NEA

Become a Teacher in Six Easy Lessons?

Eduflack AFT, NEA, Teacher Education

Most of us don’t bother to read the countless spam emails that enter our inboxes.  We view them like we do commercials, hoping to avoid as many as possible on our way to the content we want.  Not Eduflack.  I like commercials because they provide me insight into what key audiences and the public at large are thinking.  And I will check out some of the bulk emails I receive (I’m not foolish enough to click on any of the links, but I’ll look at the email content) to get a sense for where the industry, particularly the education industry, thinks money can be made.

My attention was really captured this weekend by an email with a compelling subject line — “Want More Vacation Days?  Become a School Teacher.”  The subject matter was what you would expect, a company called Eclipse Media Online looking to hook me up with the ideal online degree program to get me in the classroom quickly and racking up those vacation days.  I was promised I could “Get [my] Teaching Degree Online!  In My Spare Time From Home!”
Such claims are nothing new.  We’ve heard them from online institutions and diploma mills on daytime and overnight television for decades now.  What was so disturbing, though, was how the job of K-12 classroom teacher in 2009 was described.  A summary can’t do it justice.  Let me give you the full text:

Teachers play an important role in fostering the intellectual and social development of children during their formative years. The education that teachers impart plays a key role in determining the future prospects of their students. Whether in preschools or high schools or in private or public schools, teachers provide the tools and the environment for their students to develop into responsible adults.

Teachers act as facilitators or coaches, using classroom presentations or individual instruction to help students learn and apply concepts in subjects such as science, mathematics, or English. They plan, evaluate, and assign lessons; prepare, administer, and grade tests; listen to oral presentations; and maintain classroom discipline. Teachers observe and evaluate a student’s performance and potential and increasingly are asked to use new assessment methods. For example, teachers may examine a portfolio of a student’s artwork or writing in order to judge the student’s overall progress. They then can provide additional assistance in areas in which a student needs help. Teachers also grade papers, prepare report cards, and meet with parents and school staff to discuss a student’s academic progress or personal problems.

Many teachers use a “hands-on” approach that uses “props” or “manipulatives”to help children understand abstract concepts, solve problems, and develop critical thought processes. For example, they teach the concepts of numbers or of addition and subtraction by playing board games. As the children get older, teachers use more sophisticated materials, such as science apparatus, cameras, or computers. They also encourage collaboration in solving problems by having students work in groups to discuss and solve problems together. To be prepared for success later in life, students must be able to interact with others, adapt to new technology, and think through problems logically.

Honestly, I don’t know what part of this email I should find most offensive.  Teaching as a gateway to increased vacation days?  Teaching responsibilities defined as playing board games and reviewing artwork portfolios?  Instructional materials described as “props” or “manipulatives,” like teaching is no different than selling a time share to young people?  Or the fact that some people are going to get this email, click through, write their tuition checks, and believe they are on the path to becoming high-paid, highly vacationed, effective teachers, all from the privacy of their bedrooms and the comfort of their well-worn bunny slippers.
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again.  There is are few jobs as difficult as teaching, particularly in today’s high-stakes, high-expectation, high-criticism environment.  As the son of two educators (my mother a retired high school English teacher, my father a political scientist by trade and college president by path), I like to believe there is a little more to the profession than these sorts of emails put forward.  I see nothing about the countless hours my mother put in at night, on weekends, and during the summer grading, preparing, and planning.  I see nothing about the supplies she purchased or the emotional, intellectual, and sometimes financial support she provided her students.  I see nothing about breaking up fights or having to deal with parents who couldn’t accept that their kids simply failed to do the work.  I see nothing about the constantly changing PD expectations, the certification procedures, and the graduate degree requirements.  I see nothing about the notion that you are expected to work for 200 straight days, with no vacation or sick time intended to be taken during the school year.  And I see nothing about the second jobs and seasonal employment so many of my mother’s colleagues had to take to pay the bills or to actually use a few of those well-earned vacation days.
I know, I know, I shouldn’t get so worked up about a spam email that was never really intended for me in the first place.  But I know that teachers — and their training, recruitment, and retention — is a major issue for states and school districts today, and is going to be a major policy concern for the federal government and the U.S. Department of Education in the coming years.  Having worked for an online college of education, I know it isn’t as simple as the marketing campaign makes it seem (no matter what those institutions on the other end of the email want to believe).  And I know if we are really going to focus on student achievement and school improvement, it is all about putting good, well-trained effective educators in front of a classroom, and not merely a warm body who responded to an email campaign at the right time.
Teaching is hard.  Effective teaching is both an art and a science.  It requires the right person, the right motivation, the right training, and the right ongoing development and support.  The AFT and NEA have invested a great deal of intellectual and financial capital into promoting teacher professionalism, the nobility of the profession, the real challenges of good teaching, and the believe that not everyone is cut out to lead a classroom.  If we have individuals choosing teaching as a profession to increase their vacation time, we have far more important issues in public education that we recognize.  What’s truly scary is that folks are getting rich marketing “teaching” as a career path anyone with a computer and an interest in board games can and should pursue.  

