Now that he is all but the official Democratic presidential nominee, it is time for Senator Barack Obama to start putting out some real ideas — real policies — that complement his vision for the future. For most Democrats, that means a clear education policy, one that goes from pre-natal to geriatric.
Unfortunately, Obama’s message of hope and opportunity doesn’t quite jive with the education (particularly K-12) mantras of hopelessness and obstacles. How do we restore hope for education reform in an industry that has been paralyzed by the fear of change?
More than a year ago, Eduflack offered some recommendations to the Democratic candidates running for president on how they can focus on education. Since then, we’ve seen Ed in 08 and others try to do the same. What’s funny is how wrong I was in March of 2007. I thought it was a gimme that the Democrats would focus on education, seeing it as a great equalizer and a bridge to a stronger economy and better jobs. How wrong I was! Even the talking snowman has gotten more media play than the party’s education ideas.
But let’s take a second to look back on Eduflack’s specific recommendations, knowing full well they are just as strong and pertinent today as they were a year ago:
1. We all must commit to improve our schools. We cannot and should not simply protect the status quo. That means having hard conversations with the teachers unions and pushing them and school administrators to make hard decisions. Sacrifices today can yield improvements tomorrow.
2. Additional funding does not directly result in improved achievement. For every carrot, there is a stick. If we are to increase NCLB spending (and we should, particularly to get effective teachers in the classroom), we need to ensure that such funding increases are focused on proven programs, improved assessments, and effective interventions. As a nation, we will pay more if we see the results.
3. National standards level the playing field. Regardless of who controls Congress or the White House, no one should be afraid of national education standards. Such standards offer a promise of equity in all of our schools. For those traditional blue states, and the urban centers located in them, national standards ensure that all students, regardless of their hometown, race, or socioeconomic status, are taught and measured compared to every other student in the country. That equal field only helps when it comes to college, to jobs, and to life.
4. The time has come for Democrats to push the unions. Can anyone honestly say that our schools wouldn’t benefit from teacher improvement. HQT provisions in NCLB are fine, but the NCLB Commission got it right — we need to focus on effective teachers, not just qualified ones. Teaching is one of the most difficult jobs out there, but intellectually and emotionally. We need to do everything possible to support those teachers on the front lines. But we also need to recognize that not everyone is cut out for the challenge. Our schools need an assessment/improvement/mentoring model for all teachers. Good teachers will thrive. Those not destined to teach can move on with their professional lives.
5. Education reform is a shared responsibility. Meaningful change is not just left to the teachers or the national education organizations. Just as Hillary Clinton wrote about it taking a village to raise a child, it also takes a village to educate one. Improving our schools requires teamwork. Teachers and parents, business and community leaders, local, state, and federal officials all play a role in identifying, implementing, and assessing meaningful, results-based reform. Shared responsibility results in shared success.
I maintain that all of these are still cogent, winning issues for Obama. Case in point, Obama’s previous endorsement of teacher merit pay. It is a strong idea, and one that can have an immediate impact on teacher and instructional quality in the schools. It is an idea that resonates with most parents, and means something to local decisionmakers. And it is a concept that the unions — particularly the NEA — greatly oppose. We all recognize that Obama and the teachers unions are allies. But performance pay can be one of those flag-in-the-sand moments that demonstrates Obama’s independence and the priority of kids in his education policy.
But it all seems to loop back around to national standards. The National Governors Association and CCSSO have long been champions of a the concept. This week, the National Association of Secondary School Principals threw its collective weight behind the issue as well. And Obama endorser Roy Romer has been carrying the banner for it over at Ed in 08.
Imagine the rhetorical impact national standards could have coming out of Obama’s mouth. The opportunity that all U.S. students, regardless of their home state, are learning and achieving together. The belief that the nation is stronger academically, and can measure it, because of national standards. The elimination of have and have not states, knowing that a kid in Alabama is getting the same education as a kid in Connecticut. Imagine.
Senator Obama, it is quite easy for you to write off education policy as part of your stump speech this all. You’ll have the endorsement of the unions. Education has never been a strong policy concern of Senator McCain’s. And the anti-NCLB crowds will crow a vote for a Dem is a vote against NCLB.
But as you have all year, you have the opportunity to tell us what you stand for, and not just what you speak against. If your recent anti-NCLB remarks are coming from the heart, tell us what you will do to fix the law. If you are concerned about high-stakes testing, let Romer and company develop a national standard that lessens the stress on our student test takers. But please, please, please, do and stand for something.
