Remember TeachStrong? It was launched by the folks at CAP to create some tasty PR about fixing teachers, complete with a not-very-impressive list of Ways To Make Teachers Swell. They rounded up most of the usual Faux-Lefty Reformster Suspects, including virulently anti-teacher and anti-teacher-union groups like DFER, and despite all this, the initiative also suckered in NEA and AFT into joining, a decision so...um, let's say "counter-intuitive" that Randi Weingarten had to write a whole post explaining WTF she was thinking. (Plus, I stand by my theory that this group is about covering Hilary Clinton's education flank).
Well, TeacherStrong is up to things. Specifically, they are going to host a moderated discussion in North Carolina on February 17th (roughly a month before the primary election) to discuss "the importance of modernizing and elevating the teaching profession." They will even follow it up with some local educators (including the 2014 Teacher of the Year, and an association president) who will wax poetic about "the impact that TeachStrong's principles would have on their career and the entire teaching profession." Moderators include a director from Project LIFT, a "pubic-private" turnaround biz, and CAP.
TeachStrong's message that we must work to modernize and elevate the teaching profession is especially relevant in North Carolina. The Charlotte area alone had nearly 1,000 teachers resign before the 2015 school year, and the state has experienced a 20 percent drop in enrollment in teacher preparation programs over the last 3 years.
Yes, the exodus of teachers from North Carolina and the reluctance of new recruits to join up-- that is a real puzzler, that is. Regular readers of this space know that I have a few theories. North Carolina has been hammering away at its educational foundation with big heavy hammers. Let's see. They tried to do away with tenure and froze wages for years, then cleverly tried to throttle two birds with one heavy fist by trying to make teachers choose between a (possible) raise and job security. Eventually, they created a new insulting salary schedule. Meanwhile, the state's Lt. Governor required them to rewrite a report about their crappy charters schools so that it was instead about how wonderful their charter schools are. They have cut school budgets, fired aids by the thousands, and installed terrible punitive regulations such as Pass-This-Standardized-Test-or-Fail-Third-Grade rules.
In other words, while TeachStrong is concerned about bringing the teaching profession into the future, in North Carolina, it's going to take some work just to bring the teaching profession into the present.
Anything that would advance the cause of teaching and public education in North Carolina would be welcome, but I'm not so sure that TeachStrong is the outfit to do it. This discussion could theoretically involve a head-on hit at the huge bad moves that North Carolina has made in education, or it could end up being pretty words to use while tap-dancing around the landmines that North Carolina has strewn around the public school landscape. But I'm not encouraged that they discuss the drop in the teacher supply as if it's some sort of mysterious inexplicable random act of nature, rather than the fairly predictable outcome of years of anti-teacher, anti-student, anti-education policies in the state. There are plenty of good, caring, dedicated teachers in North Carolina (I know-- I talk to some of them), and they deserve far better than what the state has been dumping upon them. TeachStrong's panel discussion should start with that.
Tuesday, February 2, 2016
NPE: National Public Ed Report Card
Every reformy group in the country regularly issues "report cards" about how well states are pursuing one reformster policy or another. We have been long overdue for a report card for how well states are defending and supporting the public education system that is one of the pillars of democracy. Now that wait is over.
The Network for Public Education today releases its 50 State Report Card, providing a quick, clear, simple look at how the various states are doing when it comes to supporting public education.
NPE has developed the grade based on six criteria; the actual research and point breakdown were done with the assistance of Francesca Lopez, Ph. D. and a research team at the University of Arizona. And yes, NPE is aware of the irony of using letter grades, a rather odious tool of reformsters.
As a matter of principle, NPE does not believe in assigning a single letter grade for evaluation purposes. We are opposed to such simplistic methods when used, for example, to evaluate schools. In this case, our letter grades carry no stakes. No states will be rewarded or punished as a result of our judgment about their support or lack of support for public education.
States ended up with a GPA based on the six factors. The top state score was a 2.5 (Iowa, Nebraska, and Vermont) and the lowest was Mississippi with a 0.50. Let's look at the best and the dimmest in each category.
No High Stakes Testing
NPE looked for states that rejected the use of the Big Standardized Test for a graduation exam, a requirement for student promotion and a factor in teacher evaluation.
Grade A: Alabama, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, and Vermont
Flunkeroonies: Mississippi
Professionalization of Teaching
Here NPE looked at nine factors, including experienced teacher pool, average early and mid-career salaries, rejection of merit pay, teacher attrition and retention rates, tenured teachers, high requirements for certification, and proportion of teachers prepared in university programs. In other words, is teaching actually treated like a life-long profession for trained professionals, or a quick pass-through temp job for anybody off the street?
Grade A: Well, that's depressing. Nobody. Iowa and New York scored B's.
Bottom of the Barrel: Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Indiana, North Carolina, and Texas. No surprises here, particularly with North Carolina and Florida, which have gone way out of their way to trash teaching.
Resistance to Privatization
Of course, dismantling public education and selling off the parts to profiteers has been a signature feature of reformster policies. So NPE looked at resistance to choice in all its various porcine lipstickery formats, resistance to using public tax dollars to pay for private schools, controls on charter growth, and rejection of the parent trigger laws.
