NEA

Representing Kids … or Adults?

Eduflack accountability, AFT, NEA, Students, teachers

What is the primary objective of a teachers’ union?  Is it to represent the adults in the system with the ultimate zealousness, or is it to improve student learning and outcomes?

In the 1980s, the great Al Shanker, long-time head of the American Federation of Teachers, was quoted as saying “When schoolchildren start paying union dues, that’s when I’ll start representing the interests of schoolchildren.”  And while some believe he may not have said those words, it is easy to see where such sentiment comes from.
For example, let’s take a look at the Connecticut Education Association.  In reading “About CEA” on the labor union’s own website, the CEA defines its role as, “advances and protects the rights of teachers at the bargaining table, and works with state policymakers to continue to elevate the teaching profession.”  
On that same page, we see the list of accomplishments the “state’s largest public employees union” can tout, including creating the State Teachers’ Retirement System, written notice on contract non-renewals, collective bargaining, fair dismissal laws, binding arbitration, pension benefits, indoor air quality programs, and increased state aid.
But something important is missing from CEA and many teachers’ unions like it.  In its nearly 700-word “CEA: The Advocate for Teachers and Public Education,” the word “students” only appears twice.  Once in saying CEA represents college students looking to become classroom teachers.  The second noting that students also benefit from the clean air rules that CEA fought for for its educators.
Let’s be clear here.  There is nothing wrong with CEA and other teachers’ unions advocating, lobbying, and acting on behalf of its members.  That is the point of a labor union.  It is fighting for the salaries, rights, and benefits of those who pay it dues.  In the case of public education, it is fighting for the adults in the room, ensuring those teachers and other educators are protected and don’t lose what is “theirs.”
But it begs the question, who is fighting for the students in the system?  Who is speaking for those kids who are slated to go to an historically failing school?  Who is speaking for the kids predestined to attend a drop-out factory?  Who is speaking for the kids on the short end of the achievement gap?  Who is advocating, lobbying, and acting on behalf of those kids?
In reform fights like those we are having in Connecticut, many school teachers will get up and say they are speaking for their kids (and we’ll try to overlook those scenes of ugliness when, at public hearings, teachers have been telling parents and kids to “sit down and shut up,” saying they had no business participating in the education reform discussion).  And in their heart of hearts, I believe that to be true. 
But when a discussion that began by focusing on student achievement, opportunity, and college readiness has devolved into one of tenure, property rights, termination procedures, and what is “owed” teachers who have put their time in the system, one has to wonder.  Can one represent both the educators and the students in the same fight?  Can you have it both ways when we know the benefits, to students, of excellent teachers yet we have union leaders saying “the last thing I’d want to do is get someone fired?”
There is no question that the rights of the adults in the room are important.  But at some point, we need to shift our attention to the students, the very reason why public education exists.  Over the weekend, Eduflack wrote about this needed shift in the Connecticut Post, in a piece entitled Conversation Needs to Focus on Children, Not the Adults.
In it, I wrote:
We’ve spent the past two months hearing the Connecticut Education Association and its local union heads focus exclusively on what is owed the adults in the room. We have heard teachers shout down parents in public forums, hurling insults and indicating that families are to blame for the failures of our school system. We have seen the CEA ads and publications spreading lies and misleading half-truths about the content and meaning behind proposed reforms, and personally attacking supporters of those reforms. No wonder the statewide conversation about reform has focused so much on fear and punishment and so little on what’s best for kids.

If we are going to have a serious conversation about improving our public schools, we need to bring all parties to the table — educators and advocates, parents and policymakers — and leave the vitriol at the door.  The stakes are too high for us not to focus on what matters the most … real, measurable student learning.

Setting Aside the Vitriol in School Improvement

Eduflack accountability, NEA, Parents, teachers

If we know anything, it is that we have much work in front of us if we are serious about providing all students — regardless of race, family income or zip code — access to truly great public schools.  There are no quick fixes here, nor should we be foolish enough to think one entity has all of the answers to just do it alone.

Yet we continue to see extreme vitriol permeating our discussions about school improvement.  Instead of focusing on the merits of ideas and the importance of outcomes, we continue to personalize the fight and resort to name calling and bullying to try and protect a status quo that we all realize cannot remain.
Over at the CT News Junkie this morning, Eduflack has a commentary on why real school improvement efforts require a team effort.  It is a valuable read that is applicable to virtually any state working toward reform.
For us to be truly successful, we must engage the entire educational “village” – the village we saw firsthand at last Thursday’s education reform summit. From the teachers unions, to superintendent and board of education groups, to think tanks, to community organizations, to advocacy groups, we’re all in this together. And as the adults in the village, it’s our job to focus on the kids. We must stop with the name-calling and the feigned procedural concerns. When we look back in 20 years and ask “What became of the Year for Education Reform?” the worst possible thing would be to say that this unprecedented moment was hijacked by a few status quo defenders who won out by making everyone feel icky. What a disappointment that would be. Can’t we do better, Connecticut?
  