This Test Brought To You By …

Eduflack AP, High School, NEA

We have all heard the stories of how classroom teachers are forced to supplement instructional materials on their own dime.  Every fall, office supply stores offer discounts for teachers, knowing that supplies are being funded directly from the pockets of educators (and not just from the school districts themselves).  According to the National Education Association, the average teacher spends $430 of their own hard-earned dollars for books and supplies for the students in their classrooms.

When Edu-mom was teaching high school English, Eduflack knew this ritual all too well.  Yes, there were the annual visits to the office supply stores for the basics.  But there were also the add-ons — the videos, the classroom sets of novels, out-of-pocket cash for student lunches, and even dollars for class trips and events.  For her, it was all a part of being a classroom teacher.  If she didn’t provide it, her students wouldn’t receive it.  If her students didn’t receive it, they weren’t getting the full education they deserved.  Providing every student full academic opportunity was far more important than the number of bills in her wallet (and the same could be said for many of her colleagues, particularly those in the English departments of those schools in New Mexico, West Virginia, Massachusetts, and DC in which she taught).
So we definitely have to give California high school teacher Tom Farber an A for creativity when it comes to meeting classroom costs.  In a move to cut costs, Rancho Bernardo Schools cut their teachers’ photocopy budget by nearly a third, to a little more than $300 a year per teacher.  Over a 10-month school year, that means $30 a month, or roughly 1,000 pages a month.  Calculate it out over six classes, and that means about 150 pages a month for tests, quizzes and handouts (or by my calculation, about five pages per student per month, based on average class sizes).
Farber realized $300 wouldn’t cut it, particularly for the AP students he was working with.  His copy bill would be more than $500 a year for the basics.  But rather than dip into his own pocket (which I am sure he is already doing for other classroom supplies), he came up with a novel idea — selling advertising on his quizzes and exams.  The full story is on the front page of today’s USA Today, courtesy of Greg Toppo and Janet Kornblum — www.usatoday.com/news/education/2008-12-01-test-ads_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip  
According to USA Today, Farber has already sold more than $350 in ad space, much of it to parents and local businesses.  These aren’t big print ads with photos and visuals and custom-designed logos.  Think more along the lines of inspirational quotes and simple “Sponsored by Eduflack, the leading voice in education reform communications.”  Minor mentions running along the footer of the photocopied material in question.
Some are up in arms about this, crying about commercialism in the schools and the corporatization of instruction.  But this isn’t requiring every AP English student to only show up to school in Nikes or declaring Coke the official beverage of chemistry students at Jefferson High School.  At the end of the day, this isn’t much different than the words of wisdom and inspirational messages sold in virtually every high school yearbook in virtually every public school across the nation.
No, Farber should not be attacked for his actions, he should be praised.  He realized his school couldn’t (or wouldn’t) meet the needs he had for instructional materials and supplies for his classes.  Rather than offer the bare minimum and complaining about the situation, he came up with a novel solution.  Now, his students get the study aids and preparatory materials they need to achieve on AP exams.
Could he have paid for it himself?  Of course.  But what other white-collar professions do we know that require employees to fund their own supplies (particularly since those supplies are going to others)?  Could he have asked students to pony up?  Of course.  But that sorta gets away from the notion of a free public education for all students.  What Farber did is no different than the public-private partnerships that we encourage in the schools on a daily basis.
The cryin’ shame here, of course, is that we aren’t providing our teachers the resources they need to do their jobs effectively.  The demands on today’s teachers are rising by the day.  We want higher student performance, smaller achievement gaps, higher grad rates, and larger college-going rates.  And we want it all in classes that are getting larger while teacher salaries are barely keeping up with inflation.  
It is offensive we expect public school teachers to pay out of their own pocket to photocopy tests or buy novels or other instructional materials.  It is equally wrong that we don’t provide the instructional materials we know are most effective, having to choose between replacing lost textbooks or paying for gasoline for the buses or electricity for the florescent bulbs in the halls.  
We know what it takes to effectively teach a child and have them succeed, both in school and in life.  If we are to empower teachers to provide that instruction, we need to give them the materials they need to succeed.  And if we don’t, we need to give them the flexibility to pursue “alternative” funding sources to get the job done.  If advertising is required to deliver effective instruction (particularly learning materials) then so be it.
 