Grade A: Alabama, Kentucky, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, and West Virginia
The Pits: Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, North Carolina, Ohio, Tennessee, and Texas. Ka-ching.
School Finance
Equitable and adequate funding is the great white whale of education. Even when states put better funding formulas in place or are forced and fine by the courts to get their act together (looking at you, Washington), there's a whole lot of fail out there. NPE looked at per-pupil expenditures adjusted for poverty and district size, school funding as a part of state gross product, and how well the state addresses the need for extra resources for high-poverty areas.
Grade A: New Jersey. That's it.
Stingy McUnderfunding: Alabama, Arizona, Idaho, Nevada, North Dakota
Spending Taxpayer Resources Wisely
This is where NPE sets its spending priorities (contrary to some critical opinion, pubic ed supporters do not simply believe that public ed should have All The Money). The priorities that NPE focused on were lower class size, less variation in class size by school type, more pre-K and full day K, and few students in cyber schools.
Grade A: Well, nobody. Montana gets a B.
Centers of Foolishness: Idaho, Nevada, and Washington
Chance for Success
This category looks at societal factors that can have an impact on student success. NPE researchers focused on proportion of students not living in low-income households, proportion of students living in households with full-time employment that lands above the poverty line, and how extensively schools are integrated by race and ethnicity.
Grade A: None. But ten B's, so there's some hope here.
Failureville: Alabama, California, Georgia, Mississippi, Montana, and Texas
The report comes with an appendix that gets into more detail as far as specific methodologies. In fact, one of the general strengths of the report is that it's very easy to take in the results at either a quick and simple level, or to drill down for more detail. In fact, the NPE website has a handy interactive map that lets you take a quick look at each state's grade breakdown.
The report is handy for comparison, and for a depressingly clear picture of which states are beating up public education badly. It is transparent enough that you can discuss and debate some of the factors included in the findings. I can certainly see it as a tool for young teachers looking for a place to land.
Take some time to look through the report. It's not a pretty picture, but understanding where we are will help us develop more ideas about how to get where we need to be.
The Network for Public Education today releases its 50 State Report Card, providing a quick, clear, simple look at how the various states are doing when it comes to supporting public education.
NPE has developed the grade based on six criteria; the actual research and point breakdown were done with the assistance of Francesca Lopez, Ph. D. and a research team at the University of Arizona. And yes, NPE is aware of the irony of using letter grades, a rather odious tool of reformsters.
As a matter of principle, NPE does not believe in assigning a single letter grade for evaluation purposes. We are opposed to such simplistic methods when used, for example, to evaluate schools. In this case, our letter grades carry no stakes. No states will be rewarded or punished as a result of our judgment about their support or lack of support for public education.
States ended up with a GPA based on the six factors. The top state score was a 2.5 (Iowa, Nebraska, and Vermont) and the lowest was Mississippi with a 0.50. Let's look at the best and the dimmest in each category.
No High Stakes Testing
NPE looked for states that rejected the use of the Big Standardized Test for a graduation exam, a requirement for student promotion and a factor in teacher evaluation.
Grade A: Alabama, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, and Vermont
Flunkeroonies: Mississippi
Professionalization of Teaching
Here NPE looked at nine factors, including experienced teacher pool, average early and mid-career salaries, rejection of merit pay, teacher attrition and retention rates, tenured teachers, high requirements for certification, and proportion of teachers prepared in university programs. In other words, is teaching actually treated like a life-long profession for trained professionals, or a quick pass-through temp job for anybody off the street?
Grade A: Well, that's depressing. Nobody. Iowa and New York scored B's.
Bottom of the Barrel: Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Indiana, North Carolina, and Texas. No surprises here, particularly with North Carolina and Florida, which have gone way out of their way to trash teaching.
Resistance to Privatization
Of course, dismantling public education and selling off the parts to profiteers has been a signature feature of reformster policies. So NPE looked at resistance to choice in all its various porcine lipstickery formats, resistance to using public tax dollars to pay for private schools, controls on charter growth, and rejection of the parent trigger laws.
Grade A: Alabama, Kentucky, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, and West Virginia
The Pits: Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, North Carolina, Ohio, Tennessee, and Texas. Ka-ching.
School Finance
Equitable and adequate funding is the great white whale of education. Even when states put better funding formulas in place or are forced and fine by the courts to get their act together (looking at you, Washington), there's a whole lot of fail out there. NPE looked at per-pupil expenditures adjusted for poverty and district size, school funding as a part of state gross product, and how well the state addresses the need for extra resources for high-poverty areas.
Grade A: New Jersey. That's it.
Stingy McUnderfunding: Alabama, Arizona, Idaho, Nevada, North Dakota
Spending Taxpayer Resources Wisely
This is where NPE sets its spending priorities (contrary to some critical opinion, pubic ed supporters do not simply believe that public ed should have All The Money). The priorities that NPE focused on were lower class size, less variation in class size by school type, more pre-K and full day K, and few students in cyber schools.
Grade A: Well, nobody. Montana gets a B.