It Takes an Educational Village …

Eduflack accountability, Achievement gap, arts, NEA, Parents, teachers

In years past, we used to talk about how it took a village to truly improve public education.  It wasn’t just up to teachers to do what they do behind the schoolhouse doors between the hours of 8 and 3.  Parents needed to take a more active role.  Local policymakers needed a greater understanding.  Community leaders — from youth groups to churches — needed greater connection.  And even the business community needed greater focus on skills and outcomes.

Oh, how the times have changed.  In our post-NCLB environment, we are now hearing more and more vitriol about those “outside forces” trying to influence what is happening in our public schools.  We have rallies and blogs and media coverage on how school improvement should be left exclusively to the trained, certified educators in the system.  All others should watch from the sidelines, being told, in the words of Kevin Bacon in Animal House, “Stay calm!  All is well!!”
But we know all is not well.  From third-grade reading proficiency levels to high school graduation rates and all measures in between, all is not well in our public schools.  Yet another generation of students has fallen through the cracks, leaving school either less than proficient or without a high school diploma all together.
The point of this is not to place blame.  There is plenty of blame to go around.  Our struggles are team struggles.  Parents, teachers, administrators, community leaders, elected officials, business community, and students themselves all bear significant responsibility for where we stand today, and play an important role in where we need to head tomorrow.  (And as a parent, a taxpayer, a former school board chairman, and an advocate, Eduflack is right in the middle of those who bear responsibility.)
Which is why it was so disconcerting to read the December 23 Wall Street Journal.  In the print edition (sorry folks, somehow it got edited out of the online version), the WSJ reported on the hire of Chicago/Philly/Recovery District Supe Paul Vallas as the new head of Bridgeport (CT) Public Schools.  The article noted that the hire was made possible, in part, because of philanthropic contributions to help the academically and financially struggling district bring in a talent like Vallas.  
In the piece, the reporter spoke to a leader at the Bridgeport Education Association, who referred to those local Connecticut philanthropists as “robber barons,” and questioned the legitimacy of their contributions.
We will forget, for a moment, the philanthropic support that Bridgeport Education Association and its parent National Education Association receive.  While those dollars may come from a different “clan” of philanthropic and corporate support, there is not question that NEA and BEA are beneficiaries of similar outside support, and that such support is serving a real public good when it comes to teacher effectiveness and improved instruction.
But it was yet another example of the venom with which some speak when discussing the role of public/private partnerships and the growing philanthropic interest in improving our public schools.  Local community members, who want to see their local schools improve and have the financial means to help jumpstart a reform process, are now “robber barons?”  Really?
A century ago, our public schools (both K-12 and higher ed) were hardly the models to write home about.  We lacked the educational resources offered by libraries, museums, and the performing arts.  We saw our medical schools take a significant step forward because of folks like Carnegie.  Libraries benefited from people like Ford.  General education and research supported by the likes of Rockefeller.
There is now an entire literature dedicated to the role of corporate philanthropy and the societal benefits that derived from such giving.  Today, we see large foundations the result of those original “robber barons,” foundations that are committed to improving children’s health, education, and society as a whole.  They do so without a profit motive, just hoping to make a difference with the resources the have available.
Ultimately, we are doing our kids, our schools, and our community a disservice when we try to run off well-meaning philanthropists with name calling, insinuation of ulterior motives, or promoting a general sense of “ickiness” because the private sector wants to get involved in our public schools.  Instead, we should be embracing such involvement.  No, I’m not saying all those involved in ed reform are Carnegies and Rockefellers, nor am I saying that some do not come to the table with a specific agenda.  But for all of those who argue that additional resources are needed in our public schools, yet must acknowledge that beloved tax base doesn’t allow for it, there are alternative paths.  Through private support, we can invest in technology or STEM or improved teacher support or the arts or a plethora of other areas that individuals, foundations, and companies want to get behind.
So where do we go from here?  To start, we need to turn down the rhetoric a little and realize there is a role for many at the school improvement table.  For educators, we need to realize it ultimately becomes an all or nothing bargain; we can’t say this outside funding is OK, but this isn’t.  Either we believe in public/private partnerships, or we don’t.  We depend on philanthropic support, or we don’t.
And what about those business types and educational philanthropists?  First off, be transparent in your giving and proud of your support.  Be vocal about your giving — who you are giving to, why you are giving, and what your expected outcomes are.  And don’t let others define your motives.
Ultimately, it really does take an educational village to improve our public schools.  Teachers, parents, community leaders, policymakers, taxpayers, the business community, and students all have a vested interest in seeing our schools improve and our kids succeed.  And all have a potential role they can play in the improvement process.  Now is not the time to say I can do this myself, and try to walk the road alone.  We need all the help we can get.

