus, but now you need to sit up and pay attention, because the Walton is going to tell you what they've learned. They understand now that their old theory of change was flawed.
The thought was that more choices would generate more competition. Competition would catalyze systematic improvement.
Let's think about this for a second. Let's really think about whose theory this was. This was the Walton theory, the theory of people whose entire fortune is built on being hugely competitive, leading to several results, over and over-- the systemic destruction of most retailers in a community who aren't Wal-Mart. Nor have they achieved this by pursuing excellence-- raise your hand if you associate the Wal-Mart brand with excellence. No, the Wal-Mart brand is built on "broad mediocirty that's cheap and good enough for unwealthy people" and the very goal of their competitiveness has been to win the retail competition by eradicating other choices. Wal-Mart's business plan is not, "We will go into a community, compete by providing excellent products to the community, and when we're done, there will be a broad range of excellent choices among many retailers."
I continue to be gobsmacked that the Waltons, of all people, would imagine that school choice would spark competition that would lead to excellence, because these are people who seem to have a pretty good idea of how the free market works-- and the free market does not work in ways that go well with public education.
But they have figured out that competition is not enough, and so they have a new theory.
In order for choice and opportunity — the ultimate forms of parent empowerment — to spur change, cities need to create environments that support choice. This means creating enrollment platforms, equitable transportation access, fair funding and readily accessible, current information on schools and student performance for families and other stakeholders.
Under its 2015-20 K-12 Education Strategic Plan, the Walton Family Foundation is aiming to enhance choice, spur innovation and build more of the environmental factors that support choice in cities. It will invest $1 billion over the five-year period to expand educational opportunity across the United States.
So here come the four initiatives, the four horsemen leading the billion-dollar Walton school choice charge.
Investing in Cities
This has become evident in the new vision of Walton and in that of Eli Broad in LA as well. It's not enough to buy your own school district-- you need to own a piece of the city it's in as well. The Walton lists some cities that make the grade with "conditions supporting systemwide educational improvement and where the foundation can have the greatest impact."
This is by far the largest section of the four, and the Walton targets several areas for investment.
* Supply. They want to "build and sustain high-quality schools." This would be a better idea if they knew how to identify such schools.
* Talent. Recruit and train "more effective teachers and school leaders." We've seen how much they know about this.
* Enabling choice. Pushing systems like, presumably, unified enrollment.
* Policy. Get local lawmakers to rig the game more in favor of charters and choice.
* Community support. "Organizing, communicating and engaging directly with people who live and work in cities to understand their needs and build authentic community partnerships." This presumably does not include asking them if they would rather not have a bunch of charters move into their community, or if they can think of other ways that their slice of Walton billiony largesse could be used to help them.
Supporting the High-Quality Choice Movement
More giving devoted to creating "local environments that are friendly to choice." That means "advocating for favorable policies," as well as supporting reformy groups, and supporting organizations that help choice/charter schools "find" the facilities they need. Nice choice, that "find," as it covers building new facilities or just wrestling existing school buildings away from the public schools that already occupy them.
Also, "investing in communications to build awareness and support for high-quality choice." So, more money for lobbying, advocacy, and PR.
Innovation
The Walton would particularly like to support "novel school models" (such as those focused on career and technical education), "citywide enrollment models," and-- uh-oh-- this last one is even more Reformy 2.0:
New ways — beyond test scores — to advance long-term success, including understanding noncognitive attributes
So Competency Based Education or Performance Based Learning or whatever we will eventually call all testing, all data collection, all the time. PLUS doing the same for personality traits!
When considering innovative ideas, The Walton will ask, "Does it solve a problem? Does it fit the WFF theory of change? Is there potential for a breakthrough? Is the idea transferable? Can its success be tested objectively?" Only one of those is a legitimate question-- does it solve a problem. But "can its success be tested objectively" guarantees that whatever they fund, it won't be particularly useful.
Research and Evaluation
The fourth horseman will be arranged around initiatives centered around:
1. Research that provides rigorous, actionable informationto inform the foundation’s city, high-quality choice and innovation investments.