Centers of Foolishness: Idaho, Nevada, and Washington
Chance for Success
This category looks at societal factors that can have an impact on student success. NPE researchers focused on proportion of students not living in low-income households, proportion of students living in households with full-time employment that lands above the poverty line, and how extensively schools are integrated by race and ethnicity.
Grade A: None. But ten B's, so there's some hope here.
Failureville: Alabama, California, Georgia, Mississippi, Montana, and Texas
The report comes with an appendix that gets into more detail as far as specific methodologies. In fact, one of the general strengths of the report is that it's very easy to take in the results at either a quick and simple level, or to drill down for more detail. In fact, the NPE website has a handy interactive map that lets you take a quick look at each state's grade breakdown.
The report is handy for comparison, and for a depressingly clear picture of which states are beating up public education badly. It is transparent enough that you can discuss and debate some of the factors included in the findings. I can certainly see it as a tool for young teachers looking for a place to land.
Take some time to look through the report. It's not a pretty picture, but understanding where we are will help us develop more ideas about how to get where we need to be.
Monday, February 1, 2016
CCSS Flunks Complexity Test
The Winter 2016 issue of the AASA Journal of Scholarship and Practice includes an important piece of research by Dario Sforza, Eunyoung Kim, and Christopher Tienken, showing that when it comes to demanding complex thinking, the Common Core Standards are neither all that nor the bag of chips.
You may recognize Tienken's name-- the Seton Hall professor previously produced research showing that demographic data was sufficient to predict results on the Big Standardized Test. He's also featured in this video from 2014 that does a pretty good job of debunking the whole magical testing biz.
The researchers in this set out to test the oft-repeated claim that The Core replaces old lower order flat-brained standards with new requirements for lots of higher-order thinking. They did this by doing a content analysis of the standards themselves and doing the same analysis of New Jersey's pre-Core standards. They focused on 9-12 standards because they're more closely associated with the end result of education; I reckon it also allowed them to sidestep questions about developmental appropriateness.
The researchers used Webb's Depth of Knowledge framework to analyze standards, and to be honest and open here, I've met the Depth of Knowledge thing (twice, actually) and remain relatively unimpressed. But the DOK measures are widely loved and accepted by Common Coresters (I had my first DOK training from a Marzano-experienced pro from the Common Core Institute), so using DOK makes more sense than using some other measure that would allow Core fans to come back with, "Well, you just didn't use the right thing to measure stuff."
DOK divides everything up into four levels of complexity, and while there's a temptation to equate complexity and difficulty, they don't necessarily go together. ("Compare and contrast the Cat in the Hat and the Grinch" is complex but not difficult, while "Find all the references to sex in Joyce's Ulysses" is difficult but not complex.) The DOK levels, as I learned them, are
Level 1: Recall
Level 2: Use a skill
Level 3: Build an argument. Strategic thinking. Give evidence.
Level 4: Connect multiple dots to create a bigger picture.
Frankly, my experience is that the harder you look at DOK, the fuzzier it gets. But generally 3 and 4 are your higher order thinking levels.
The article is for a scholarly research journal, so there is a section about How We Got Here (mainstream started clamoring for students graduating with higher order smarterness skills so that we would not be conquered by Estonia). There's also a highly detailed explanation of methodology; all I'm going to say about that is that it looks solid to me. If you don't want to take my word for it, here's the link again-- go knock yourself out.
But the bottom line?
In the ELA standards, the complexity level is low. 72% of the ELA standards were rated as Level 1 or 2. That would include such classic low-level standards like "By the end of Grade 9, read and comprehend literature, including stories, dramas, and poems, in the grades 9–10 text complexity band proficiently, with scaffolding as needed at the high end of the range." Which is pretty clearly a call for straight-up comprehension and nothing else.
Level 3 was 26% of the standards. Level 4 was a whopping 2%, and examples of that include CCSS's notoriously vague research project standard:
Conduct short as well as more sustained research projects to answer a question (including a self-generated question) or solve a problem; narrow or broaden the inquiry when appropriate; synthesize multiple sources on the subject, demonstrating understanding of the subject under investigation
Also known as "one of those standards describing practices already followed by every competent English teacher in the country."
Math was even worse, with Level 1 and 2 accounting for a whopping 90% of the standards.
So if you want to argue that the standards are chock full of higher order thinkiness, you appear to have no legs upon which to perform your standardized happy dance.
But, hey. Maybe the pre-Core NJ standards were even worse, and CCSS, no matter how lame, are still a step up.
Sorry, no. Still no legs for you.
NJ ELA standards worked out as 66% Level 1 and 2, Level 3 with a 33%, and Level 4 a big 5%.
NJ math standards? Level 1 and 2 are 62% (and only 8% of that was Level 1). Level 3 was 28%, and Level 4 was 10%.
The researchers have arranged their data into a variety of charts and graphs, but no matter how you slice it, the Common Core pie has less high order filling than NJ's old standards. The bottom line here is that when Core fans talk about all the higher order thinking the Core has ushered into the classroom, they are wrong.
You may recognize Tienken's name-- the Seton Hall professor previously produced research showing that demographic data was sufficient to predict results on the Big Standardized Test. He's also featured in this video from 2014 that does a pretty good job of debunking the whole magical testing biz.