The NEA Post-Mortem

Eduflack accountability, Arne Duncan, NEA, Obama, teachers

Now that the the National Education Association has wrapped up its 90th Representative Assembly, there are some interesting head scratchers that come out of the NEA Convention.  In a meeting that is part union hall, part political convention, and part educator rally, the NEA moved forward a few ideas and notions that better help us see why it can be so difficult to figure out where public education is and should be headed in this country:

* NEA moved to condemn, but not call for the ouster of, U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan (most notably for his support of teacher firings in Rhode Island and presumably for his defense of the tying student performance data to teachers in Los Angeles), yet then turned around and endorsed President Barack Obama for 2012.  If there was ever a cabinet secretary in tune with his president, it is Duncan.  So are we truly upset with Duncan or truly content with Obama’s leadership?  And if it is the latter, are we endorsing his work in issues like the economy and healthcare, and setting aside concerns with his Administration’s education policies?  And was endorsing Obama in 2011 an apology for waiting so long to endorse him in 2008?
* NEA officially placed Teach for America on its public enemies list.  For years, union leaders have tried to discount the role that TFA does or should play in public education.  In recent years, union cities like Boston have complained about TFA teachers taking away previously union jobs.  So now the NEA has a policy stance that matches its rhetoric regarding the TFA movement.  But what about those TFA teachers who are members of their local unions?  How do they show up at the next union ice cream social?
* NEA approved the use of test scores to evaluate teachers, with one important caveat.  Yes, the NEA said, student test scores should be one of the elements used to determine the effectiveness of a teacher.  The catch?  NEA says that there are no current student tests that meet the standard for the tests allowed under the new NEA policy.  Essentially, we will gladly be measured by student test scores assuming the test meets our criteria.  But since no current tests do (and we assume the new ones being developed through RttT Assessment grants won’t either), I guess you just can’t use test scores to evaluate teachers.  Take that LA and NYC!
* Interestingly, President Obama did not attend.  Instead, NEA had Vice President Joe Biden.  Always a good draw for a union event, Biden seemed to deliver as folks expected him to, positioning education as political issue (Democrats get it right, and Republicans get it wrong), throwing some red meat (GOP healthcare vouchers are no different than school vouchers),  Even more curious, Biden said that the education debate was one about “economic opportunity and concentration of wealth.”  Silly me, here I thought it was about providing all children, regardless of race, socioeconomic status or geography, with a top-notch public education.
Special thanks to Stephen Sawchuk for providing the play-by-play on the NEA for Education Week.  Sawchuk’s coverage over at Teacher Beat provided terrific insight into what was happening in Chicago.  It was almost as if I could hear the “Brother” this and “Sister” that right on the Assembly floor.  I can’t wait for AFT!

“The Incredibly Shrinking Education Commissioner”

Eduflack accountability, Arne Duncan, NEA, RTT, teachers

We all assume that governors and their appointed education commissioners (or state superintendents or secretaries of education) will generally get along.  When the top ed job is appointed (as opposed to many states that actually elect the educator-in-chief), the gov and the ed commish tend to hail from the same party.  We assume they share the same general philosophy.  And we most certainly expect that the commish serves at the pleasure of the governor, and is on the same page agenda wise (at least publicly).

But then we have those great political states like New Jersey, the state dear ol’ Eduflack is mostly likely to call home.  After reading the political soap opera that is education policy and politics in the Garden State, a state known for bare-knuckle politics, we are now seeing the best and worst of it on the education front. 

For those who haven’t been turning into the telenovela, here’s what you missed.  Gov. Chris Christie was elected last November despite the incredible vitriol and massive campaign attacks waged by the New Jersey Education Association.  NJEA expected Christie would then play ball with them, as they are a powerful labor union in a state that generally appreciates powerful labor unions, but he refused (and who can blame him, after the attacks he suffered during the campaign).  On Christie’s first day of office, New Jersey submitted a Phase One Race to the Top app, based largely on the wishes of NJEA.  The application didn’t make the cut, and NJ was not a Phase One finalist.  Christie appoints Bret Schundler, champion of charter schools, as the state education commissioner.  Schundler reworks the state’s RttT app, based on reviewer feedbak, and cuts a deal with NJEA to make the state’s recommended teacher quality provisions (particularly on seniority and incentive pay) palatable to the union so they sign on.  Folks are shocked the Christie Administration and NJEA reach detente.  Then, before the app is submitted, Christie swoops in, says he agreed to no such deal with NJEA, and changes the RttT application to reflect his preferences and reject NJEA’s needs with regard to teacher quality measures.  The RttT app was then submitted to the feds last week in Christie’s image, the NJEA (and Schundler) be damned.  With me so far?