Virtually, the Next Big Thing

Eduflack AFT, AYP, charter schools, DCPS, Gates Foundation, NEA, Online Education

Without doubt, we in education reform like to follow the trends.  We like to determine what the next big thing is, and then jump on that bandwagon before everyone else has grabbed hold for themselves.  When Reading First was all the rage in 2003, most looking at the tea leaves were certain that early reading would be the next big thing.  At the time, no one was even considering the sort of high school reform that the Gates Foundation was ushering in, full force, by 2005.

Lately, I’ve been hearing from a lot of my reading friends, colleagues, and clients that the “next big thing” is RTI, or Response to Intervention.  I’m guessing RTI has moved to the top of the list because it has been the subject of many an RFP (meaning there is money attached), and groups like the International Reading Association has put it on the hot list.  But I’m not a believer.  Until folks get their hands around the need for the true pre- and post-assessments necessary for effective RTI (and most trying to sell a solution are not), RTI will simply be an also ran.
As we forecast, then, what comes next, we must also decide what issue has run its course.  For the past few months now, Eduflack has been offering private eulogies for the voucher movement.  Yes, school choice is still one of the most important issues the education community — particularly those operating in failing schools — faces.  But DCPS has all but killed and buried its landmark voucher program.  Results coming out of bellweather voucher cities such as Milwaukee and Cleveland have not shown the results many expected.  And even the voucher haven of Florida has watched as its many voucher programs have been scaled back.
So what’s next?  What is the next great issue in school reform?  Where is the next great fight to be waged?  The tale of vouchers helps point us in the right direction.  The next big thing will remain school choice, but it will be a redefined debate — charter versus virtual.
It wasn’t so long ago that charter schools were seen as niche programs run out of someone’s basement.  Today, we see well-run charters dominating the education improvement debate.  Cities like DC, New Orleans, and Cleveland are now seeing charters challenge traditional public schools, student for student.  In DC, the Catholic Archdiocese has decided to convert a number of their previously private Catholic schools into public charter schools.  Why?  First to address the issue of the failed voucher experiment in DC.  Second, and more importantly, to provide broader reach of high-quality instruction across the city it serves.
Over the past decade, public charter schools have demonstrated the ability to build a better mousetrap.  Those that have focused on strong infrastructure, good instruction, and effective measurement and accountability are fulfilling our mission of student improvement.  They are seeing results on their student achievement numbers, and they are pushing traditional public schools to do a better job, or risk losing more students to better run charters with better results.
After all, wasn’t that the goal?  Charters were never intended to replace the public schools, waging a bloodless coup for control of public education.  Instead, they sought to show we could do a better job, particularly in those communities with failing schools.  Reaching the same students, they could build a better school, equip a better teacher, and generate better results.  And with the right management, vision, and commitment, they are succeeding.  Charters are changing the landscape, and that change is reflected in both a shift in AFT and NEA’s view of charters and the public and private positions taken by the presidential campaigns on school choice.
But there is an interesting fork in that road to the next great thing.  A year ago, I would have placed my money for charters to win, place, and show.  After all, they lack the radioactivity of the voucher movement.  They have a network of educators and funders throughout the nation.  And they have a documentable track record of positive results.  But then along came a pesky little thing called the virtual school.
Again, our sights are set down on the Sunshine State.  Yesterday’s Palm Beach Post reports on a new state mandate that school districts must now create an all virtual school option for K-12 instruction.  The full story can be found here — <a href="http://www.miamiherald.com/news/education/story/707329.html.
Having”>www.miamiherald.com/news/education/story/707329.html.
Having formerly worked for a proposed provider of online high school education, I can see the benefit for school districts.  The need for school buildings and facilities drop dramatically.  Worries about teacher shortages, particularly in areas such as math, science, and foreign language, all but disappear.  Students are provided the option to pursue courses of study that are relevant to their interests and needs, not just those courses where 24 fellow classmates want to share a classroom.  And if it works for higher education, why not K-12.
The problem, of course, is we still struggle with high-quality online higher education.  Employers discount the value of a degree from an online institution.  Graduation rates are traditionally significantly lower in virtual higher ed institutions than they are in traditional bricks-and-mortar institutions.  And the variance in quality, regulation, and results still has yet to be determined.
Despite these concerns, virtual education is here to stay, and places like Florida are determined to integrate it into the framework of K-12 education.  What does that mean for the next big thing?  Perhaps we are looking at a hybrid — a melding of the mission, oversight, and outcomes of a well-run public charter school with the options and flexibility of a virtual school.  Expansion of charter school course choice through virtually delivered options.  A way to bring well-run charter school models up to scale in communities where demand or sheer numbers are just lacking.  A chance to bring 21st century thinking and technology to 21st century school choice.
Now is the time for someone to seize the cutting edge mantle from vouchers and move the school choice movement to the next level.  The race is now between the model charter school and the edgy virtual school to see who can capture the public attention and who can demonstrate the results we demand from the next generation of public education.