The researchers in this set out to test the oft-repeated claim that The Core replaces old lower order flat-brained standards with new requirements for lots of higher-order thinking. They did this by doing a content analysis of the standards themselves and doing the same analysis of New Jersey's pre-Core standards. They focused on 9-12 standards because they're more closely associated with the end result of education; I reckon it also allowed them to sidestep questions about developmental appropriateness.
The researchers used Webb's Depth of Knowledge framework to analyze standards, and to be honest and open here, I've met the Depth of Knowledge thing (twice, actually) and remain relatively unimpressed. But the DOK measures are widely loved and accepted by Common Coresters (I had my first DOK training from a Marzano-experienced pro from the Common Core Institute), so using DOK makes more sense than using some other measure that would allow Core fans to come back with, "Well, you just didn't use the right thing to measure stuff."
DOK divides everything up into four levels of complexity, and while there's a temptation to equate complexity and difficulty, they don't necessarily go together. ("Compare and contrast the Cat in the Hat and the Grinch" is complex but not difficult, while "Find all the references to sex in Joyce's Ulysses" is difficult but not complex.) The DOK levels, as I learned them, are
Level 1: Recall
Level 2: Use a skill
Level 3: Build an argument. Strategic thinking. Give evidence.
Level 4: Connect multiple dots to create a bigger picture.
Frankly, my experience is that the harder you look at DOK, the fuzzier it gets. But generally 3 and 4 are your higher order thinking levels.
The article is for a scholarly research journal, so there is a section about How We Got Here (mainstream started clamoring for students graduating with higher order smarterness skills so that we would not be conquered by Estonia). There's also a highly detailed explanation of methodology; all I'm going to say about that is that it looks solid to me. If you don't want to take my word for it, here's the link again-- go knock yourself out.
But the bottom line?
In the ELA standards, the complexity level is low. 72% of the ELA standards were rated as Level 1 or 2. That would include such classic low-level standards like "By the end of Grade 9, read and comprehend literature, including stories, dramas, and poems, in the grades 9–10 text complexity band proficiently, with scaffolding as needed at the high end of the range." Which is pretty clearly a call for straight-up comprehension and nothing else.
Level 3 was 26% of the standards. Level 4 was a whopping 2%, and examples of that include CCSS's notoriously vague research project standard:
Conduct short as well as more sustained research projects to answer a question (including a self-generated question) or solve a problem; narrow or broaden the inquiry when appropriate; synthesize multiple sources on the subject, demonstrating understanding of the subject under investigation
Also known as "one of those standards describing practices already followed by every competent English teacher in the country."
Math was even worse, with Level 1 and 2 accounting for a whopping 90% of the standards.
So if you want to argue that the standards are chock full of higher order thinkiness, you appear to have no legs upon which to perform your standardized happy dance.
But, hey. Maybe the pre-Core NJ standards were even worse, and CCSS, no matter how lame, are still a step up.
Sorry, no. Still no legs for you.
NJ ELA standards worked out as 66% Level 1 and 2, Level 3 with a 33%, and Level 4 a big 5%.
NJ math standards? Level 1 and 2 are 62% (and only 8% of that was Level 1). Level 3 was 28%, and Level 4 was 10%.
The researchers have arranged their data into a variety of charts and graphs, but no matter how you slice it, the Common Core pie has less high order filling than NJ's old standards. The bottom line here is that when Core fans talk about all the higher order thinking the Core has ushered into the classroom, they are wrong.
How High Are the Standards?
Raise standards. High standards. Deciding whether Core standards are higher or lower than the old standards, or the newer standards.
And nobody has any idea what any of it means.
I mean, I'm not an idiot. I understand what it means to say that I hold my students to a high standard or that my classroom is based on having high standards or hold the donuts I eat to a high standards. As a general principle, we all know what high standards are.
But as a matter of policy, "high standards" is really meaningless. In fact, it's worse than meaningless because it's a metaphor that obscures an important truth.
"High standards" suggests a two-dimensional model of education. It suggests a model in which all students are trying to climb exactly the same ladder in exactly the same direction.It's a single one-directional arrow, with all students progressing steadily, dutifully along the single path toward the single point.
It's a model that doesn't correspond to anything in human experience or behavior. Instead of the blind men and the elephant, we can tell the modern fable of thousand blind administrators and the feds.
The blind administrators were called before the Department of Education. Looking down at them from his throne made of 95% excellent mahogany, the Secretary said, "Have you all led your schools to higher standards?"
"Yes," they all roared in reply. "We are all running schools where high standards rule."
"Excellent," said the Secretary. "You must each tell me, one at a time, and in greater detail, if your school has set high standards." And so the thousand blind administrators lined up to answer his question.
"Yes," said the first blind administrator. "We require our students to get the very highest scores on a standardized English test."
"Yes," said the second blind administrator. "Our students must get the very highest scores on a standardized math test."
"Yes," said the third blind administrator. "We insist that every one of our students leave our school with a positive, happy attitude about themselves."
"Yes," said the fourth blind administrator. "Every single one of our students must be physically fit."