2. Research investigating big questions related to the foundation’s theory of change.
So, research that supports how right The Walton is about what they're doing. They propose to use evidence to "refine" the theory of change and to "identify and support the most effective grantees" and that all is exactly the right thing to say and would be very heartening, except that the earlier section covering the Waltonian version of education history shows that they are not so much interested in following the evidence wherever it might lead as they are interested in finding evidence to prove what they have already concluded is the truth.
The Wrapup
We will work to help create an environment that fosters choice and opportunity, and we will empower more low-income, high-needs students to perform at the same level of excellence as students at today’s best public schools.
Again, note that it's no longer enough just to boost choice/charter schools-- we are now targeting the entire "environment." And the theory of change still assumes that once we get low-income, high-needs students out of those awful public schools and into awesome choice/charter schools, they will be "empowered" to do better because, I guess, it's the public school that's holding them back. The Walton, while acknowledging that "change takes time," ends with a call for urgency and a declaration that "we cannot and will not stand by while the extraordinary talents of children are squandered and the quintessential American dream of opportunity goes unfulfilled.
Should we conclude that public schools are doing the squandering? I guess so. But I can't help pointing out again that if they were really concerned about the effects of poverty and the opportunity gap, the largest private employer in America could certainly help by making it that much easier for folks to find full time jobs with better-than-minimum pay and full benefits.
Thursday, January 14, 2016
ESSA Accountability: Part II (P.S. Mike)
Almost as soon as my head hit the pillow, I realized that I had left out an important part of my accountability plan. You can read the first part of this wonkery here-- now for the addendum (hey-- I've already shown that I'm a scofflaw, so why not blow through the 2,000 word limit for submissions)
I don't know where this fits, but for accountability we need full and open school audits.
Visits from a team that includes folks from the state capital and working educators. They will visit the school, have free rein to walk in and out of any classroom, to examine records, curriculum, watch teachers in action, interview students and faculty and parents.
I fully agree that "Just take our word for it" is not an accountability system. Neither is "Prove yourself with paperwork." You want to see if somebody is doing their job-- go look.
The audit team visits for a week and makes an evaluation of the school's strength and weaknesses, creating a full description of the school's impact on children and the state of the children it is serving. Look at all the items mentioned in the first part of the proposal, including student health and well-being, breadth and depth of programs, effectiveness of the staff, degree to which school is meeting the needs of the children and community.
Response to First Replies
Imagine my delight to wake up this morning and find my plan had already been looked at. I can already taste-- what are we getting for this, Mike? Money? Fame? A box of fudge?
It's true that my plan may not meet the letter of the ESSA. I'm okay with that. And I'm not sure what Polikoff's objection is-- not enough hard numbers? Too many things outside the test? How exactly does my plan eviscerate accountability?
But this exchange reminds me that the ESSA leaves me with the same old question about accountability-- accountable to whom, and for what?
Because the answer in ESSA, buried in some new language, seems to be the same old "accountable to the federal government for test scores." Except that the feds can no longer be specific about how the scores should look and what happens if you "fail," making ESSA vaguer and unlikely to satisfy literally anybody at all except test manufacvturers.
Because any accountability system that is based on standardized testing materials produced and assessed on a large scale and covering only a sliver of the school program-- that's an accountability system that's a piece of useless crap, like checking the health and well-being of an elephant by analyzing its toenail clippings. Not completely and utterly useless-- just mostly useless, and a waste of resources.
So the challenge for any accountability system under ESSA will be to design a system that can co-exist with the federal regulations that mandate measures that don't provide accountability at all.
Look-- we know this! We've been doing the kind of test-based accountability called for by ESSA for over a decade, and it has accomplished absolutely bupkus other than to provide marketing fodder for the charter-based privatization of public schools, which in turn has also produced bupkus in terms of improving education. We have been trying test-based accountability and it does not work.
I would love to see real accountability for schools. But a test-based rating system is not it. So to have real accountability, we're going to have to do more than put lipstick on that pig-- we're going to have to bury that pig way inside some other structure, maybe slaughter and cook that pig and feed it to a lion.
Sure, there are nuts and bolts to work out, but I'm not giving that stuff away for free! I need something to start my consulting business with.
Okay, I'm done now. When you're ready, let me know, and I'll tell you where to send my check. Or the fudge.
I don't know where this fits, but for accountability we need full and open school audits.
