What Bad Bosses Say

Forbes likes listicles with a business bent, but sometimes they seem applicable to other areas. School areas. For instance, here's their piece "Ten Things Only Bad Bosses Say." Let's see what portion of this resonates. Do we hear any of these from our on bad bosses-- and note that these are absolutely Forbes ten markers for bad bosses. That I did not make up.

1. I don’t make the rules — I just enforce them

In all fairness to our superintendents and principals, this is true. They are just loaded with state and federal rules that control their lives and over which they have no control. But if you think about the many reform ideas we've been subjected to over the years, you'll notice that hardly anybody actually owns the ideas they push. Even Bill Gates didn't just say, "Y'all should adopt Common Core because it's a cool thing I found out about that I think you should do." Charteristas don 't just say, "We want these business opportunities to be available to us because we want to make money on this biz."

No, idea after idea is presented with a general stance of "research and studies show that this reform idea has to be implemented." Which is just one other way to say, "Look, I didn't make this stuff up. I'm just telling you what the research demands."

2. If you don’t want the job, I’ll find somebody who does

We've heard the message consistently for at least twenty-five years now-- teachers are easily replaceable. Any warm body will do for delivering instructional content from the box. Anybody with a college degree (or even less) can be put in a classroom. You would think the free market's invisible hand would step and across legislatures and school districts would be saying, "Teachers are special and increasingly rare butterflies-- we had better start offering more money and bennies to attract them." No, among many education policy leaders, the response to the growing teacher shortage has been simple-- "No biggy. We can find pretty much anyone to fill those jobs."

3. Just make it happen — and don’t screw it up

Here's a policy. Make it happen somehow. You can't have any money to make it happen. But we will punish either you or your students or your school or all together

4. That sounds like a personal problem

The Forbesian bad boss doesn't want to make allowances for personal appointments, family stuff, etc. I was going to ay this doesn't apply so much to education, but then I thought of the charter teachers who are expected to work 120 hours per week.

5. If I wanted your opinion I’d ask for it

Oh, lordy yes. The whole steady hammering of the modern reform movement has been performed while resolutely ignoring the professional opinions of millions of teachers. In fact, we've actually improved by raising the reform opinion of teacher input to "benign neglect" from the previous "open hostility." A few years ago the common attitude toward teachers was, "You have screwed up the whole system and everything you think and say is clearly dead wrong." At some point reformsters realized that it's hard to implement much of any reform without the cooperation of classroom teachers, so they stopped being so openly hostile. But they still haven't haven't started listening to us.

6. You’re lucky to have a job

See #2. Add the ongoing hunt for the legendary Bad Teachers. We are going to By God track them down and get rid of them, and if we haven't come up with an evaluation system that proves your a bad teacher yet, we're still working on it. Which is okay because (#2) you are easily replaced.

7. I don’t want to hear about problems — not unless you’ve got a solution

One of the rhetorical features of some reform arguments has been a shifting of the burden of proof, resulting in a conversation like this.

Reformer: It looks like you're having trouble breathing. Let me chop of your arms with a chainsaw.
Teachers: Are you nuts?! Put that chainsaw away.
Reformer: All right then-- you'd better come with an idea about what to do instead.

8. We’ve always done it this way

Yeah, we've all heard this one, and no, it's not usually the fault of reformsters. On the other hand, now that pushing charters and test-centered accountability and even the shambling remnants of the Common Core are the status quo, many reformers have become far more conservative.

9. You can be replaced in a heartbeat

It's possible that Forbes' list is a little redundant on this point. Of course, not only do many charter operators believe this one, but they actually plan based on it. Teachers can be replaced quickly and easily (just contact Teach for America for the next cohort) and they need to be, because the business model calls for a staff that churns regularly, thereby keeping costs and feistiness down.