"Yes," said the fifth blind administrator. "We demand that every student achieve competence on a musical instrument."
"Yes," said the sixth blind administrators. ""Every one of our students must graduate with the tools to be an excellent scientist."
"Yes...."
Okay, it's a very long fable, because each one of the thousand administrators had set their school to a higher standard, and not one of them was like the other. Because when you try to fill the grand hollow platitude of "we must have high standards" with anything specific, you quickly realize that all the blather in the world can't fill that gaping cavern in a useful way.
Should we have high expectations for each of our students, demanding and encouraging that they become the best they can be? Absolutely-- that is fundamental to good classroom practice. But using "high standards" as a policy is useless, a thick slice of baloney that may make bureaucrats and politicians feel as if they're really Doing Something. You can't further a conversation with words that don't actually mean anything.
And nobody has any idea what any of it means.
I mean, I'm not an idiot. I understand what it means to say that I hold my students to a high standard or that my classroom is based on having high standards or hold the donuts I eat to a high standards. As a general principle, we all know what high standards are.
But as a matter of policy, "high standards" is really meaningless. In fact, it's worse than meaningless because it's a metaphor that obscures an important truth.
"High standards" suggests a two-dimensional model of education. It suggests a model in which all students are trying to climb exactly the same ladder in exactly the same direction.It's a single one-directional arrow, with all students progressing steadily, dutifully along the single path toward the single point.
It's a model that doesn't correspond to anything in human experience or behavior. Instead of the blind men and the elephant, we can tell the modern fable of thousand blind administrators and the feds.
The blind administrators were called before the Department of Education. Looking down at them from his throne made of 95% excellent mahogany, the Secretary said, "Have you all led your schools to higher standards?"
"Yes," they all roared in reply. "We are all running schools where high standards rule."
"Excellent," said the Secretary. "You must each tell me, one at a time, and in greater detail, if your school has set high standards." And so the thousand blind administrators lined up to answer his question.
"Yes," said the first blind administrator. "We require our students to get the very highest scores on a standardized English test."
"Yes," said the second blind administrator. "Our students must get the very highest scores on a standardized math test."
"Yes," said the third blind administrator. "We insist that every one of our students leave our school with a positive, happy attitude about themselves."
"Yes," said the fourth blind administrator. "Every single one of our students must be physically fit."
"Yes," said the fifth blind administrator. "We demand that every student achieve competence on a musical instrument."
"Yes," said the sixth blind administrators. ""Every one of our students must graduate with the tools to be an excellent scientist."
"Yes...."
Okay, it's a very long fable, because each one of the thousand administrators had set their school to a higher standard, and not one of them was like the other. Because when you try to fill the grand hollow platitude of "we must have high standards" with anything specific, you quickly realize that all the blather in the world can't fill that gaping cavern in a useful way.
Should we have high expectations for each of our students, demanding and encouraging that they become the best they can be? Absolutely-- that is fundamental to good classroom practice. But using "high standards" as a policy is useless, a thick slice of baloney that may make bureaucrats and politicians feel as if they're really Doing Something. You can't further a conversation with words that don't actually mean anything.
Sunday, January 31, 2016
Detroit: Snitch or Be Fired
Detroit Public Schools Emergency Manager Darnell Earley (already famous as the emergency manager who poisoned the Flint water supply) has a problem on his hands.
Well, actually, he has several problems, including crumbling, disgusting, unsafe schools. That's not the problem he's concerned about-- he's concerned about the teacher sick-outs. Michigan teachers are not legally permitted to strike-- but they can call in sick. And like any manager whose people are desperately going to great lengths to let him know there's a problem, Earley has sat down with them to talk and try to get to the root of the issue so that the school system can better meet the needs of the students and community. Ha! Just kidding. Earley has tried to cudgel the teachers back into line.
He's tried a court injunction against the union. Twice. The court has correctly noted that there's no evidence that the union is behind the sick-outs.
So last week, teachers reportedly became aware that there was a new policy document on the DPS website.
You can see the document here.
The first sections are old news. Employees may not strike. Supervisors may not encourage a strike.
Then we get to the snitching portion.
"Each and every employee" who becomes aware of any plan for a strike or work stoppage must report it, in writing and in full and in detail.
And the bottom line on all of this?
Failure to immediately comply with this order may be grounds for discipline up to and including termination.
So now, instead of spending money trying to fix decaying schools or get non-rancid food in front of students, Earley and DPS can spend money hauling teachers into tribunals to charge them with having prior knowledge of another teacher's intent to call in sick, with everybody's job on the line.
Michigan does have a whistleblower statute, which protects, among other things, an employee who "reports or is about to report (either verbally or in writing) a violation or a suspected violation of a law, regulation, or a rule" whether the law is state, federal, whatever. I'm not a lawyer (nor do I play one on tv), but it would be interesting to see if the teacher sickout qualifies as a last-ditch attempt to "report" the terrible conditions, many of which violate all sorts of rules, would qualify them as whistleblowers, and therefore protected from retaliation for the sick-outs.