Visits from a team that includes folks from the state capital and working educators. They will visit the school, have free rein to walk in and out of any classroom, to examine records, curriculum, watch teachers in action, interview students and faculty and parents.
I fully agree that "Just take our word for it" is not an accountability system. Neither is "Prove yourself with paperwork." You want to see if somebody is doing their job-- go look.
The audit team visits for a week and makes an evaluation of the school's strength and weaknesses, creating a full description of the school's impact on children and the state of the children it is serving. Look at all the items mentioned in the first part of the proposal, including student health and well-being, breadth and depth of programs, effectiveness of the staff, degree to which school is meeting the needs of the children and community.
Response to First Replies
Imagine my delight to wake up this morning and find my plan had already been looked at. I can already taste-- what are we getting for this, Mike? Money? Fame? A box of fudge?
@mpolikoff @palan57 Fair enough but also clarifying. It shows that #ESSA doesn't allow "anything goes" or the evisceration of accountability
— Michael Petrilli (@MichaelPetrilli) January 14, 2016
It's true that my plan may not meet the letter of the ESSA. I'm okay with that. And I'm not sure what Polikoff's objection is-- not enough hard numbers? Too many things outside the test? How exactly does my plan eviscerate accountability?
But this exchange reminds me that the ESSA leaves me with the same old question about accountability-- accountable to whom, and for what?
Because the answer in ESSA, buried in some new language, seems to be the same old "accountable to the federal government for test scores." Except that the feds can no longer be specific about how the scores should look and what happens if you "fail," making ESSA vaguer and unlikely to satisfy literally anybody at all except test manufacvturers.
Because any accountability system that is based on standardized testing materials produced and assessed on a large scale and covering only a sliver of the school program-- that's an accountability system that's a piece of useless crap, like checking the health and well-being of an elephant by analyzing its toenail clippings. Not completely and utterly useless-- just mostly useless, and a waste of resources.
So the challenge for any accountability system under ESSA will be to design a system that can co-exist with the federal regulations that mandate measures that don't provide accountability at all.
Look-- we know this! We've been doing the kind of test-based accountability called for by ESSA for over a decade, and it has accomplished absolutely bupkus other than to provide marketing fodder for the charter-based privatization of public schools, which in turn has also produced bupkus in terms of improving education. We have been trying test-based accountability and it does not work.
I would love to see real accountability for schools. But a test-based rating system is not it. So to have real accountability, we're going to have to do more than put lipstick on that pig-- we're going to have to bury that pig way inside some other structure, maybe slaughter and cook that pig and feed it to a lion.
Sure, there are nuts and bolts to work out, but I'm not giving that stuff away for free! I need something to start my consulting business with.
Okay, I'm done now. When you're ready, let me know, and I'll tell you where to send my check. Or the fudge.
Wednesday, January 13, 2016
ESSA, Fordham and Accountability: An Open Letter to Mike Petrilli
TO: Mike Petrilli, Fordham Institute
FROM: Peter Greene, English teacher
RE: Design competition
You recently announced a design competition for developing a state-level design for accountability under the new ESSA. I totally meant to indicate my interest in throwing my hat into the ring, but it's the end of the grading period here and the start of rehearsals for school musical (Beauty and the Beast-- it's going to be good) and I missed the Jan 11 deadline for indicating interest. But since I intend, at a minimum, to roundly criticize your winner, I feel it's only fair to put up so that I don't have to shut up.
The competition is to design a school accountability system for elementary schools in some average-sized, demographically diverse state. The focus is to rate the schools, and not to answer the question of what to do with the ratings.
1. Design objectives. What are the priorities of the system, which I understand to mean what is the system supposed to care about or value, as much as a system can do such a thing.
You listed some options, but of all of them "a holistic view of school quality" comes closest. However, my design would prioritize a holistic view of student, health, well-being, growth and educational achievement. All other priorities are important only insofar as they effect the health and well-being of the child; and the health, well-being and growth are the entire purpose of the school. Period, full stop.
Strong local control. Well-paid, well-supported autonomous teaching staff. Well-maintained physical plant. Broad, well-rounded, developmentally appropriate educational program. Solid funding. These are all important only insofar as they meet the needs of the child.