We’ve spend far too much time in recent years talking about what’s wrong and what we’re opposed to. We need more people — particularly our leaders — telling us what they stand for in education reform.
HQT
The Nexis of Eduwonk and Eduwonkette
Over the last week or two, Eduwonkette (http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/eduwonkette/) has posted some interesting pieces on the TNTP study in NYC and the impact of the Absent Teacher Reserve. Today, Eduwonk (http://www.eduwonk.com/) points to the trickle-down impact of such issues on good teachers in Providence, RI.
If you’ve missed it, check out the following article. http://www.projo.com/education/juliasteiny/content/se_educationwatch11_05-11-08_PCA1S0R_v8.22a279c.html The short and dirty — an award-winning science teacher has been bumped from his job because a teacher with more seniority needed it. Doesn’t matter how effective he was. Doesn’t matter how much the students loved him. If he hasn’t been around the school yard for enough years, he’s got to step aside.
(And for the record, Andy, I’m grateful for road flare on the Providence Journal article. I wish there were fewer of these articles. I wish we had more positive stories. But I’ll gladly take Eduwonk’s help in sorting the wheat from the chafe any day of the week.)
Such stories are usually the exceptions to the rule, but they are a very real reality. They are why so many people believe education is the furthest thing from a meritocracy. We all want to believe that we do what we can to attract and keep the best teachers. We all want to believe that success should trump all. We all want to believe that classroom effectiveness trumps the number of punches on the timeclock. Then we hear stories like those of John Wempel, a Providence Teacher of the Year.
This is contrasted with national newspapers, which have been littered in recent weeks with letters regarding the need for increased teacher pay and defenses of teachers taking sick time. They rightfully defend the profession, citing the challenges of the job. But they also continue to classify teaching as a nine-month job with no vacation time.
So what is a union flak supposed to do? How do the AFT and the NEA defend the rights of their veteran teachers who have paid two decades of dues, but also defend the rights on less-senior teachers who are the future of the profession and are making a real difference in the classroom?
Eduflack is a simple man with simple thoughts. With ATR, my first question was why doesn’t NYC use this teacher pool to fill their need for substitute teachers? We always hear how expensive subs are. Seems if ATRs are drawing a check from the NYCDOE, they should be able to sub for no additional charge.
Providence becomes a more challenging scenario. “Bumping” is a scary practice for an school district on the decline. This gets further complicated because of the added layer of charter schools in Providence. We should say that a successful teacher — a teacher like Wempel — should always have a job as long as he wants it. The district, the school, his fellow teachers, and his students all recognized his value. But he was chronologically challenged, and had to pay for that.
Sure, Rhode Island legislators are now introducing bills to eliminate the “bumping” process. But that won’t solve the problem. Collective bargaining agreements are pretty clear. Veteran teachers, teachers with tenure, are guaranteed jobs. If we don’t put them in a classroom, they draw a salary to stay home and rediscover daytime television. So what is the answer?
The unions need to step up and figure out a solution before someone finds one for them. It is fine (and noble) to fight for each and every member of the profession. But at some point, they are also fighting for the future of teaching. We all believe we have good teachers in our schools. Don’t let instances like this one change our thinking and diminish our trust in our local schools.
If we don’t want to measure teachers based on student assessment numbers, give us an alternate measure. And years of service doesn’t count.
A Nation in Transition
Virtually everyone in the education community seems to be celebrating the 25th anniversary of “A Nation at Risk.” For many of us, 25 meant two things. First, we got to rent a car without special surcharges. Second, parents and their friends could start asking us the question, “So what are you going to do with your life?”
For more than a decade now, I have heard educated folks — those far more educated than I am — ask the latter, lamenting the future of “A Nation at Risk.” We throw the term around all of the time, but fail to really delve into its deeper meaning. I can try to explain it, but Eduwonk said it far better earlier this week — http://www.eduwonk.com/2008/04/timepiece.html.
So after two and a half decades, where are we … really? We’ve spent a lot of time fighting the status quo, those folks who believed the schools simply needed more time and more money to fix what ailed them. We went through a magic-bullet stage, where schools adopted anything and everything that vendors claimed could boost student performance or improve learning. And we’ve spent the last seven years in the era of scientifically based learning, where research and “doing what works” is supposed to trump all.