But it's an even more bizarre stretch to try to implement a regulation aimed directly at anyone who knew that someone else was about to blow a whistle.
Earley's snitch-or-be-fired directive is just one more example of how this kind of management-by-czar model can turn into messy tyranny. I hope DPS teachers continue to defy Early, and I hope he looks as ridiculous as he clearly is when he tries to go after them. But what I really hope is that somebody in the state of Michigan wakes up and starts properly funding schools, communities, and the very citizens of the state. Though I should probably check to make sure that Pennsylvania doesn't have some sort of extradition treaty with Michigan before I post this-- I've just encouraged Detroit teachers to continue their sick out and you're just read me doing it, which means we could all be in trouble now. What country do we live in, again?
Well, actually, he has several problems, including crumbling, disgusting, unsafe schools. That's not the problem he's concerned about-- he's concerned about the teacher sick-outs. Michigan teachers are not legally permitted to strike-- but they can call in sick. And like any manager whose people are desperately going to great lengths to let him know there's a problem, Earley has sat down with them to talk and try to get to the root of the issue so that the school system can better meet the needs of the students and community. Ha! Just kidding. Earley has tried to cudgel the teachers back into line.
He's tried a court injunction against the union. Twice. The court has correctly noted that there's no evidence that the union is behind the sick-outs.
So last week, teachers reportedly became aware that there was a new policy document on the DPS website.
You can see the document here.
The first sections are old news. Employees may not strike. Supervisors may not encourage a strike.
Then we get to the snitching portion.
"Each and every employee" who becomes aware of any plan for a strike or work stoppage must report it, in writing and in full and in detail.
And the bottom line on all of this?
Failure to immediately comply with this order may be grounds for discipline up to and including termination.
So now, instead of spending money trying to fix decaying schools or get non-rancid food in front of students, Earley and DPS can spend money hauling teachers into tribunals to charge them with having prior knowledge of another teacher's intent to call in sick, with everybody's job on the line.
Michigan does have a whistleblower statute, which protects, among other things, an employee who "reports or is about to report (either verbally or in writing) a violation or a suspected violation of a law, regulation, or a rule" whether the law is state, federal, whatever. I'm not a lawyer (nor do I play one on tv), but it would be interesting to see if the teacher sickout qualifies as a last-ditch attempt to "report" the terrible conditions, many of which violate all sorts of rules, would qualify them as whistleblowers, and therefore protected from retaliation for the sick-outs.
But it's an even more bizarre stretch to try to implement a regulation aimed directly at anyone who knew that someone else was about to blow a whistle.
Earley's snitch-or-be-fired directive is just one more example of how this kind of management-by-czar model can turn into messy tyranny. I hope DPS teachers continue to defy Early, and I hope he looks as ridiculous as he clearly is when he tries to go after them. But what I really hope is that somebody in the state of Michigan wakes up and starts properly funding schools, communities, and the very citizens of the state. Though I should probably check to make sure that Pennsylvania doesn't have some sort of extradition treaty with Michigan before I post this-- I've just encouraged Detroit teachers to continue their sick out and you're just read me doing it, which means we could all be in trouble now. What country do we live in, again?
ICYMI: Browsing the edu-info
Here's just a bit of what's happening out there. As always, I highly recommend that you look down the right-hand sidebar, which is probably the best part of this blog!
Star Wars and Education Reform
Yes, Andy Smarick is part of the Bellwether-Fordham axis of reforminess. But he has a history of carefully considering the implications of ed reform and the unrestrained impulse to just throw out everything old. This quick take raises some useful questions. Also, Star Wars.
Common Core Can't sped Up Child Development
From last summer, this piece lays out the problem with the Core versus the development of small children.
The Blasphemy of School Vouchers
It's voucher-pushing time in Tennessee again. A perspective from a parent whose child attends one of those "failing" schools, and who does his homework on the larger issues.
The School Choice We Have vs The School Choice We Want
A good look at the joyous PR of Choice Week held up against the backdrop of Detroit, courtesy of edu-journalist Jeff Bryant
Have You Heard
Jennifer Berkshire (Edushyster) has entered the world of podcasting, and the world of podcasting is better for it.
Higher Education Is More Than Workforce Development
Tom Eblen gives a brief history of higher education in Kentucky and looks at how the new governor is poised to screw it up.
Star Wars and Education Reform
Yes, Andy Smarick is part of the Bellwether-Fordham axis of reforminess. But he has a history of carefully considering the implications of ed reform and the unrestrained impulse to just throw out everything old. This quick take raises some useful questions. Also, Star Wars.
Common Core Can't sped Up Child Development
From last summer, this piece lays out the problem with the Core versus the development of small children.
The Blasphemy of School Vouchers
It's voucher-pushing time in Tennessee again. A perspective from a parent whose child attends one of those "failing" schools, and who does his homework on the larger issues.
The School Choice We Have vs The School Choice We Want
A good look at the joyous PR of Choice Week held up against the backdrop of Detroit, courtesy of edu-journalist Jeff Bryant
Have You Heard
Jennifer Berkshire (Edushyster) has entered the world of podcasting, and the world of podcasting is better for it.