And since each child and each community present a different constellation of needs, "meeting the needs of the child" will look different from school to school. Any accountability design will have to account for that.
2. Clear (uh-oh) explanation of proposed accountability system that hits each of the following:
a.) Indicator(s) of academic achievement. ESSA requires state accountability systems to include an indicator of academic achievement “as measured by proficiency on the annual assessments.”
This is not the worst way to measure academic achievement (it still beats "reading frog warts under a full moon"), but the requirement is still the equivalent of saying "indicate basketball skill by measuring height." So my goal here would be to use the Big Standardized Scores in the least possible manner, while using the actual measure of academic achievement-- student grades-- from maybe third or fourth grade up. Giving grades to K-3 students is just silly, but more detailed descriptors of their skills and strengths as well as weaknesses and still-working-on-it areas. The indicators should cover as broad an area as possible; narrowing them to just math and English misses a large part of the important work of an elementary school.
b.) Indicator(s) of student growth or an alternative. ESSA also requires state accountability systems to include “a measure of student growth, if determined appropriate by the State; or another valid and reliable statewide academic indicator that allows for meaningful differentiation in school performance."
Again, the law lacks a convincing argument that its goal (differentiation in school performance) is a worthy one. Also, reliable indicators of student growth are, to date, as elusive as rainbow-maned unicorns (let's not insult anyone's intention by proposing that VAM/VAAS models are useful here-- particularly in the primary grades). My preferred measure-- vertical conferences among the student's teachers by grade, to compare both assessed achievement and narrative accounts of the student. That, plus asking the parents, and the students themselves. All students should grow, and that growth should be marked and documented based on the child's actually progress and achievements, not comparison to some imaginary child in some alternate universe.
c.) Indicator(s) of progress toward English language proficiency. ESSA also requires state accountability systems to measure “progress in achieving English language proficiency, as defined by the State.”
Basic English proficiency testing, over time, accompanied by a portfolio of student work.
d.) Indicator(s) of student success or school quality. ESSA also requires state accountability systems to include “not less than one indicator of school quality or student success that allows for meaningful differentiation in school performance” and that is “valid, reliable, comparable, and statewide.”
At the risk of repeating myself, this is a requirement that states do a good job of hitting the wrong target. "Differentiation" aka "ranking" is actually a terrible way to tell whether schools are getting the job done. Ranking is not measuring. But since this is the open section in which the feds don't tell us what to do, I'm going to say:
* Ask the parents and students how successful they think the school was. Ask the students again over the years after they leave the school.
* Track student success in middle school and high school (provided success is being isefully measured on those levels).
* Happiness quotient. How happy, confident and strong are the students at the school.
e.) Calculating summative school grades. ESSA implies that these various components would be combined (probably via an index) in order to generate overall school grades or ratings.
"Implies" is not good enough to compel me to do this. There is no value in generating school grades or ranking. None. Any such rating involves reducing a complicated set of variables and elements into a single number or letter that lacks nuance, detail and the sort of richness that parents mean when they ask, "So, are the schools there any good?" Such rating is like asking the zookeeper, "So, which animal in the zoo is the best one?" There is no meaningful answer to the question.
I realize this will probably earn me the Fordham buzzer, but there is precedent for ignoring parts of the law. NCLB, RTTT, and Duncan's Waiverpalooza all contained a requirement that states identify the best teachers, then design and implement a plan for putting the best teachers in the neediest schools. No state ever took any such plan past the Baloney On Paper stage, and no state was so much as scolded for their failure to meet the requirement in any meaningful way. This proves a number of things, not the least of which is that the USED is capable of ignoring the law when it needs to. Let's see how hard USED is willing to push the 95% Testing Or We'll Cut Your Funds threat before we rush to follow their most useless directives.
f.) What about schools with low-performing subgroups?
Every school district in the country already knows what its low-performing subgroups are. Ask them to tell the state. Ask the parents in the district to tell the state.
g.) School grades or ratings. What would you propose by way of “labels” for the school grades/ratings themselves: an A–F scale, or something else?
I would propose the following ratings:
-- Well-supported by the state
-- Adequately supported by the state
-- Not sufficiently supported by the state
-- Level of state support indicates criminal abdication of state responsibility for supporting schools
3. Any recommendations for the Department of Education. Is there anything in your proposed accountability system that is not clearly allowed by the letter of the law?