Immediately following Christie’s charge up RttT Hill, some presumed that Schundler’s days would be numbered.  After all, how could a Christie lieutenant strike a deal with Public Enemy Number One?  The Newark Star-Ledger editorial board now says that Schundler’s “credibility is in jeopardy.”   The folks over at NJ Left Behind wonder  if Christie and Schundler are playing “good cop-bad cop” with the teachers’ union in the name of progress? 

Back in January, Eduflack was so bold as to suggest that New Jersey should have pulled its Phase One application.  Christie should have demonstrated his strength on Day One, declared that the hard work of his predecessor did not reflect his educational priorities as the state’s new governor, and spend the next few months crafting an application in his own image.  Instead, the app went forward.  New Jersey came in 18th place, and the rework has been in process for the past few months.

So where does New Jersey go from here?  Some seem to think the current application is damaged goods, that the loss of union support will be too great for Joysey to overcome.  Those critics forget, though, that US EdSec Arne Duncan has been preaching that strong reform is more important that kumbaya universal buy-in.  So do ed reformers in New Jersey now need to pick sides, choosing Camp Christie or Camp Bret?

Hardly.  Christie made a shrewd political move.  He knows it is still a long shot that New Jersey will win a RttT grant.  (Particularly with Duncan saying there may only be another 10 or so winners).  If NJ wins, Christie wants to do so on his own terms.  Winning Race means having to take on new responsibilities in reporting and accountability.  It also likely means having to pony in additional dollars from the state coffers to make good on the promises to the feds.  If Christie is going to do that, in what is a disastrous financial climate in his state, he needs to do it on his terms.  His house, his rules, if you will.  He won the election, so folks can do it his way or no way at all.  With so many strings attached to the funding, and the US Department of Education talking about withdrawing funding if they find the application is not being followed to the letter, it is only natural for Christie to seek to pull as many of the strings involved here as possible.

And as for Schundler?  He deserves major points for reaching out and trying to actually work with NJEA.  Yes, his credibility with the union may be a little damaged in the short term.  He now needs to demonstrate he can deliver on the specific deals he may cut.  (And that requires a team at the State Department of Ed cast in his image, which is in process.)  But he’s shown a willingness to deal and has demonstrated a bit on an independent streak from the good governor.  Whether that was intended or not, it can now be used to help move specific state efforts on other school improvement efforts.

Now is the time for both leaders to put a bold, yet simple, plan for education improvement forward.  Communities across the state have turned back efforts to raise taxes to provide additional dollars for the schools.  Now is the time for the state to step forward and issue three challeges, challenges focused on outcomes and students.  For instance, scrap efforts to award high school diplomas to anyone who is 18 and with a pulse and ensure that a NJ high school diploma means more than an attendance certificate.  Figure out what is working in places like Newark and replicating those programs and initiatives in other struggling urban centers.  Implement a real strategic plan for charter school expansion across the state.  Even figure out the best practices that can be learned from the Abbott Schools, and apply them in other schools (without the promise of big dollars).  

Address a couple of those issues, offer some measurements to know the state is making progress, and remind parents, business leaders, and even teachers’ unions of what you are doing and why you are doing it, and you could have some real progress.  Christie provides the global vision, Schundler leads the troops on the ground.  All get to declare victory.
 

Come Together …

Eduflack AFT, NEA, teachers

A lot of paper tends to pass over Eduflack’s desk in a given week, and these past few days has been no exception.  One thing that caught my eye was from the Coalition for Community Schools, promoting its 2010 National Forum up in Philadelphia this week.  Full information can be found here, at the Coalition’s site.  (And the good news is that the video is still accessible, particularly if you can get beyond the hair removal commercials at the beginning.)