Higher Education Is More Than Workforce Development
Tom Eblen gives a brief history of higher education in Kentucky and looks at how the new governor is poised to screw it up.
Saturday, January 30, 2016
CCSS: Safe and Secure
The Collaborative for Student Success is yet another Common Core shilling group, supported by folks like the Gates Foundation, the New Ventures Fund, and the Fordham. It has to be lonely over there, standing up for the Common Core when nobody will even mention its name unless they're paid to do so.
Election Doesn't Matter
Last week executive director Karen Nussle issued a memo declaring Common Core a non-issue in the race for President, and she has a legitimate point. At this point Common Core lacks support among Presidential candidates as surely as roasting and eating baby pandas does. But Nussle sorts out the different types of non-support.
Many of the contenders have a complicated relationship with the standards marked by inconsistencies and shifting positions, while others have staked out governance positions on standards that are unconstitutional.
I think "complicated relationship" is a nice way to put it. There are, for instance, the flip-floppers. She calls out Rubio, who used to brag about his role in getting CCSS adopted in Florida. And Chris Christie and Fiorina and Huckabee (and Jindal and Walker) who are all for Common Core before they were against it. Nussle does not dig further, considering that this might be a result of selling the Core, not on their merits as educational standards, but on their merits as a good political posture. I suppose you can argue that the flip floppery is a sign that these candidates are unprincipled, but I think it's also a sign that Common Core was never a matter of principle to begin with. The Core were sold as politically expedient and politically sale-able. These deserters of the Core deserted the standards as soon as it became evident that they did not possess the only qualities that ever made CCSS in the first place.
Nussle's "unconstitutional" crack is for Cruz and Trump, both of whom have promised to undo the federal Common Core laws, and while I hold the feds responsible in large part for the Core's existence and prevalence, even I understand that talking about undoing the federal Common Core laws is like promising to repeal the federal laws requiring it to snow in Alaska. It's a cynical, cost-free to promise nothing, appropriate for two supremely cynical sonsabitches. To even sort of make good on the promise, Nussle points out, they have promised to use any Presidential power they can to undermine the Core, which would make for spectacular overreach and abuse of power. Oh yeah-- Ben Carson is in this group. Is he still here? Apparently.
Nussle also brings up the "principled leaders" while simultaneously giving them a pass for actually being flip floppers. Bush and Kasich "have consistently and unapologetically supported higher standards" she says, conveniently switching from "common core" to "highers standards" because otherwise both would just be flip-floppers who were a little slower on the flop than the rest. That would be appropriate for Kasich, who was still spouting the "but these were created by the governors" line long after even Common Core PR flaks had dropped that fiction (I watch him at the NH beauty pageant and my impression that Kasich is more clueless than diabolical). Bush, on the other hand, had staked out education as the issue-based limo that would drive him to DC, and ever since the wheels came off, he's been unsure about whether to wait next to the vehicle for a tow-truck or to just hitch a ride with something else.
Nussle does a nice call-back to the Washington Post prediction that Common Core would be the most important issue of the election before pointing out that it barely came up at all in GOP debates, and devotes twelve whole words to acknowledging that Democrats are also running for President and not talking about Common Core.
The Core Is Safe
Nussle wraps up by explaining why the Core standards are in no danger.
The enactment of ESSA forever ends what has long been the greatest point of vulnerability for Common Core: federal entanglement through Race to the Top and secretarial waivers in states’ decisions surrounding the adoption of standards and the selection of aligned assessments.
Yes, for people whose theory is that the Core was doing fine until Obama and Duncan and the feds messed everything up, ESSA is good news because it protects the states from the results of any federal elections, and Nussle is convinced that CCSS is firmly entrenched in forty-three states.
On the one hand, she has a point. Most states that "replaced" Common Core did it through the highly technical Lipstick on a Pig technique of changing the name and a few words here and there.
On the other hand, Common Core is dead, and public education is fighting a long clean-up battle against the shambling zombies that still grunt its name.
The portions of Common Core that are not on the Big Standardized Test are dead and gone, gone, gone. When was the last time you heard about a school sinking big bucks into the Common Core speaking and listening program? How many teachers are under intense pressure to implement instruction that meets those standards? Speaking and listening standards are absolutely part of the Core, but they're not on anybody's BS Test, so nobody cares. For all intents and purposes they don't exist.
What about schools and teachers who claim they are being led by the Common Core to new heights of educational awesomeness? I have read dozens of essays by these folks, and they all have one thing in common-- they are full of baloney. Here is the process followed by every single one of these schools and teachers:
1) Do whatever your professional judgment tells you is best for your students.
2) Credit it to the Common Core standards.
At this point, "Common Core" has about as much clear and specific meaning as "stuff." It means something completely different to every person that uses it, encounters it, or interprets it, and its decay into empty nothingness is accelerated by the lack of any sort of anchor-- there's no person, no group, no "authority" in place to say, "No, this is what it really means."
Common Core still exerts an unhealthy influence in a thousand corners of the country, depending on how deep the kool-aid runs in the veins of the People In Charge. But it's no longer possible to have a real conversation about it because nobody means the same thing by the words. So in a sense, Nussle is correct in believing that nobody can hurt the Core any more. However, nobody can hurt the Core anymore because it's already dead, shambling and shuffling around, desperate to eat brains but unable to form a single useful thought or join up with any of the other policy zombies.