I think I've pretty well covered this. I know the Department is concerned that districts (and states) will under-serve certain populations and try to shove their dereliction of duty under the rug. I assert that making sure that parents, teachers and community members all have a strong voice in how their schools are run and in evaluating those schools is the solution to that problem. This does not mean abandoning parents to the continual huckstering of charter operators, and it doesn't mean bringing in high-powered top-down overseers to tell them what they need. Parents by and large know whether their children are being well-served by their local school. School districts know what their needs are and what support they aren't getting from the state. Teachers know what their students need.
Yes, there are levels of complexity and nuance to this-- not all parents are wise and responsible, and not all school districts are well run. But the solution to the problems of democracy has never been less democracy. I would love to discuss all of this in greater detail-- perhaps when you fly me to the Fordham Institute to make my presentation and offer me a thinky tank fellowship. But in the meantime, I'm mindful of this other point from your call for proposals
Proposals should not exceed two thousand words in length.
Yeah, that's not really my thing.
Best of luck with this competition. I am sure the entries will give us all something to think about.
PS-- I forgot an important point, and I have responses to this already, so if you're not too bored, move on to Part II
FROM: Peter Greene, English teacher
RE: Design competition
You recently announced a design competition for developing a state-level design for accountability under the new ESSA. I totally meant to indicate my interest in throwing my hat into the ring, but it's the end of the grading period here and the start of rehearsals for school musical (Beauty and the Beast-- it's going to be good) and I missed the Jan 11 deadline for indicating interest. But since I intend, at a minimum, to roundly criticize your winner, I feel it's only fair to put up so that I don't have to shut up.
The competition is to design a school accountability system for elementary schools in some average-sized, demographically diverse state. The focus is to rate the schools, and not to answer the question of what to do with the ratings.
1. Design objectives. What are the priorities of the system, which I understand to mean what is the system supposed to care about or value, as much as a system can do such a thing.
You listed some options, but of all of them "a holistic view of school quality" comes closest. However, my design would prioritize a holistic view of student, health, well-being, growth and educational achievement. All other priorities are important only insofar as they effect the health and well-being of the child; and the health, well-being and growth are the entire purpose of the school. Period, full stop.
Strong local control. Well-paid, well-supported autonomous teaching staff. Well-maintained physical plant. Broad, well-rounded, developmentally appropriate educational program. Solid funding. These are all important only insofar as they meet the needs of the child.
And since each child and each community present a different constellation of needs, "meeting the needs of the child" will look different from school to school. Any accountability design will have to account for that.
2. Clear (uh-oh) explanation of proposed accountability system that hits each of the following:
a.) Indicator(s) of academic achievement. ESSA requires state accountability systems to include an indicator of academic achievement “as measured by proficiency on the annual assessments.”
This is not the worst way to measure academic achievement (it still beats "reading frog warts under a full moon"), but the requirement is still the equivalent of saying "indicate basketball skill by measuring height." So my goal here would be to use the Big Standardized Scores in the least possible manner, while using the actual measure of academic achievement-- student grades-- from maybe third or fourth grade up. Giving grades to K-3 students is just silly, but more detailed descriptors of their skills and strengths as well as weaknesses and still-working-on-it areas. The indicators should cover as broad an area as possible; narrowing them to just math and English misses a large part of the important work of an elementary school.
b.) Indicator(s) of student growth or an alternative. ESSA also requires state accountability systems to include “a measure of student growth, if determined appropriate by the State; or another valid and reliable statewide academic indicator that allows for meaningful differentiation in school performance."
Again, the law lacks a convincing argument that its goal (differentiation in school performance) is a worthy one. Also, reliable indicators of student growth are, to date, as elusive as rainbow-maned unicorns (let's not insult anyone's intention by proposing that VAM/VAAS models are useful here-- particularly in the primary grades). My preferred measure-- vertical conferences among the student's teachers by grade, to compare both assessed achievement and narrative accounts of the student. That, plus asking the parents, and the students themselves. All students should grow, and that growth should be marked and documented based on the child's actually progress and achievements, not comparison to some imaginary child in some alternate universe.
c.) Indicator(s) of progress toward English language proficiency. ESSA also requires state accountability systems to measure “progress in achieving English language proficiency, as defined by the State.”