I’ll be honest, I am not a true believer, and I don’t drive the Kool-Aid. Eduflack believes in conspiracy theories and things that go bump in the night. I’m a natural cynic who doesn’t worry if the glass is half full or half empty. I want to know who took my damned water. So it is very easy to see flaws and problems in a Nation, 25 years later.
But as I look across the landscape, I’d like to believe — to paraphrase Ronald Reagan — that we are better off now than we were 25 years ago. Today, we are talking about student achievement and student ability on state standardized tests. Today, we are putting research-based instructional models into the classrooms that need it most. Today, we are focusing on high-quality teaching, giving our educators the support, PD, and such they need to succeed in their classroom. Today, we are talking about a common national graduation rate, allowing us to effectively measure high schools across the city, the state, or the nation. Today, we are focused on outcomes, not just caught up in the inputs and processes of education. We look for a return on investment, and we measure that return based on student success.
Don’t get me wrong. We still have a LONG way to go. “A Nation at Risk,” along with other reports that have come after it, provide us a collaborative blueprint on how to improve our schools, and more importantly, how to improve the quality and the impact of our schools. We’re seeming select successes in pilots and programs across the country. We’re seeing Reading First raising the test scores of young readers. We’re seeing STEM programs engage all students in critical thinking. We’re seeing teachers take a greater pride in their craft and defend their field with a zealousness not found in decades.
One author has opined that “A Nation at Risk” should be renamed “A Nation in Crisis.” Based on what I’ve seen in the field, based on what I’ve heard and read from the experts, even this certified cynic has more hope than that. We may be “A Nation in Transition” now, with the possibility of become “A Nation of Opportunity.”
“America’s Worst Teachers”
The job of public school teacher is one of the hardest out there. Low pay. Abuse (mostly verbal, but at times physical) from students and parents. Lack of autonomy. Proscriptive instructional approaches. Regular turnover. And we know it is only going to get worse in the coming years, as more than half of the current teaching workforce gets ready to retire after committing their adult lives to education.
Yes, the job is hard. Yes, it takes a very special person who is able to go into the classroom, day in and day out, for decades and do whatever is necessary to inspire kids to learn. Not everyone can be a teacher, despite what many of us would like to think. It is still a calling for most, and on that just isn’t understood or appreciated, particularly in today’s environment.
That is why is was so disheartening to see the very worst of our “reality TV” culture hit the teaching profession this morning. If you’ve missed it, in several leading national newspapers (I saw it in this morning’s USA Today) the Center for Union Facts is running a national contest to “Vote for the Worst Unionized Teachers in America.” The anti-union group intends to pay 10 teachers $10,000 each to quit their teaching jobs.
The ad provides a strong image of a rotting apple, complete with worm. And the ad copy is short, but none to sweet. “Old union rules keep incompetent teachers in the classroom. It often costs over $100,000 in legal fees to replace a teacher. Help our kids get the education they need — let’s replace the bad apples.”
Of course, a good teacher would teach you that it should be “more than $100,000” since over signifies a spacial relationship. But I’m not an English teacher, and this isn’t a grammar lesson. This is a lesson on the impact of our communications activities.
The Center for Union Facts definitely knows how to grab attention. These ads will undoubtedly result in a number of news articles about the issue. (USA Today is running the ad, and has a story about it in the paper). And the Center is committing big bucks to this. Such full-page ads don’t come cheap, and there is the $100,000 bounty as well.
But this seems to be more of a “gotcha” experience than a real quest to improve the schools. The 10 worst teachers all have to agree to allow the Center to publicize their exit from the profession. How many teachers out there are willing to be publicly humiliated, even for $10,000? How many of any of us would be willing to admit or accept that we are one of the 10 worst in our chosen profession?
In this time of highly qualified and highly effective teachers, we all want to see successful educators in our classrooms. We all want to know our kids have good teachers. We want to know they are doing what works, and that our kids and our schools are better for it.
How, then, does the Center — or anyone for that matter — determine who they worst teachers are? If we base it on test scores alone, don’t we need to factor in the resources we made available to the teachers? Do kids and their parents vote, allowing them to go after the “hard” teachers or those who won’t cut them a break or let them slide? At what point do we have to look at the kids and appreciate what a teacher has to work with? Is there a test they take, sort of an NBCT-lite test? Are there computer rankings, like those we’ll see this week for the NCAA basketball tournament? How, exactly, do we measure “worst?”