“An Army of Teachers”

Eduflack Gates Foundation, HQT, NEA, Obama

It should be no surprise that there was little real discussion of K-12 education at this week’s Democratic convention.  As we’re seeing in polls, education simply isn’t an issue on which people cast their national vote.  It isn’t a red-meat topic to rally the troops and build true excitement.  Despite all of the best attempts from groups like Ed in 08, education just didn’t register this week, and isn’t expected to register next week.

Sure, there were a few veiled references to No Child Left Behind and how it has saddled our schools.  Many speakers talked about the need for more student loans.  But other than a few sentences in former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner’s speech and in current Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick’s remarks, education was an also-ran issue.
But last night, Barack Obama upped the ante.  Yes, his spoke globally on a range of issues, focusing mainly on the economy and on foreign policy.  Education, though, also popped up in his speech.  The most interesting line, perhaps, was his notion that, as president, he would recruit a “new army of teachers” for our schools.
We all have heard the stories about how more than half of all teachers will be retiring over the next five years.  We know that there is a teacher “shortage” out there, particularly in subjects such as math and science.  And we’ve seen the stories about school districts recruiting for new teachers outside of their state and even outside of the United States.  But it is a bold statement to say that the federal government is soon going to get into the business of identifying and recruiting a new “army of teachers.”
At a Jobs for the Future conference last fall, the Gates Foundation’s education director, Vicki Phillips, spoke of the Foundation’s need to get into the human capital business.  Few noticed the line, but it left a lasting impact on Eduflack.  Imagine the impact on teacher recruitment if the Gates Foundation put its money and its willpower behind the teacher recruitment, bringing individuals into the fold who can lead the new classrooms of the 21st century.  It was an interesting idea, an idea that hasn’t been fleshed out since Phillips tossed it into the pool.
Getting the federal government — and, thus, the U.S. Department of Education — makes it just a little more interesting.  Imagine an assistant secretary for teacher recruitment, leading an office that is looking at new incentives and alternative certifications and performance pay and teachers at charter schools.  I know I am jumping to conclusions here, but it is an interesting thought that the feds could soon be in the teacher recruitment business.
Yes, the chance if far greater that this is a line that will soon be forgotten and never adopted into policy.  In an Obama Administration, even if it moved forward, it could simply be an initiative run by the National Education Association, looking so much like efforts that have come before it.  
Or it could just be a bold way to truly improve education, putting everything on the table and making clear that the teacher in front of the classroom is the most important component to student achievement.  It could redefine how we think of a qualified, effective teacher.  And it could re-energize a new generation to become classroom teachers.

Mr. Weaver, Tear Down the NEA Wall

Eduflack AFT, John McCain, NCLB, NEA, Obama

After putting their money on Hillary Clinton early on in the process, it seems the national teachers unions are quickly regrouping, endorsing Barack Obama for the presidency.  The NEA (which never officially married Clinton, but clearly had bought a ring, announced that Reg Weaver is recommending the Assembly endorse Obama at next month’s convention.  (Thanks to Flypaper for pointing out Mike Antonucci’s post on this). 

Of course, the AFT had previously endorsed Clinton, has announced it “will engage in a process to prepare to make an endorsement for this fall’s general election.”  Anyone who has been around the political block knows that the AFT endorsement of Obama isn’t that far behind.  Hopefully, they’ll take the time to talk to McCain’s education team first, though.

Back in the winter, Eduflack asked what, specifically, AFT was supporting when it endorsed Hillary.  And the question is even more valid regarding today’s endorsement (or proposed endorsement) of Obama.  Is Reg Weaver endorsing Obama’s support for merit pay for teachers?  His support for Teach For America style programs?  Backing of charter schools?  Or is he endorsing the recent rhetoric attacking high-stakes testing and NCLB?  (I’ll put my money on the latter.)

I join with Obama in supporting merit pay for teachers and supporting charter schools, particularly in our inner cities.  And I was impressed when he went into the NEA and supported incentive pay, particularly when the union has been so strongly against it.  So does an endorsement of Obama mean the NEA is changing course on performance pay for teachers? 