Basic English proficiency testing, over time, accompanied by a portfolio of student work.
d.) Indicator(s) of student success or school quality. ESSA also requires state accountability systems to include “not less than one indicator of school quality or student success that allows for meaningful differentiation in school performance” and that is “valid, reliable, comparable, and statewide.”
At the risk of repeating myself, this is a requirement that states do a good job of hitting the wrong target. "Differentiation" aka "ranking" is actually a terrible way to tell whether schools are getting the job done. Ranking is not measuring. But since this is the open section in which the feds don't tell us what to do, I'm going to say:
* Ask the parents and students how successful they think the school was. Ask the students again over the years after they leave the school.
* Track student success in middle school and high school (provided success is being isefully measured on those levels).
* Happiness quotient. How happy, confident and strong are the students at the school.
e.) Calculating summative school grades. ESSA implies that these various components would be combined (probably via an index) in order to generate overall school grades or ratings.
"Implies" is not good enough to compel me to do this. There is no value in generating school grades or ranking. None. Any such rating involves reducing a complicated set of variables and elements into a single number or letter that lacks nuance, detail and the sort of richness that parents mean when they ask, "So, are the schools there any good?" Such rating is like asking the zookeeper, "So, which animal in the zoo is the best one?" There is no meaningful answer to the question.
I realize this will probably earn me the Fordham buzzer, but there is precedent for ignoring parts of the law. NCLB, RTTT, and Duncan's Waiverpalooza all contained a requirement that states identify the best teachers, then design and implement a plan for putting the best teachers in the neediest schools. No state ever took any such plan past the Baloney On Paper stage, and no state was so much as scolded for their failure to meet the requirement in any meaningful way. This proves a number of things, not the least of which is that the USED is capable of ignoring the law when it needs to. Let's see how hard USED is willing to push the 95% Testing Or We'll Cut Your Funds threat before we rush to follow their most useless directives.
f.) What about schools with low-performing subgroups?
Every school district in the country already knows what its low-performing subgroups are. Ask them to tell the state. Ask the parents in the district to tell the state.
g.) School grades or ratings. What would you propose by way of “labels” for the school grades/ratings themselves: an A–F scale, or something else?
I would propose the following ratings:
-- Well-supported by the state
-- Adequately supported by the state
-- Not sufficiently supported by the state
-- Level of state support indicates criminal abdication of state responsibility for supporting schools
3. Any recommendations for the Department of Education. Is there anything in your proposed accountability system that is not clearly allowed by the letter of the law?
I think I've pretty well covered this. I know the Department is concerned that districts (and states) will under-serve certain populations and try to shove their dereliction of duty under the rug. I assert that making sure that parents, teachers and community members all have a strong voice in how their schools are run and in evaluating those schools is the solution to that problem. This does not mean abandoning parents to the continual huckstering of charter operators, and it doesn't mean bringing in high-powered top-down overseers to tell them what they need. Parents by and large know whether their children are being well-served by their local school. School districts know what their needs are and what support they aren't getting from the state. Teachers know what their students need.
Yes, there are levels of complexity and nuance to this-- not all parents are wise and responsible, and not all school districts are well run. But the solution to the problems of democracy has never been less democracy. I would love to discuss all of this in greater detail-- perhaps when you fly me to the Fordham Institute to make my presentation and offer me a thinky tank fellowship. But in the meantime, I'm mindful of this other point from your call for proposals
Proposals should not exceed two thousand words in length.
Yeah, that's not really my thing.
Best of luck with this competition. I am sure the entries will give us all something to think about.
PS-- I forgot an important point, and I have responses to this already, so if you're not too bored, move on to Part II
Tuesday, January 12, 2016
Testing Five Year Olds
Well, we can at least thank Bailey Reimer for giving us one more look at how reformsters think, and a chance to confront just how wrong-headed that thinking is.
Reimer is the author of "How Bailey Reinmer's kindergartners came to love testing" (nothing about if they stopped worrying), and the piece in Catalyst Chicago is every bit as bad as you would imagine.