Clearly, the Center is targeting the NEA and the AFT. If not, this wouldn’t be about “unionized” teachers. Clearly, a charter school teacher or a private school teacher should be able to qualify as on of the nation’s worst teachers, no? That’s only fair and equitable. We all should have the chance to be the very best … or the very worst at what we do.
Yes, there are likely some teachers in our public schools today who probably shouldn’t be there. And those teachers know it. They know they don’t feel the passion. They know they feel the frustration. They know they aren’t having an impact. But they tend to be the exceptions, not the rule.
If the Center for Union Facts has issue with the NEA and AFT, they should go after the unions and go after them hard. There are areas where unions can be called to task for failing to meet the needs or follow the intentions of their membership. But don’t go after the individual teachers. Their job is hard enough. These ads only make it harder.
Want to deal with the worst teachers? Spend that $250,000 or so on PD for struggling teachers. Think of it as supplemental ed support for those teachers. That will help kids get the education they need.
Every Teacher a Reader?
In fights over teacher quality, we often ask what makes a good teacher. NCLB’s HQT provisions called on teachers to have a degree in the subject and be certified. Leaders such as the NCLB Commission have sought to strengthen the provision, adding a measure of teacher effectiveness to the requirements. Has anyone thought that a classroom teacher should be functionally literate? Does a teacher need basic reading and writing skills to teach?
If we look at the story out of 10 News in San Diego, apparently not. They tell the tell of John Corcoran, a now-retired teacher who earned a teaching degree from an accredited four-year college and then went on to teach high school for 17 years. He did it all while being completely illiterate. Cheated his way through school. Taught without ever writing a word on the chalk board. Now he is an education advocate who runs a foundation and an SES provider out in California. Check out the full story here — http://www.10news.com/news/15274005/detail.html.
It is an entertaining tale, and just the sort of urban legend we hear now and again. While most will be moved by the story of a man who finally learned to read at 48 and committed the second stage of his life to literacy advocacy, what message does it say that an illiterate high school teacher led a classroom for almost two decades, and no one ever found out.
I appreciate that he used his classroom to build a learning environment based on the visual and oral. As you’ve heard Eduflack say again and again, it is important that we use multiple mediums and multiple approaches to reach all students. But could any of his students really have gained an effective education from an illiterate teacher? Did students go a full academic year with ever writing a five-paragraph essay or researching and writing a report or even taking a non-multiple choice exam?
I’ll set aside the notion that he had two or three teacher’s assistants helping in his classroom. That must be some school district. The bigger question here is what should we expect from our teachers?
We assume that Mr. Corcoran didn’t have students who complained about his methods or inquired as to why their teacher never seemed to read from the book or write on the board. And we might even assume that his students did well, using a different learning environment to develop new skills and improve their learning ability for other classes. He may have been a regular Mr. Holland, who inspired a generation of future teachers, creators, and innovators.
But his revelations speak poorly of the teaching profession as a whole. We all know that teaching — particularly in a secondary school environment — is one of the toughest jobs out there. It requires knowledge, skill, patience, and ability. Not everyone is cut out to be a teacher, and some find that out the hard way. It is an underappreciated profession, and one where virtually everyone assumes they could do the job if they wanted to.
And it is that fantasy that Corcoran helps contribute to. Anyone, even those who can’t read or write a lick, can lead a classroom if they want to. That’s a dangerous message to send to students, particularly those who are thinking about dropping out because they don’t see the relevance of school. After all, why learn to read at grade level if your teacher doesn’t have to?
I realize that Corcoran is of an anomaly, and his story is meant to inspire adults who think it is too late to learn to read. And that would be fine if he were an entrepreneur or a banker or a sales manager or an elected official. But he was a teacher. And, like it or not, we expect more from teachers. They need to be smarter. They need to be more patient. They need to be more successful than just about any other profession.
Yes, we want teachers who are highly qualified and effective. Basic literacy skills should be a non-negotiable. John Corcoran may be an inspiration to some, but he owes a big apology to the thousands of teachers who take pride in their profession and who lead by example in their classrooms.