The issue of community schools, including the integration of issues like health, safety, and general public welfare, is always an interesting topic.  It is also one that gets lost in the current era of test scores and accountability.  But the holistic approach to education is not what caught my attention, no.  Eduflack was a little taken aback to see that NEA President Dennis Van Roekel and AFT President Randi Weingarten joined together to speak in one voice on the importance of community schools and the conditions needs for effective teaching and learning.
On most issues, we tend to see NEA and AFT pitted against each other.  NEA, the larger, is the voice of the status quo.  AFT, thanks to the Al Shanker reputation, is the rebel or the boat rocker.  AFT is more willing to compromise with the “opposition.”  NEA stands firm on its ground, no matter the opposition.  AFT is seen as the representatives of urban teachers, NEA of the suburban.  Fair or no, we are regularly comparing the two teachers’ unions, looking for differences, splits, disagreements, and other perceived chasms in the land of teachers.
But here they really did seem to speak with a united voice, so much so that one can remember the good ole days when Bob Chase and Sandy Feldman were trying to merge the two organizations into one superpower.  One supposes that threats of eliminating teacher tenure, throwing aside past collective bargaining agreements, and reconstituting views of teacher effectiveness can really help sharpen an understanding of who one’s friends are.  
From Weingarten: “Especially in these tough economic times, schools must be places where children can be nurtured and educated.  We know that teachers can’t do it all, but through partnerships with other groups and agencies, community schools can address out-of-school factors like poverty and stability at home that research shows affect two-thirds of student outcomes.”
And from Van Roekel: “As educators, we know that the development of the whole child extends beyond the walls of the classroom.  We must harness the coordinated power of social services, parental engagement, service learning opportunities for students, extended learning and afterschool programs to ensure our children’s successes.”
Regardless, it is worth watching the Weingarten/Van Roekel session, if for no other reason than to see the kumbaya.  They both remind you of Helen Lovejoy, the famed voice of reason on the Simpsons … “won’t someone please think about the children!”  
So congrats to the Coalition for Community Schools for bringing the two together with a shared voice (and if I am wrong about how often the two join together in chorus, please let me know).  Now if only we can find similar common ground on teacher incentives measures or ESEA reauthorization …

Hold On, ESEA Reauth is Coming

Eduflack accountability, Arne Duncan, AYP, charter schools, HQT, NCLB, NEA

Likely one of the worst-kept secrets in Washington, DC, the U.S. Department of Education is now hard at work on draft language for reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.  EdSec Arne Duncan started the ball bouncing last week, bringing together the education blob to talk about his reauth priorities, including increasing funding for key NCLB components, taking some of the nastiness out of the current law, and codifying some of the policies that have been moved forward under the stimulus package.

As Eduflack has heard from many folks this week, the plan is to introduce ESEA reauthorization in the U.S. Senate and U.S. House in January 2010.  The goal will be final passage of the federal ed law before the Memorial Day recess.  House Education Committee Chairman George Miller (CA) will likely serve as the lead dog moving the bill through Congress in Q1 of next year.
Why is this significant?  For months now, those opposed to NCLB have been wishing, hoping, and projecting that reauthorization wouldn’t move until 2011.  They offered up a host of reasons for this misguided belief, most of which aren’t worthy of dissection here.  The simple fact is that NCLB opponents need reauthorization to be put off until 2011 because they simply aren’t ready to fight the good fight on federal ed policy in a few months.  The “loyal opposition” is not gathered around a few key points.  They haven’t adopted a common language of change.  They don’t necessarily have reccs on how to improve the law to meet their needs.  They know they don’t like NCLB, and likely won’t like NCLB 2.0.  They know what they are opposed to, but don’t necessarily know what to stand for … at least not yet.
Most presume that the new ESEA will not be a major change from the current law.  The new bill will still emphasize accountability and student achievement, but will provide greater flexibility to SEAs and LEAs to achieve it.  The stick of AYP will be whittled down to a nub before all is said and done.  Highly Qualified Teachers (HQTs) will be redefined, focusing on the effective teachers emphasized in Race to the Top and de-emphasizing the checklist of what is needed simply to enter a classroom.  New Senate Education Committee Chairman Tom Harkin (IA) will ensure that special education, RtI, and IDEA will get greater attention than in the previous iteration.  Charter schools will continue to remain strong.  Teacher incentives will see increased funding.  And we may even see Reading First transformed from an elementary grades program to a more comprehensive effort focused on middle and secondary students.  While the law will most likely be bucketed around the priorities of standards, assessments/data systems, teacher quality, and school turnaround, the details will be a reorganization of NCLB components, not a reinvention.
When the EdSec outlined these priorities (and emphasized the need for equity in public education) his remarks were well-received in most corners of the education community.  The strongest voice of opposition came from the Forum for Education and Democracy, who took Duncan to task for seeking to narrow the curriculum, lacking details on real teacher quality, and staying true to current accountability provisions.  The comments from Forum head Sam Chaltain were even distributed under the header, “you can’t just invoke MLK, Jr. – you have to really address fairness and equity.”  So it is clear where they shake out with regard to the future of ESEA.  And at the end of the day, the Forum speaks for more than itself (at least in terms of philosophy).
National Education Association’s strong response to the draft Race to the Top RFP guidance still serves as the best primer for those who want to make significant change to ESEA, particularly if they want to move the law back to where it stood in the 1990s.  In fact, NEA President Dennis Van Roekel upped the ante yesterday when he testified before the U.S. House of Representatives, where he called for a better distribution of exemplary teachers in struggling schools (with additional pay for such moves likely to be the second shoe to drop in his noble pursuits).
Barring the completely unforeseen, Chairman Miller is going to get this reauthorization through before this time next year.  And if I were taking bets, the current line is that the draft legislation dropped in January is going to be pretty darned close to the final that will be passed (with some additional dollars thrown into the mix for some to swallow the policy priorities).  If folks think they are truly going to influence ESEA and shape federal education policy for the next decade, now is the time to act.  Now is the time to have voices heard at ED and on the Hill about priorities and lines in the sand.  Now is the time to make clear what support or opposition will be based on.  Now is the time to form those alliances and determine what the truly make-or-break issues may be.
ESEA reauthorization is going to be a fast-tracked affair.  The first five months of 2010 are going to be spent winning folks over to the proposed law, not looking for alterations, changes, and overhauls to months of work at ED and in Chairman Miller’s office.  Those waiting to engage after the draft legislation is introduced will likely miss the show before the curtain is even raised.
 