Reimer loves the Test, and her love leads her to say some astonishing things. She loves it, and she opens with the astonishing story of how much her students love it too-- so much that they are sad when they learn they won't be taking one tomorrow. "They love the uninterrupted work time and comparing their new score to their old one." Because, yes, five year olds are famous for their long attention spans and their desire to do seatwork.
Reimer correctly points out that ESSA has cemented the Big Standardized Test into schools, and so her school figures why not just get started practicing with kindergartners (because apparently her charter school is run by people who don't know much about child development). As Reimer tells her story, she throws in this set of non sequitors:
To get to a point where my students appreciate and understand testing, I had to first appreciate it myself. I love tests that give me relevant, timely information about how my students are doing, from how many letter names they know to how many words per minute they read. According to reports by the Annie E. Casey Foundation, children who read proficiently by the end of 3rd grade are four times more likely to graduate from high school.
If you need regular daily testing to tell how your kindergarten students are doing, you do not belong in a kindergarten classroom. And before one cites research, one should be clear on the difference between correlation and causation. However, Reimer might want to check out the research that shows that early "head starts" in learning pretty much disappear within a few years.
But that's not the most astonishing thing she says.
Of course, 5-year-olds don’t come to school automatically loving testing. As educators, it’s our job to build that appreciation and understanding.
No. No no no no no no no no no, no. No, Ms. Reimer, that is most decidedly NOT our job. It is our job to build appreciation and understanding for reading, art, math, running and playing, and learning in general. It is not our job to make them love the test. It is certainly not our job to teach that school is a place we go to take tests and get ready to take tests.
And get ready they do. Reimer also matter-of-factly observes that she "allows" students to spend time on test prep, but, you know, it's fun because they do it on a rainbow rug.
Is she done saying stupid things? Nope. Next she opines about the beauty of her data wall, which features flowers that move up the wall as each student hits a new benchmark.
As our class’s flowers climb up the wall, my students are not just becoming better readers but they are more aware of and interested in their progress. As soon as students see other flowers starting to move up, the most frequently asked question in the room is, “Can we do my test yet?”
It's at this point that we glimpse the real depth of Reimer's cluelessness. Here in her own story we plainly see that her students aren't interested in learning, and they like taking tests because it gets them a reward, because being left behind by their classmates is something five year olds really hate
Reimer finishes as off-base as she began.
As teachers, we have a chance to build a culture around testing that allows students to understand its value and the opportunities that come with it. That way, when it is time to announce an upcoming test, students can look like mine: smiles wide, fully attentive, delighted to show what they can do.
Actually, as teachers, particularly as teachers of very small children who would eat poop and punch themselves in the face if they thought it would win them the approval of the adults in their lives, we have a chance to build a culture around anything we choose. So why not build it around a love of learning. Why not build it around a small child's natural joy and curiosity about life. Why not build it around intrinsic motivation instead of the idea that success will always be defined by other people. Why not build it around play. Why on earth would you build a culture around testing?
Does Reimer seem like an untrained amateur? You will be unsurprised to learn that her background is Teach for America and Teach Plus, she's teaching at a Chicago charter, or that her LinkedIn profile she says, " In the future, I am interested working nonprofits or schools to provide students programming in service learning, literacy or the arts, or working as a leader amongst adults who are creating opportunities for students." So, not trained as a teacher, and not planning a teaching career. Just passing through.
I don't know if Reimer is full of it when she says her students love testing. But there's no reason on earth to report that as if it's a good thing. This is the kind of clueless amateur that reformsterism has set loose in classrooms. May Heaven help our children.
Freedom
MEMO
To: The Little People
From: Your Betters
We can just about taste sweet victory in what we're calling the "teacher freedom" case, and what better name for it? Because it's all about freedom.
Teachers need to be freed from requirements to support the unions (In fact, all pubic workers need freedom from their unions). All across the country, teachers have been begging to work more hours. They yearn for the freedom to be paid as little as employers want to pay them. They long for a manager to grab them in his big strong arms and tell them how it's going to be, without some dumb union jumping in and trying to interrupt with stupid talk of "rules" and "fairness." (Our little joke here at Betterocracy HQ is that the unions are big Koch-blockers.)