Mis-assessing Teacher Assessment
How, exactly, do you grade a teacher? For years now, the education community has debated the value of measuring teachers based on student achievement. The concept is a simple one — teachers succeed when kids achieve. Students score well on district, state, or national assessments, and the teachers are effective. Good teaching aligns with student achievement.
In Polk County, Florida, policymakers decided to take it a step further by requiring an additional way to rate teacher achievement beyond student performance on standardized tests. The result? Use teacher-determined student grades to grade our teachers.
Huh? Let Eduflack get this straight. Teachers are evaluated based on student classroom grades. Teachers hand out those grades. So “A” teachers just need to give their students As. “C” teachers are those foolish enough to give their students C grades. And let’s not even talk about those “F” teachers.
In Florida, teachers seem to be taking issue with this scheme because they don’t have control over the students they receive. Teachers with a significant number of at-risk students run a higher risk of failure than those teaching honors classes. But shouldn’t we have a greater concern?
If this is the path our collective thinking is headed down, then we clearly don’t understand assessment, its intention, or its benefit. We wouldn’t dream of letting students grade their own assessment tests, would we? Is this really that different? Grading teachers on the subjective grades they hand out? What teacher would ink in that C or D for an underperforming student? This heads toward social promotion and grading on a curve, only on steroids.
What’s next? Licensing doctors based on customer satisfaction surveys, instead of board scores? Pilot’s licenses based on high scores on the latest PS3 game?
In the perfect world, assessments are scientifically based and replicable. We expect it to be third-party administered. We need to understand both the inputs and the outcomes, recognizing that we are assessed by our performance. We show what we know. We demonstrate learning and our ability to use it.
We want to assess our kids to ensure they are learning what they need to to continue to succeed in school. We assess them to ensure they are gaining the building blocks to achieve in life. ANd we are looking to assess teaches to know that they are teaching our kids the right things. We want effective teachers. And good teachers want to make sure their colleagues are effective as well.
Florida policymakers mean well. They are seeking to reward teachers with performance-based bonuses, and they need to find an effective way to measure that performance. But good intentions don’t make good policy. Instead of looking at the alphabet grades of students, Florida administrators might be better off looking at recommendations like the NCLB Commission’s effective teacher criteria or the legislation proposed by Coleman, Lieberman, and company last year on effective teaching.
What message do we send about student assessment issues when we communicate such a poor message on effective teacher evaluation? If we expect our teachers to get the job done, we should know what to look for. We shouldn’t just know it when we see it. Effective teaching can be both quantified and qualified. And if legislators don’t know how to do it, I’m sure the AFT can provide them some counsel.
Taking Responsibility for School Reform
We all know that our schools do not operate in vacuums. They are a part of our local community. They serve as meeting places and as learning places. They feed our students, house after-school programs, and often host adult education efforts. They serve as a focal point for all in the community, whether they be teacher, student, parent, or none of the above. As such, we all play a role in their success … or their failure.
That is why Eduflack has advocated for a big tent when it comes to school reform. It is unfair that teachers take most of the blame for the failure of our schools. Likewise, it is unreasonable to expect teachers to take sole responsibility for improving our schools and boosting student achievement. We all benefit from stronger schools. We all have a responsibility to get there. Teachers and school administrators. Parents and students. Business and community leaders. Colleges, universities, and trade schools. Federal, state, and local policymakers. Coaches and the clergy. School reform is hard work. We aren’t in a position to turn anyone away from participating in the improvement.
Over the weekend, though, Eduflack engaged in an electronic give-and-take with a reader who saw things differently. The reader suggested that the only stakeholder who should be involved in K-12 reform is the teacher, with the intent being only those who have taught (and taught for more than a year or two) are knowledgeable and qualified enough to opine and decide on what is taught, how it is taught, and how it is measured.
I would like to believe that we all can agree that our K-12 institutions are in need of improvement. We can agree that we all are affected when our schools fail. We all can play a role in improving them. And the current state of public education in the United States doesn’t allow us to turn away those who want to help or should help. So how do we rectify this with the beliefs of some that only those who have taught should talk about teaching (or more importantly, improving teaching)?
If we buy into the status quo logic, we have a lot of people in education who need to get out. By the reader’s logic, Ted Kennedy has no business overseeing education policy in the Senate. Wendy Kopp had no right to start Teach for America after graduating Princeton. Most school boards, populated by business and community leaders, should cease meeting immediately. And Bill Gates clearly has no business telling school districts how to redesign their high schools. After all, he is a college dropout!