10. Because I’m the boss — that’s why

If you're of a certain age, you may recall a time when thought leaders who wanted to sell their edu-idea would try to sell it to people who worked in education. The modern wave of reform, starting most notably with Common Core, reformers have simply bypassed the entire public ed system and used the weight of government, billionaires, regulations, and bureaucracy to impose their will on the system, augmented by well-financed PR for messaging and branding. The basic approach of modern reform has been to become either the boss, or the boss's best friend and adviser. Reform has been a top-down affair both with the "top" of state and federal government (Arne Duncan, Jeb Bush) as well as the "top" of big money and power (Bill Gates, Eli Broad), with the two slowly converging (Betsy DeVos). But modern reform has never been about collaborating with the public education system or the people who work there-- just getting people into a position to make it go where reformers ant it to go.

The intro of the Forbes article ends like this:

Here are ten things only bad managers say. If you hear these things said at your workplace, it’s time to take action and get your job search moving!

But of course for teachers, a different job within the same system will not necessarily help. We can identify our bad bosses; the real question is what do we do about them?

Wasting Tax Dollars on Advertising

Charter fans like to say that charters will improve public education by pushing public schools to compete. Here's a story that proves them half right-- some public schools apparently feel compelled to compete, but not in ways that have anything to do with educational quality.

The public school system of Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, has, like many Pennsylvania school districts, has been hit hard by money being drained by charter schools-- last year the district lost about $26 million to charter schools. So the board accepted Superintendent Joseph Roy's recommendation that they take this "opportunity" to "better market" themselves. The board had previously hired a firm to help manage its social media accounts; now they have decided to hire Imagevolution, a marketing firm, to help get the word out about the public school system's successes. The goal, says Imagevolution's Randi Mautz, is to win students back from the charters.

The only vote against the proposal was from a board member who was unsure that Imagevolution is the firm for the job. Their website is under construction, but they've been around since 2006. But you can see some of their work on their facebook page. They are apparently run by a quartet of school district parents, so they're invested. They've worked with the Bethlehem Area School District Foundation, Lehigh University, and the Downtown Bethlehem Association-- so they know the territory.

They are not going to get filthy rich. The district has contracted for slightly over $3K a month for marketing help. The social media management contract (with Lehigh Valley With Love Media) was for $2K a month.

Again, none of this is huge money. But we're talking about public tax dollars spent on marketing. We're talking about enough money to have hired part of a teacher, or a small pile of educational resources. And instead, it will go to create competitive marketing. Because the free market does not foster superior quality; the free market fosters superior marketing.

The students of Bethlehem will pay an opportunity cost, because that money will not go to make their education better. It will not go to improve their school. It will go to compete in marketing with charter schools. It's a waste of the money, and I'd get on my high horse and bleat "How dare the district spend tax dollars on marketing" but of course, in the world of charter competition, marketing is a new necessity. Because, of course, the charters will also be spending public tax dollars on marketing that will in now way improve education for the students.

That's where we are now. Paying taxes for marketing. Tell me again how this competition is improving education?

Personalized Bait and Switch

Personalized Learning is getting the hard sell these days. It's marketable for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that nobody really knows what Personalized Learning is.

What it suggests is something appealing, like Individualized Education Programs for everyone. Personalized Learning fans like to trot out exemplars like Chugach, Alaska, a remote, tiny town where a school system created a system in which each student had her own personal path to graduation, with projects, content, and assessment.

While there are plenty of problems with the Chugach thing, it's a good example of what most of us think Personalized Learning would mean. An educational program custom designed for each individual learner. Custom designed like a meal at a restaurant where you can choose the protein and spices and sauces and dishes and means of cooking and order exactly what you are hungry for.

But as Personalized Learning rolls out, that's not what it's like at all.

From the College Board's personalized SAT prep courtesy of Khan Academy, through bold plans like this IBM personalized education pitch is something else entirely. This is just path-switching.

The Brand X that we're supposed to be escaping, the view of education that Personalized Learning is supposed to alter, the toxin for which Personalized Learning is the alleged antidote is an education model in which all students get on the same car of the same train and ride the same tracks to the same destination at the same time. That's not what's actually going on in public schools these days, but let's set that aside for the moment.

Real personalized learning would tear up the tracks, park the train, offer every student a good pair of hiking shoes or maybe a four-wheeler, maybe even a hoverboard, plus a map of the territory (probably in the form of an actual teacher), then let the student pick a destination and a path and manner of traveling.