We hear the complaints that this case could end up weakening the unions, and to that we say-- duh! Of course. That's the point. Unions should be weaker, because the whole point of unions is to gather together a bunch of you weak little people and give you as much power as your Betters-- and that is a violation of the proper order of things. If you little people deserved to be powerful, you would be. Unions are a violation of the natural order of things. Forming a union is just cheating, and it saps power away from those of us who are supposed to have it to exercise without Little People getting in our way.
That is why we fight for freedom throughout America. We are trying to free poor people from the tyranny of welfare, because having money infringes on their freedom to be poor. Buying food infringes on their freedom to be hungry. Welfare and other government support are taking away poor people's freedom to experience the consequences of their poverty. We have fought for freedom in "Right To Work" states so that workers can have the freedom to be hired and fired for whatever reason their Betters concoct. We have suspended democratically-elected boards and governing bodies so that people can enjoy the freedom to be led by their Betters without any confusing "voting." And we want to give families the freedom to choose whatever school their Betters decide they deserve.
True freedom comes when you Little People no longer have to jostle and argue with each other, but can simply relax and enjoy the blissful freedom that comes when society is organized and run by those of us who are Better. A truly Free society is one in which the people who have proven their Betterness are free to exercise their judgment, for everybody, without being hindered by the Little People who simply don't know what's best for them. Little People should be weak and voiceless; Betters should be in charge. That's what true freedom is about.
When all of this has settled, you will thank us for putting the nation back in its proper order. You will be grateful that we made it easier to silence the people who don't deserve a voice in politics and policy. You will feel the peace that comes with knowing that all decisions will be made by the people who should make them, and who will so richly and benevolently reward you with pay, job security, and and benefits as They see fit. You will not experience the stress and turmoil that comes from trying to act as if you, collectively or individually, are your Betters equals. Then you will be truly free.
You're welcome,
Your Betters
To: The Little People
From: Your Betters
We can just about taste sweet victory in what we're calling the "teacher freedom" case, and what better name for it? Because it's all about freedom.
Teachers need to be freed from requirements to support the unions (In fact, all pubic workers need freedom from their unions). All across the country, teachers have been begging to work more hours. They yearn for the freedom to be paid as little as employers want to pay them. They long for a manager to grab them in his big strong arms and tell them how it's going to be, without some dumb union jumping in and trying to interrupt with stupid talk of "rules" and "fairness." (Our little joke here at Betterocracy HQ is that the unions are big Koch-blockers.)
We hear the complaints that this case could end up weakening the unions, and to that we say-- duh! Of course. That's the point. Unions should be weaker, because the whole point of unions is to gather together a bunch of you weak little people and give you as much power as your Betters-- and that is a violation of the proper order of things. If you little people deserved to be powerful, you would be. Unions are a violation of the natural order of things. Forming a union is just cheating, and it saps power away from those of us who are supposed to have it to exercise without Little People getting in our way.
That is why we fight for freedom throughout America. We are trying to free poor people from the tyranny of welfare, because having money infringes on their freedom to be poor. Buying food infringes on their freedom to be hungry. Welfare and other government support are taking away poor people's freedom to experience the consequences of their poverty. We have fought for freedom in "Right To Work" states so that workers can have the freedom to be hired and fired for whatever reason their Betters concoct. We have suspended democratically-elected boards and governing bodies so that people can enjoy the freedom to be led by their Betters without any confusing "voting." And we want to give families the freedom to choose whatever school their Betters decide they deserve.
True freedom comes when you Little People no longer have to jostle and argue with each other, but can simply relax and enjoy the blissful freedom that comes when society is organized and run by those of us who are Better. A truly Free society is one in which the people who have proven their Betterness are free to exercise their judgment, for everybody, without being hindered by the Little People who simply don't know what's best for them. Little People should be weak and voiceless; Betters should be in charge. That's what true freedom is about.
When all of this has settled, you will thank us for putting the nation back in its proper order. You will be grateful that we made it easier to silence the people who don't deserve a voice in politics and policy. You will feel the peace that comes with knowing that all decisions will be made by the people who should make them, and who will so richly and benevolently reward you with pay, job security, and and benefits as They see fit. You will not experience the stress and turmoil that comes from trying to act as if you, collectively or individually, are your Betters equals. Then you will be truly free.
You're welcome,
Your Betters
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)