We can even say that many teacher educators, those who train our classroom teachers, need to stay out of the discussion, as they moved from their doctoral programs to the faculty senate at the local teacher’s college, without putting in the prerequisite years of K-12 classroom instruction. All, of course, absurd suggestions.
Ultimately, improving our schools means reforming our educational system. And reform only comes from change and overcoming the status quo. That comes from multiple audiences, with multiple perspectives and interests, all calling for similar reform. Policymakers and the business community pushing top down. Teachers and parents and community leaders pushing bottom up. All ultimately squeezing out real, meaningful reform.
Don’t get me wrong. Experienced, effective practitioners are an essential voice in the reform process. They can help other stakeholders understand what is possible and what is not. They have walked the walk, and know what we need to get us to our intended destination. But they can’t do it alone, and we shouldn’t expect them to. They need policy and financial support from their school district and elected officials. They need the investment and interest of the business community. They need the involvement of parents and families. It takes a village to raise a child, and it surely takes a community to educate one.
If we don’t see this, then the failure is not an instructional one, it is a communications one. If we cannot see the value and necessity of a broad coalition of stakeholders when it comes to education reform, then we have not communicated the urgency successfully enough. Whether you are watching from the home, the community center, the state capitol, or the ivory tower, it should be clear that our schools need help. The status quo isn’t cutting it. And none of us should be saddling our teachers with the sole responsibility of fixing it all.
Let’s empower our good teachers to teach. It’s up to the rest of us to provide them the policies, the funding, and the support they need to teach effectively and boost student achievement and enthusiasm for learning.
“Just Walk Away, Renee …”
What’s the measure of a “good” teacher? It’s an age-old question whose answer has varied and changed over the years. For the past five years — under the No Child Left Behind era — we’ve answered it with the formula developed by Congressman George Miller and his colleagues as part of their HQT provisions. A highly qualified teacher was one who has a degree in the subject matter and who is certified.
Yesterday, a group of California parents took issue with how the U.S. Department of Education was interpreting the HQT provision, specifically how it approved the Golden State’s effort to categorize alternative cert teachers and emergency hires as HQTs. The case — Renee v. Spellings — is expected to have national implications on alternative teaching programs. (Or at least that’s what Stephen Sawchuck and Education Daily tell us.)
Eduflack doesn’t take issue with the intent of Renee and parents across the country who want to ensure that their children get the very best instructors, the very best curriculum, and the very best of opportunities. And I agree that, ideally, our best teachers should be in our most challenging teaching environments, working with the kids who need their experience, expertise, and knowledge the most.
But after five years, it is time to revise our definition of a good teacher. The language is stale. Highly qualified is fine … to an extent. But is a teacher with a bona fide diploma from a teachers college guaranteed to be a good teacher, while another from Teach for America or Troops to Teachers is not? Of course not. The pedagogy one gets from a TC only takes you so far. Success depends largely on the passion of the teacher, the pursuit of continued learning, the push to continue to improve practice, and one’s commitment to the classroom and the student. And many would say alternative routes engender those qualities far more frequently than traditional routes.
Regardless, we need a new benchmark for a “good” teacher. And that benchmark is based on one simple word — effectiveness. Our goal should be to have an effective teacher in every classroom. A teacher committed to boosting student achievement. A teacher that can be measured based on year-on-year gains in her classroom. A teacher who leaves his students better off at the end of the year than they were when they showed up the previous September. Good teachers should be effective teachers. And that effectiveness can be measured, studied, and replicated in other classes and schools.
The words we choose to define “good” teaching are telling of our objectives. “Highly qualified” measures the inputs. “Effectiveness” measures the outputs. And at the end of the day, we should be defining our teachers, our schools, and our kids on the outputs. All the qualifications in the world can’t guarantee success. Our focus is results. The end game is achievement.
Slowly, this concept is making its way into our discussions on NCLB and HQT. It was first offered by the Aspen Institute’s NCLB Commission, and was championed by its co-chair, Gov. Roy Barnes. We’ve now seen it mentioned in a number of NCLB reauthorization bills on Capitol Hill. But we have a long way to go.
Maybe the lawyers with Public Advocates can offer a settlement … all California teachers must demonstrate effectiveness in the classroom. Now that would be a practice worth modeling in all 50 states.