Tear Down that (Fire)Wall!

Eduflack Achievement gap, AFT, assessment, AYP, high-stakes testing, NEA, Teacher Education, teachers

In recent weeks, there has been a great deal of attention with regard to firewalls and the linkages between the evaluation of teachers and the achievement of students.  The current draft criteria for Race to the Top proclaims that states must be able to use student performance data from their respective state assessments, crosswalking it back to the classroom to determine which teachers have been effective (and which have not).  In a new era of teacher incentives and merit pay, the trickledown of federal law will soon demand that good teachers “show” their effectiveness, and that there is no stronger measure for it than how well their students achieve.

As soon as those draft criteria were written, we started hearing of the legal obstacles policymakers in California, New York, Nevada, and Wisconsin would need to overcome (as all four states currently prohibit linking individual teachers to student achievement data).  California claims that while it is prohibited at the state level, exemplar school districts like Long Beach Unified are already pursuing such policies.  New Yorkers immediately go on the defensive, and claim that the federal interpretation of laws in the Empire State is incorrect.  Wisconsin’s soon-to-be former governor is quickly working with the state legislature to reverse their firewall issue.  And what happens in Vegas is clearly staying there, as we’ve heard nary a peep from Nevada on their plans to address a potential stumbling block to RttT funds.
At the heart of the firewall issue is one incredibly important philosophy.  If we are to improve the quality of K-12 education in the United States, we need to ensure effective, high-quality teaching is happening in classrooms throughout the nation.  To ensure that, we need hard, strong, irrefutable quantitative measures for determining effective teaching.  And the surest path to determining effective teaching is by measuring the outputs.  Good teaching results in effective learning.  Effective learning shows itself on student assessments.  Strong student assessments mean quality teaching in the classroom.  Rinse and repeat.
Is it as simple as that?  In an era where most of our student assessments are focused on measuring reading and math proficiency in grades three through eight, do we really have a full quantitative picture to separate the good teachers from the bad?  Do we really have the data to determine effective teaching from that which is getting in the way of achievement?  And do we know enough about student performance data that we are able to make very clear cause/effect determinations of teacher quality based on student test scores, without needing to factor in the other variables, factors, and resources that ultimately impact a student’s ability to learn?
Don’t get me wrong, Eduflack is all for focusing on teacher quality.  We have schools of education who are turning out teachers that lack the pedagogy or content knowledge to succeed (with most of them ending up in the schools and communities that need teachers the best).  In fact, Harvard University Dean Merseth recently said that only 100 education schools are doing “a competent job,” while the other 1,200 could be shut down tomorrow.  
At the same time, prevalent thinking has grown more and more in line with the belief that pedagogy and clinical training simply do not matter.  New teachers can get by on four weeks of classroom prep, not four years.  Low-quality teacher training programs and questionable alternative certification pathways are all about throwing teachers into the deep end, without ensuring that they are able to swim first.  And we’ve built a system where the classrooms and communities in the most need are rarely serving as home to our strongest and most capable teachers.  Struggling schools are made to feel lucky they have a teacher at all, and are more than happy to just settle for a “warm body.”
The convergence of these beliefs and these realities paint a dangerous picture when it comes to rewarding teacher quality and measuring it by student performance on state assessments.  Why?
Teaching is more than just reading and math.  Yes, those two subjects represent the very foundations of learning.  Without reading and math skills, students will struggle performing in other subjects.  But if state assessments are our rubric, are we saying that some subject matter teachers are less equal than others?  We all know that science will soon be brought on line, but what about other academic subjects.  Social studies and history.  Art and music.  Foreign languages.  Even ELL and special education.  Do those teachers not fit into our bell curve of effective teaching if we do not have state assessments for the subjects they teach?  Are they not effective teachers because we are not measuring student achievement in their chosen academic fields?  