But techno-personalized learning keeps the track and the train. In the most basic version, we keep one train and one track and the "personalization" is that students get on at different station. Maybe they occasionally get to catch a helicopter that zips them ahead a couple of stops. (Think the old SRA reading program.)

Pat completes the first computer exercise in the module. An algorithm (cheerfully mis-identified as "artificial intelligence" because that sounds so super-cool) checks Pat's answers and the particular configuration of incorrect answers, by which the algorithm assigns the next exercise to Pat. Rinse and repeat. Pat is still on the train, but now there's a small web of tracks that he must travel. But Pat is still a passenger on this train, choosing no part of the journey, the destination, nor the means of travel.

That is in fact one of the key ways to identify whether you've got actual personalized learning or not-- how prominent is the voice of the student. If the pitch is "Our super-duper AI will analyze student performance and assign an appropriately awesome module to enhance learning swellness," this is not actual personalized learning, but Algorthmically Mediated Lessons (h/t Bill Fitzgerald) which is not personalized learning at all.

That's the bait and switch to watch out for. The promise is a hugely flexible and open-ended, even project-based, learning that is adapted to every individual learner. The delivery more often is the chance to pay big bucks for what is essentially a proprietary library of exercises managed by a proprietary software algorithm for doling the assignments out based on a battery of pre-made standardized tests and quizzes. That is not personalized learning. You cannot have personalized learning without persons. That includes persons making the decisions about hat the students do. That includes using knowledge of the person who is the student, and not handing out materials created by someone who has never met the students (and created the exercises before the student ever stepped into the classroom).

That impersonal education is not automatically terrible, and often has a place in education-- but it's not personalized learning.

And it's worth noting that the one train, one track model was abandoned by public education ages ago. Differentiated instruction, IEP's, authentic assessment, project-based learning, and a thousand other methods have been tried and adopted by classroom teachers who routinely work to meet students where they are and craft instruction to suit their personal needs. That's one of the great ironies of the bait and switch, the algorithmically mediated lessons-- in the majority of US classrooms, when it comes to personalization, Faux Personalized Learning is actually a step backwards. The personalized bait-and-switch is about getting teachers to trade in their shiny hoverboards or rusty steam engines.

ICYMI: July Already! Edition (7/2)

Here's some reading for your holiday weekend. May it be a good one.

Arizona Replaces Teachers with Persons

One more state institutes a warm body law as a way of filling more teaching positions

Washington State is Wealthy, But Doesn't Pay for Schools

Can you guess how much rich Washington residents pay in taxes? Can anybody guess why the legislature refuses to meet its own funding requirements for education?

The Charter School Free Riding Problem

Jersey Jazzman takes a look at a little-noted phenomenon: how public schools are doing the work of recruiting teachers for charter schools.

Ohio's Third Grade Guarantee

A very effective discussion of one more state's dumb idea about "guaranteeing" third grade readers

Florida Business Leaders Can’t Enjoy Luncheon Due to Dismal Reading Scores

Floridians are also sad about reading levels. Nancy Bailey has some suggestions about what they could do if they wanted to get serious.

How Black Girls Aren't Presumed To Be Innocent

One more study lays out our oddly groundless and ultimately destructive prejudices about black children.

2017: Business of Ed Tech So Far

Audrey Watters looks at how the ed-flavored tech sector is looking at the halfway point.

Idaho Charter Schools Underserve Minority and Poor Population

We don't talk a lot about Idaho, but they've got some of the same charter school issues we see everywhere else.

Alternative Certification Paths

We need alternative paths to the classroom.

Mind you, we don't need paths that are shortcuts. We don't need an alternative path that is just a five week long truncated training that wouldn't prepare a camp counselor for a summer with jumpy ten year olds. We don't need alternative paths used by charter operators to train people to fill their own charter openings with not-too-qualified bodies. And we definitely don't need the alternative path, favored by more and more states, that is no path at all, but just dumping someone into a classroom when her only qualification is a college degree and a pulse.