Yesterday, a group of California parents took issue with how the U.S. Department of Education was interpreting the HQT provision, specifically how it approved the Golden State’s effort to categorize alternative cert teachers and emergency hires as HQTs. The case — Renee v. Spellings — is expected to have national implications on alternative teaching programs. (Or at least that’s what Stephen Sawchuck and Education Daily tell us.)
Eduflack doesn’t take issue with the intent of Renee and parents across the country who want to ensure that their children get the very best instructors, the very best curriculum, and the very best of opportunities. And I agree that, ideally, our best teachers should be in our most challenging teaching environments, working with the kids who need their experience, expertise, and knowledge the most.
But after five years, it is time to revise our definition of a good teacher. The language is stale. Highly qualified is fine … to an extent. But is a teacher with a bona fide diploma from a teachers college guaranteed to be a good teacher, while another from Teach for America or Troops to Teachers is not? Of course not. The pedagogy one gets from a TC only takes you so far. Success depends largely on the passion of the teacher, the pursuit of continued learning, the push to continue to improve practice, and one’s commitment to the classroom and the student. And many would say alternative routes engender those qualities far more frequently than traditional routes.
Regardless, we need a new benchmark for a “good” teacher. And that benchmark is based on one simple word — effectiveness. Our goal should be to have an effective teacher in every classroom. A teacher committed to boosting student achievement. A teacher that can be measured based on year-on-year gains in her classroom. A teacher who leaves his students better off at the end of the year than they were when they showed up the previous September. Good teachers should be effective teachers. And that effectiveness can be measured, studied, and replicated in other classes and schools.
The words we choose to define “good” teaching are telling of our objectives. “Highly qualified” measures the inputs. “Effectiveness” measures the outputs. And at the end of the day, we should be defining our teachers, our schools, and our kids on the outputs. All the qualifications in the world can’t guarantee success. Our focus is results. The end game is achievement.
Slowly, this concept is making its way into our discussions on NCLB and HQT. It was first offered by the Aspen Institute’s NCLB Commission, and was championed by its co-chair, Gov. Roy Barnes. We’ve now seen it mentioned in a number of NCLB reauthorization bills on Capitol Hill. But we have a long way to go.
Maybe the lawyers with Public Advocates can offer a settlement … all California teachers must demonstrate effectiveness in the classroom. Now that would be a practice worth modeling in all 50 states.
Waiting for NCLB
NCLB 2.0 is shaping up to be education reform’s version of Waiting for Godot. Those who were hopeful that something, anything might move by the end of this calendar year were severely disappointed to read yesterday’s Washington Post piece on NCLB past, present, and future.
The article itself is worth reading, and is worth commenting on. As for the latter, I don’t see how anyone can frame it better than Eduwonk — http://www.eduwonk.com/2007/11/textbook.html.
So what does the WP news coverage and Andy’s commentary really tell us?
* Major education reform requires bi-partisan support (at least at some level). Sure, there were critics from both the right and the left from the get-go. But with an advocacy team like Bush, Kennedy, Miller, McKeon, Boehner, et al, NCLB got the benefit of the doubt. We all want to believe we can put aside partisan attacks to improve our schools. 2.0 is lacking that strong bi-partisan feel.
* NCLB is going to be a political punching bag for 2008. Those who think that 2.0 will become law in an election year haven’t spent much time up on Capitol Hill. Opposition to NCLB is strong. Support for it needs to be stronger. Name me a single senator or congressman — save for George Miller or Buck McKeon — who seem willing to put their reputations on the line to advocate for reauthorization of an improved NCLB.
* NCLB has been relegated to the role of rhetorical device. Educators, researchers, and politicians use it to rail again a federal government seeking too much power. Others use it as a straw man to justify the flaws and weaknesses of our current K-12 system. Few of those still talking about it point to it as a tool of accountability and improvement for our public schools.
* NCLB is an inside baseball game. It remains a discussion point for DC policy and political folks (and what exactly does that say about us?) At testing time, you may hear some rank-and-file teachers and administrators bemoan NCLB testing and big brother, but it isn’t a day-to-day concern.
Eduflack has long said that NCLB was in desperate need of a strong marketing campaign. If you really want to sell version 2.0, you need to remind audiences — parents, teachers, administrators, business leaders — of what they are buying and what return they’ll get on their investment. No one is buying NCLB 2.0 because they look fondly on their original version. But they will buy it if we separate the impact and the goals from the brand. We don’t want NCLB, but we sure want student achievement. We don’t want NCLB, but we want our schools doing what works. We don’t want NCLB, but we want more effective teachers and more involvement from our parents.