What about the notion of the teacher team?  If I am a middle school student, my performance on the state reading exam is impacted by more than just what is happening in my ELA class.  Hopefully, my social studies teacher is introducing new vocabulary words and forcing me to apply critical thinking and comprehension skills to what I am reading.  My first or second year of a foreign language is getting me to reflect more closely on sentence structure and the roots and meanings of key words or word parts.  Even my math and science classes are contributing to my overall literacy skills.  So if I gain on the state reading exam, is that just a win for my reading teacher (as the current proposals would call for) or is that a win for the entire faculty?  Should teacher success be based on the success of the school, with a rising instructional tide lifting all boats, or can it really be winnowed down to a one-to-one formula, where a boost in an individual student’s reading score is solely credited to the teacher who happened to have them in the ELA class for 45 minutes a day?
What about longitudinal gains?  In Washington, DC, this year we witnessed how targeted test skill development can influence performance on the state exam.  So are we asking teachers to do test prep or to teach? Are they to facilitate or to educate?  Seems that the ultimate measure of a teacher is not just the short term gain on the state assessment, but also how well the student retains that knowledge and applies it in future grades and in future studies.  But how, exactly, do we capture that in a quick and dirty way?  In an era where we still look for the immediate payoff, no one wants to wait and see the longitudinal academic gains of students, ensuring that there are no drop-offs from fourth grade until eighth grade?
Are all gains equal?  If I am a math teacher in an upper class suburban public school, and my students post five point gains on the state assessment, taking them from 92 percent to 97 percent, is that equal to a math teacher in a failing urban middle school who boosts student math performance from 45 percent to 50 percent?  Is a gain a gain, or are some gains more equal than others?  Do teachers get extra points for impacting the achievement gap?  Is there a weighted system for demonstrating gains in dropout factories or historically low-performing schools?  Is demonstrating real movement in the bottom quintile worth more than moving a few points in the uppermost quintile?  
And then we have all of the intangibles that should be factored into the mix.  Class size.  Native languages.  Pre-service education.  In-service professional development.  Quality and quantity of instructional materials.  Accessibility to mentor teachers. &nbsp
;Parental involvement.  Principal and administrator support.  All play a role in driving student achievement and ultimately closing the achievement gap.  How do all get factored into the formula that student achievement plus teacher incentives equals effective educators?
We should be doing everything we can to strengthen the teaching profession and ensure that classrooms in need are getting the most effective teachers possible.  We should acknowledge that not everyone is cut out for teaching, and that getting that first teaching job and a union card should not be the only tools required to assure lifetime employment.  And we should look to quantifiably measure teacher effectiveness, recognizing that the ultimate ROI for education is whether students are learning or not (and that they are able to retain it).  We should be incentivizing superstar teachers, particularly those who teach hard-to-staff subjects or in hard-to-staff schools.
But before we tear down the remaining firewalls and decide that teacher evaluations are based solely on a student’s singular performance on a bubble sheet exam, we need to make sure we aren’t moving a bad solution forward without truly diagnosing the problem.  Virtually all states are struggling to implement good data systems that track students longitudinally.  Before such data tracking is in place, can we really use the numbers to evaluate teacher performance?  Current standards are a hodgepodge of the good, bad, and ugly when it comes to what we are teaching students and what we expect them to learn.  Can we evaluate teachers on student performance when we have no national agreement on what student proficiency in fourth or eighth grade truly looks like, regardless of zip code or state lines?  And can we truly use assessments to evaluate teachers when the vast majority of educators teach subjects or grades that simply aren’t assessed in the first place?
Seems we need to focus on the development and implementation of our standards, our assessments, and our data collection before we can move to step 106 and begin applying that data to determine the salaries, longevity, and very existence of the teachers we are linking it to.  In our zeal to fix the problem, we could be creating a slew of additional ones.  And at the end of the day, none of them get at the heart of the matter — improving the quality of instruction while boosting student learning and closing the gaps between the haves and have nots.
 

Throwin’ Down on Teachers and School Models

Eduflack AFT, EdNews, Gates Foundation, High School, NEA, Teacher Education, teachers

Two interesting news items this morning, showing that what was once old may be new again.  The first the debate over traditional versus alternative teachers, the second on the role of small schools.