Most of the alternative paths in use these days are intended to help businesses fill openings or to help politicians look like they are addressing the teacher "shortage" (a shortage that is really a lack of willingness to do what it takes to make teaching more appealing work).

These alternative paths are bad-- bad for the profession, bad for the people who follow them, bad for the schools where those "teachers" end up working.

But it would also be a mistake to suggest that if you didn't decide to pursue a teaching degree when you were nineteen or twenty, the window has closed and you can never choose teaching as a career.

Nor is it reasonable to expect a later-in-life career switcher to somehow navigate a traditional teacher education program while still supporting herself or her family.

So what would a real alternative certification path for career-changers need to look like?

* Some standard of content knowledge. Yes, even if you're a former astrophycisist who wants to teach first grade. Knowing content well enough to use it in your profession, and knowing it well enough to explain it to young humans are two different things. Maybe more than two.

* Study of developmental psychology. Explaining astrophysics to other astrophysicians is not like explaining anything to small humans. Nor are the behavioral patterns of young humans the same as those of adults. You cannot match your expectations to reality if you don't know anything about reality.

* An understanding of assessment and all the arcane arts of number-crunching involved in assessment.

* Some sort of exposure to the Big Questions of Education. A requirement to reflect and consider what we do, why we do it, and what all that means for how we do it. Look-- you're not leaning how to be a garage mechanic.

* An  introduction to the ins and outs of record keeping and ridiculous education regulation. This is one area where the career-changers previous experience with red tape and bureaucratic baloney will be helpful, as there will be no youthful idealism to scrub away.

* Field experience. This is perhaps the hardest thing to work in, because people seeking a career change cannot necessarily afford a five or ten or fifteen week span in which they earn no income. But getting classroom experience with live students is critical-- perhaps even more critical with older candidates for the classroom who can make the mistake of thinking "I can run meetings with thirty employees, so how hard can it be to handle a room full of eighth graders?"  A strong field experience is important not just in preparing the neo-teacher, but also in helping that neo-teacher decide if she's made a huge mistake.

I can't find many figures on retention of alternative certificate teachers, and what I do find lumps starter-alt-certs like Teach for America together with later-in-life career changers. I can offer the anecdotal observation that in PA, where we offered guest teacher certificates for any career-changers who want to become substitutes, more than half quit, largely because managing a classroom turned out to be far more difficult than they thought. Students are not paid to be your subordinates.

That's why a long, solid field experience is important-- you have to be in that classroom long enough for the shine of newness to wear off.

That's a broad sketch of the bare minimum, and we could get into more specifics, but the bottom line here is that just because you're a grown-up with a college degree doesn't mean a few quick chats will make you fit for a classroom. There should be a path for career-changers, but not short cuts.

Why Your ESSA Plan Is Nonsense

At EdWeek, Andrew Ujifusa offers an explanation. In "Here's Why You Can't Understand Your State's New Plan for Education" he points the finger at jargon and offers some rather fun analytics for education argle-bargle. The top four bits of balonial verbage are, in descending order, stakeholder, engagement, professional development, and needs assessment.

Yes, this can only end well

Ujifusa breaks down the nature of the nonsense in your state's ESSA plan, but he doesn't really address the cause. But at this juncture, it's useful to remember why ESSA plans will be just as much jelly-filled fluffernuttery as oh, so, many government-drafted educational master plans before them.

It's not complicated. Master Plans for Education, both Great and Small, are almost always nonsense because they are written by bureaucrats, not educators.

Imagine military strategy and tactics being written by people who have no military training and who have never set foot on a battlefield. Imagine a plan for manufacture and assembly of widgets concocted by someone who has never used, built or worked on a widget. Imagine someone holding the highest office in the land who had no concept of how any of the policies or functions under his control actually work.

That's where we have been with education for decades. On the state and federal level we consistently find bureaucrats overseeing education who don't really know what they're talking about. Their knowledge and understanding of actual education is second, third or fourth hand. Sometimes it's no hands-- just made up out of whatever they come up with in their own little heads.