Election Doesn't Matter
Last week executive director Karen Nussle issued a memo declaring Common Core a non-issue in the race for President, and she has a legitimate point. At this point Common Core lacks support among Presidential candidates as surely as roasting and eating baby pandas does. But Nussle sorts out the different types of non-support.
Many of the contenders have a complicated relationship with the standards marked by inconsistencies and shifting positions, while others have staked out governance positions on standards that are unconstitutional.
I think "complicated relationship" is a nice way to put it. There are, for instance, the flip-floppers. She calls out Rubio, who used to brag about his role in getting CCSS adopted in Florida. And Chris Christie and Fiorina and Huckabee (and Jindal and Walker) who are all for Common Core before they were against it. Nussle does not dig further, considering that this might be a result of selling the Core, not on their merits as educational standards, but on their merits as a good political posture. I suppose you can argue that the flip floppery is a sign that these candidates are unprincipled, but I think it's also a sign that Common Core was never a matter of principle to begin with. The Core were sold as politically expedient and politically sale-able. These deserters of the Core deserted the standards as soon as it became evident that they did not possess the only qualities that ever made CCSS in the first place.
Nussle's "unconstitutional" crack is for Cruz and Trump, both of whom have promised to undo the federal Common Core laws, and while I hold the feds responsible in large part for the Core's existence and prevalence, even I understand that talking about undoing the federal Common Core laws is like promising to repeal the federal laws requiring it to snow in Alaska. It's a cynical, cost-free to promise nothing, appropriate for two supremely cynical sonsabitches. To even sort of make good on the promise, Nussle points out, they have promised to use any Presidential power they can to undermine the Core, which would make for spectacular overreach and abuse of power. Oh yeah-- Ben Carson is in this group. Is he still here? Apparently.
Nussle also brings up the "principled leaders" while simultaneously giving them a pass for actually being flip floppers. Bush and Kasich "have consistently and unapologetically supported higher standards" she says, conveniently switching from "common core" to "highers standards" because otherwise both would just be flip-floppers who were a little slower on the flop than the rest. That would be appropriate for Kasich, who was still spouting the "but these were created by the governors" line long after even Common Core PR flaks had dropped that fiction (I watch him at the NH beauty pageant and my impression that Kasich is more clueless than diabolical). Bush, on the other hand, had staked out education as the issue-based limo that would drive him to DC, and ever since the wheels came off, he's been unsure about whether to wait next to the vehicle for a tow-truck or to just hitch a ride with something else.
Nussle does a nice call-back to the Washington Post prediction that Common Core would be the most important issue of the election before pointing out that it barely came up at all in GOP debates, and devotes twelve whole words to acknowledging that Democrats are also running for President and not talking about Common Core.
The Core Is Safe
Nussle wraps up by explaining why the Core standards are in no danger.
The enactment of ESSA forever ends what has long been the greatest point of vulnerability for Common Core: federal entanglement through Race to the Top and secretarial waivers in states’ decisions surrounding the adoption of standards and the selection of aligned assessments.
Yes, for people whose theory is that the Core was doing fine until Obama and Duncan and the feds messed everything up, ESSA is good news because it protects the states from the results of any federal elections, and Nussle is convinced that CCSS is firmly entrenched in forty-three states.
On the one hand, she has a point. Most states that "replaced" Common Core did it through the highly technical Lipstick on a Pig technique of changing the name and a few words here and there.
On the other hand, Common Core is dead, and public education is fighting a long clean-up battle against the shambling zombies that still grunt its name.
The portions of Common Core that are not on the Big Standardized Test are dead and gone, gone, gone. When was the last time you heard about a school sinking big bucks into the Common Core speaking and listening program? How many teachers are under intense pressure to implement instruction that meets those standards? Speaking and listening standards are absolutely part of the Core, but they're not on anybody's BS Test, so nobody cares. For all intents and purposes they don't exist.
What about schools and teachers who claim they are being led by the Common Core to new heights of educational awesomeness? I have read dozens of essays by these folks, and they all have one thing in common-- they are full of baloney. Here is the process followed by every single one of these schools and teachers:
1) Do whatever your professional judgment tells you is best for your students.
2) Credit it to the Common Core standards.
At this point, "Common Core" has about as much clear and specific meaning as "stuff." It means something completely different to every person that uses it, encounters it, or interprets it, and its decay into empty nothingness is accelerated by the lack of any sort of anchor-- there's no person, no group, no "authority" in place to say, "No, this is what it really means."
Common Core still exerts an unhealthy influence in a thousand corners of the country, depending on how deep the kool-aid runs in the veins of the People In Charge. But it's no longer possible to have a real conversation about it because nobody means the same thing by the words. So in a sense, Nussle is correct in believing that nobody can hurt the Core any more. However, nobody can hurt the Core anymore because it's already dead, shambling and shuffling around, desperate to eat brains but unable to form a single useful thought or join up with any of the other policy zombies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)