We know what we want. Will anyone sell it to us in an election year?
The article itself is worth reading, and is worth commenting on. As for the latter, I don’t see how anyone can frame it better than Eduwonk — http://www.eduwonk.com/2007/11/textbook.html.
So what does the WP news coverage and Andy’s commentary really tell us?
* Major education reform requires bi-partisan support (at least at some level). Sure, there were critics from both the right and the left from the get-go. But with an advocacy team like Bush, Kennedy, Miller, McKeon, Boehner, et al, NCLB got the benefit of the doubt. We all want to believe we can put aside partisan attacks to improve our schools. 2.0 is lacking that strong bi-partisan feel.
* NCLB is going to be a political punching bag for 2008. Those who think that 2.0 will become law in an election year haven’t spent much time up on Capitol Hill. Opposition to NCLB is strong. Support for it needs to be stronger. Name me a single senator or congressman — save for George Miller or Buck McKeon — who seem willing to put their reputations on the line to advocate for reauthorization of an improved NCLB.
* NCLB has been relegated to the role of rhetorical device. Educators, researchers, and politicians use it to rail again a federal government seeking too much power. Others use it as a straw man to justify the flaws and weaknesses of our current K-12 system. Few of those still talking about it point to it as a tool of accountability and improvement for our public schools.
* NCLB is an inside baseball game. It remains a discussion point for DC policy and political folks (and what exactly does that say about us?) At testing time, you may hear some rank-and-file teachers and administrators bemoan NCLB testing and big brother, but it isn’t a day-to-day concern.
Eduflack has long said that NCLB was in desperate need of a strong marketing campaign. If you really want to sell version 2.0, you need to remind audiences — parents, teachers, administrators, business leaders — of what they are buying and what return they’ll get on their investment. No one is buying NCLB 2.0 because they look fondly on their original version. But they will buy it if we separate the impact and the goals from the brand. We don’t want NCLB, but we sure want student achievement. We don’t want NCLB, but we want our schools doing what works. We don’t want NCLB, but we want more effective teachers and more involvement from our parents.
We know what we want. Will anyone sell it to us in an election year?
“State” the Case
Across the nation, governors and chief state school officers are now delivering their annual addresses and preparing their annual budgets. But what role will education (and education reform) play in these rhetorical events? Shrinking real estate tax rolls, worries of a recession, and demands of other social programs have many thinking that 2008 will not be the year of education.
Fortunately, we are starting to see that educational improvement is not necessarily sitting on the sidelines this year. Governors and state supes are talking about early childhood education and STEM. They are talking about real improvements, not merely attacking NCLB or the state status quo. And they are demonstrating that education is one of the strongest ways to strengthen the schools, the economy, and the future of the state.
How do they do it? Let’s go west, young men and women, and take a look at how California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has taken control of the bully pulpit and talked education.
In his state of the state, Schwarzenegger announced:
* California will be the first state to use its NCLB powers to turn challenged districts around, allocating a higher percentage of NCLB funds to the districts that need them most
* Establish a differentiated assistance model to get funds and support to underachieving schools.
* Provide greater flexibility to high-performing schools
* Improve the quality and access of information available to parents, educators, and policymakers on California’s teacher shortages
We’ll wait until later this week to see how the good governor is going to fund all of this, but what are the rhetorical benefits of such a platform?
* Schwarzenegger recognizes that reform requires a broad group of partners and stakeholders. He made clear that success requires the involvement of parents, educators, the business community, the legislature, and the public at large.
* He is focused on results. How do we get more resources to those states that need to improve their results? How do we reward those schools and students that are already doing well?
* He is focused on improvement, not tearing down and building new. He’s using the NCLB powers available to him (and unused by others). He’s taking control of state purse strings. He’s acting, not reacting.
Schwarzenegger is not the only governor talking the talk and walking the walk. We’re seeing similar talk in statehouses across the nation. But for those who say we can’t talk about these issues now, or such issues are too wonky, take a closer look. The California Guv has integrated education into his broader message, and demonstrated an understanding for the key issues and a focus on the future. And it may just work …
Eduflack By Patrick R. Riccards 