Issue One: Up in Boston, the Boston Teachers Union has firmly planted its flag in the sand, hoping to block an influx of new Teach for America educators this fall.  Citing planned cutbacks in the Boston Public Schools and a “surplus” of existing “good” teachers, the BTU is taking its fight to the streets, hoping to keep 20 new TFAers from arriving in Beantown this fall.  The full story is here, in the Boston Globe.
What’s interesting is that TFA seems to be taking the position that it is a public service organization, much along the lines of the Peace Corps or Americorps (something that Bostonians know a thing or two about).  Eduflack doesn’t doubt that many TFAers enroll in the program because they believe they are giving back to the community and performing a public service by going to into urban or rural schools that are having a dickens of a time staffing their classrooms.  But the BTU has a point here.  Is it really public service and volunteerism at its best when a TFA teacher in Boston is making the same starting salary as a beginning teacher in the district (about $46K)?  If Boston were paying TFAers the hourly wage that Americorps members are getting, we are having a different rhetorical fight.  But we are putting each pool of educators on equal footing, at least financially.
Seems to me that if Boston does indeed have this surplus of hundreds of good teachers without current jobs (not something I would be bragging about, but that’s just me) the focus then should be on quality and effectiveness.  Why bring in a TFAer for two years when you can tap the best of the current surplus pool, teachers who may already have a track record of delivering student achievement results in Boston and teachers who are prepared to make a commitment for more than two years?  Do we want surplus teachers or do we want proven-effective teachers who are prepared to make a long-term commitment to closing the achievement gap and boosting student performance?  When caged that way, the answer seems simple (particularly since we are waging this rhetorical war over 20 TFAers).  Part of TFA’s mission is staffing those hard-to-serve schools.  If we have qualified teachers lined up around Fenway Park to serve from Southie to the North End, seems they warrant an equal chance for those 20 available slots.
Issue Two: Back in America’s heartland, Chad Wick, the CEO of KnowledgeWorks Foundation, makes a strong case for the notion that small schools work.  His commentary can be found here at Education News.  This is a bold statement to make, particularly since so many people believe that the Gates Foundation disowned the notion of small schools this past fall.  But if you look at what Bill Gates said back in November, and you look at what Wick says today, they are marching in lockstep.  Those who think we are going to improve the schools simply by changing the structure and implementing a small school model are fooling themselves.  But changing the structure is an important first step to school improvement, particularly if you use the new model to create new learning opportunities for students, offer better supports and PD for teachers, and generally refuse to toe the status quo line.
Having worked with Wick and the good folks at KnowledgeWorks, they seem to know what they are talking about.  They can point to their efforts with the Ohio High School Transformation Initiative and Early College High Schools as examples where the small school structure opened the door to improvement.  They used the new structure to close the achievement gap and improve high school graduation rates.  Seems a model example of using the process (school structure) to actually generate some measurable results.  Isn’t that a novel concept, particularly in this era of innovation.

Reform Without Teachers

Eduflack AFT, NEA, teachers
In keeping with Eduflack’s ongoing discussion of what is needed to improve our schools (and remember, Eduflack doesn’t believe in using the term reform, because it lacks outcome, I’m focused on improvements), following is a guest post from Doug Little.  No one can say Eduflack’s not open to opposing viewpoints.
Writing from a Canadian perspective, the American education ‘Reform’ movement seems to be attempting education reform without listening to teachers, particularly organized teachers in NEA-AFT. This means reform is doomed. The literature is clear. Education reform without significant teacher buy in never works. Periodically people get frustrated and attempt to blame teachers for example, for the achievement gap. The achievement gap has nothing to do with teachers, it is based in the deep inequality that is tolerated in the USA to date that is not tolerated in any other democracy.

Jurisdictions periodically get the idea that they are going to get tough on teachers as Duncan, Obama, etc are doing now. You can predict the results as the night follows the day, an exacerbated teacher shortage.New Zealand made a serious attempt at education reform without listening to the teachers and instituting policies they opposed. The result was an overnight serious teacher shortage. OK we’ll deal with that by having non-teachers teach, once again failure. Things get worse. You have a serious legacy problem with black, hispanic, poor white and AmerIndian achievement because you have never historically made efforts to educate these groups and now you want to close the gap overnight. It won’t happen. You already have a serious teacher problem in schools teachers consider undesirable to work in. Merit pay and Teach for America kids will not solve this problem. The job must be made desirable with pay raises for all teachers, and radically improved working conditions in safe schools. It seems to all the other democracies where social-democratic reforms are popular, that Americans are just not willing to pay the price for this in taxes. There always seems to be an American sense that there is a silver bullet to education improvement. There is not, it is very expensive and very hard work.

To quote Stanford education professor Larry Cuban “It is very difficult for the schools to make students equal within a society that is otherwise dedicated to making them unequal.”

What need to do:

1) Massively invest in early childhood education free for every child from toilet training to kindergarten if parents make below $40 000, $5-10/day for all other children.

2) Abandon standardized tests. Finland, the world’s best education system doesn’t use them.

3) Dramatically reduce class sizes in all poor schools to 15 and all others to 20 students. (STAR project Tennessee)

4) Dramatically improve all teacher pay. Add bonuses for Master’s degrees. 

5) Dismantle charter and voucher schools, they are part of the problem not part of the solution.

6) Dramatically improve teacher education but also only allow university students with straight A’s to apply to be teachers.

7) Don’t make any reforms not approved of by NEA-AFT.

8) Offer free MA to math and science teachers if they teach for ten years after degree.

We think along these lines in Canada but we are not satisfied. We have only the world’s second best system after Finland.

(This post was contributed by Doug Little of The Little Education Report.  It represents Doug’s opinions only.)