So they come up with policies that sound good, or that are birthed by the committee process (it's not right, but it's what we could all agree on), or that play well with the legislators who will have to pass them. They include lots of fine-sounding jargonny blather of the type not used by teachers (I won't lie-- we have plenty of jargon of our own) but preferred by policy wonks and thinky tanks and people who are trying to hide empty ideas behind cluttered language. And what merges eventually is policy language that makes classroom teachers roll our eyes and go back to doing our jobs as best we know. Or, if the policies hamstring us badly enough, we get beaten down a bit more.

Your state's ESSA plan is nonsense, just as your state's RttT plan was nonsense, and the NCLB plan before it, and let's not forget the super-nonsense of Common Core. It's nonsense because few-to-none actual educators had a hand in crafting it.

I'm not saying it's an easy fix. We could send teachers to the state capitols, to DC, but while we are educational experts, we are government amateurs. We know about teaching, but we don't know about working on Big Important Commissions or getting things through The Process, and we would probably create excellent policies that died in a dark closet somewhere.

Teachers are occasionally included in the process-- as long as they've been carefully vetted and determined to be agreeable enough to play well with others.

But on the whole things have probably gotten worse over the past decade, as Teach for America has helped create a whole new class of people who believe that since they have spent a year or two in a classroom, they are now legitimate Educational Thought Leaders and Policy Experts.

At any rate, it's important that those of us who do the actual work of education remember that policies like the ones about to be laid out and adopted in ESSA plans have been lovingly crafted by a bunch of educational amateurs. We read these things and invariably some teacher will exclaim, "Do these people know anything about teaching at all?" and it's meant as a half-joke, because as teachers we tend to believe in institutions and of course the People In Charge couldn't be completely ignorant, could they?

Well, yes, they could. We're about to be hit with a whole new wave of nonsense, and we should not be afraid, when we encounter amateur educational nonsense, to call it by its true name.

Well, yes, they could.

Ed Reform v 6.3 Accountability Lite

Full disclosure-- I made the number 6.3 out of the air, because frankly I've lost track of the various versions of ed reform that we've seen. But we're definitely on to something new.

The new ed reform has staked out a position against bureaucracy and paperwork. This conversation starts with a Rick Hess piece, which becomes a thing because Betsy DeVos decided to quote it in her address to charteristas. And so we arrive at a call for reformsters to stand up against reformocracy.

The call for getting rid of bureaucracy is not without disagreement. Checker Finn pushed back hard, and Mike Petrilli chimed in. But there continues to be a buzz surrounding the issue of accountability/bureaucracy. The most recent entry in the discussion is on the Fordham website, written by Max Eden of the Manhattan Insititute, defending the book project that Finn attacked.

The piece highlights some of the important features of v 6.3 reforminess. "Results: Yes. Regulation: No. How to beat back the new education establishment" is a rather mixed-up manifesto.

One of the curious features of current reforminess is the complete brain-wipe when it comes to Common Core State [sic] Standards. Reformers led the charge to inflict a set of national standards on every state and every public school district, and I'm happy that CCSS is more ghost-like these days, but it's mighty disingenuous for Core supporters to pretend that it's just awful how someone somehow created a mighty web of regulations and paperwork and bureaucratic hoop-jumping to make sure that the Core was properly implemented. This selective amnesia occurs periodically in the reform movement. Reformsters were shocked that the Big Standardized Test narrowed curriculum and warped education, after they worked hard to create a test-based accountability system. Reformsters used political tricks and tools to install their various policy ideas, and then complained that education discussions had become too political.

This has been a pattern for a long time. Slap public schools with tons of regulation and mandates, then declare that school choice is needed because public schools are too tied up in regulations and mandates.

Eden quotes the old saw that charters trade autonomy for accountability, a red flag all by itself because A) if that's the secret, then lets fight for more autonomy for public schools and B) charters have regularly and forcefully fought to avoid accountability as much as possible.

And then the flat-out falsehoods begin:

Unlike public schools, charter schools are accountable to parents (whose children they must enroll by choice), authorizers (which may choose to shut or not renew charters), and the state (which sets rules and regulations for authorizers). The debate over charter accountability is a question of emphasis among these actors.

Public schools operate transparently, run by elected boards. They are accountable to every taxpayer, including parents. The "unlike" is baloney.

But central here is Eden's definition of the issue of accountability-- balance between parents, authorizers and the state.

The “new education establishment” wants to shift the locus away from parents and authorizers, and to the state, by passing laws that prescribe and circumscribe the work of authorizers.

He identifies  National Association of Charter School Authorizers as an example of this group, with a published call for such prescriptions. Eden says that their calls for uniform authorizer standards and student achievement requirements should make sense, but don't seem to make any difference-- as always, the measure of effectiveness used here is test scores, which remains a terrible choice, like judging food quality based only on color. But he worries that the cost is greater:

As Tulane professor Doug Harris says, there hasn’t “been as much actual innovation as maybe the original charter folks hoped…when you have intense test based accountability it really restricts what you can do and to what degree you can innovate because…there are only so many ways to make test scores go up.”

First, I've got another explanation for the absence of any charter-ignited wildfire of innovation-- charter operators (who are largely education amateurs) don't know anything innovative and have leaned heavily on old non-innovative solutions of controlling the quality of the student body. But Eden does note the other obvious implication of the quote-- that depending on test scores as a measure does mall sorts of damage to the whole educational model.

This does not lead him to conclude that maybe we should ditch the whole test-centered model for all schools. Instead, it leads him to conclude that  "authorizers ought to retain autonomy to open and closer charters based on their own human judgment." Here he again glosses over some realities, including states where authorizers have a financial interest in keeping charters open, or the more common situation where it's much harder for authorizers to close a charter than -- well, than it is for public schools to fire a tenured teacher.

Eden says that then book calls not for ditching state-based accountability entirely (just mostly) but leaning on authorizers and parents. In particular, he says this:

Parents know things that authorizers don’t, and authorizers know things that parents don’t. While low test scores shouldn’t trigger a default closure, they could trigger a default conversation. If parents have a good reason to love their school despite its low test scores, they should be able to make that case directly to authorizers. Then authorizers can come to a decision informed by parents rather than have their hand forced by the state.

If these defenses all sound familiar-- don't tie our hands with bureaucratic red tape, don't enforce unfair standardization, don't judge us on Big Standardized Test results-- it's because this was what public school supporters back when charteristas were trying to clear the ground to make room for their babies. One of the large, consistent shifts in ed reform has been from "We should use these pickaxes on public schools to test their worthiness" to "It's not right to use these pickaxes on charter schools."

It should be noted that some reformsters have been pretty consistent and intellectually honest over the last decade (Rick Hess among them). And some reformsters have been pretty adamant about holding the accountability line (see above-referenced Chester Finn piece). While it's tempting to attribute the pickaxial shift to self-serving hypocrisy, it's also true that the charter industry has been largely run by educational amateurs, leading to same sort of revelations that Trump has experienced in the White House (Hey, this is harder than I thought).

If public education supporters seem a little touchy about reform's new opposition to bureaucracy and paperwork and red tape and test-centered evaluation, it's because we could have used all this outrage and resistance back when reformers were on the other side of the p0ush. It's like reformers whipped up a mob against schools, set the mob on public schools, then, after the public schools were weakened and charters were built, stood up and hollered, "Hey, you mob! You should knock it off and go home."

Eden winds up his argument by saying that accountability isn't a binary thing-- you could be all for it, all against it, or just trying to walk a line somewhere down the middle. But even Eden's "nuanced" view of accountability oversimplifies the questions of accountability. To whom? For what? With what consequences for coming up short?

Those are all important accountability question to ask (just in case you've been confused by reformster rhetoric, let me be clear that I, a union public school teachers, am absolutely in favor of accountability). But Eden doesn't really seem to be exploring the realm issues of accountability so much as he's looking at a way to make it hard to close charters without actively arguing against accountability. So we have the new reformster stance for accountability lite-- of course we want accountability for charter schools, but here's a long list of the ways in which we don't want it. Enough accountability to keep critics happy, but not so much that it actually gets in our way.