Unfortunately, we may never know.  If yesterday’s post-primary statement from Weaver is any indication, this isn’t about Obama.  It’s about the NEA supporting the Democrats.  And that’s a cryin’ shame.  Now is the perfect time for NEA to get both candidates to put their education platform together, and let the brothers and sisters of the NEA weigh and measure both.

If we’ve learned anything from the Democratic primary, it is that hope trumps fear.  The positive far outweighs the negative.  And the high ground is far more adventageous than the mud pits.  Unfortunately, Weaver seems to have missed that point.  In calling on his nearly 3 million members to endorse the presumptive Democratic nominee, Weaver says:

“You can go down any list of what public school employees believe they need to truly help every child be successful, and you’ll see that Senator Obama supports that list and that Senator McCain not only opposes it, but has probably already voted against it.”

It’s unfortunate that the NEA can’t support Obama without attacking John McCain.  The NEA has effectively sat itself on the bench for the past eight years on federal education policy, deciding it was easier to shout into the wind than to look for some middle ground with the current Administraton.  If the Bush Administration wasn’t going to use the NEA’s ball, then the NEA just wasn’t going to play.  And it looks like they are drawing the same line again this year.

I’m all for effective rhetoric, and during campaign times, I’ve been accused of being a little vitriolic.  (For the record, I worked, successfully, on behalf for Democratic candidates, and have a keener than keen appreciation for the value of an NEA or AFT endorsement.)  But when the NEA says that McCain has already voted against everything a child needs to be successful, they do the union, its members, and the students they teach a great disservice.

The NEA endorsement will go to the Democrat.  We all know that.  But let’s make it about the hopes, policies, and positions he stands for.  It is an endorsement, and shouldn’t be an endorsement by rejection of the other guy.

No one has ever accused John McCain of being an opponent of education.  If anything, now is the time for McCain to start formulating a real plan on federal education policy and demonstrate his commitment to reform and school improvement.  He may not get the union endorsement, but that doesn’t mean he can’t get the votes of teachers. 

Mr. Weaver, how about letting McCain speak to the collected membership and make an educated choice? 

The Nexis of Eduwonk and Eduwonkette

Eduflack AFT, HQT, NEA

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.

The Future of Teacher Incentives?

Eduflack AP, Gates Foundation, NEA, STEM

If teachers go above and beyond the call of duty, and their students’ achievement benefits from it, should those teachers be rewarded?  What if teachers seek out additional training to improve their craft?  What if teachers commit to increasing curricular rigor … and their students demonstrate improvement?  Is there ever a time when superstar teachers should be rewarded?  Does it matter if the incentive comes from the school district’s annual budget or third-party grant funding?

These are questions that school districts have been grappling with for years.  And the issue of teacher incentive pay is only going to grow more and more heated.  Programs like Denver’s ProComp have figured out how to make it work.  Incentive programs in Minnesota, though, decided to simply reward every teacher in the school.  And we’re still waiting to see the impact of the U.S. Department of Education’s Teacher Incentive Fund.

But recent developments in Seattle have Eduflack scratching his head.  The National Math & Science Initiative provided schools in Washington more than $13 million to boost AP math and science courses.  As part of the grant, teachers would be paid for time they spent in training and could be financially rewarded for how well their students performed on AP exams. 

The grant has been scuttled.  Pay for Washington State teachers can only be determined in negotiations between the union and the school district.  NMSI wanted to pay the teachers directly (representing less than a quarter of the full grant).  Since that violates the state CBO, these AP math and science incentives are now history.  The full story is here, with kudos to Fordham’s Flypaper for drawing attention to it — http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/education/2004394554_grants06m.html.

Rules are rules, I get that.  And the unions should play a role in determining how some of this money is used, particularly in terms of professional development and training.  But by denying groups like NMSI an opportunity like this only hurts the teachers and the students they teach.

The Washington Education Association says they can’t allow outside groups to reward teachers.  Why not?  If I own the largest company in the state, and I depend on a steady workforce pool with science and math skills, why can’t I reward those teachers or those schools that are helping to fill my jobs?  If I find out a specific physics or algebra teacher is responsible for my top performers, why can’t I reward her, and even pay her to train other teachers to do it her way?

We continually hear that teachers are underpaid.  We seek out ways to get businesses and outside interests to assume a role, usually financially, in the process.  Is it really so far out of the realm of possibility to provide a teacher incentives outside of the school district budget?  Shouldn’t we be looking for more ideas like this to reward teachers and honor achievement?  Shouldn’t we be looking for innovations to get more good teachers in the classroom and keep them there?  Shouldn’t we be doing more, rather than putting up barriers to protect the status quo?




The “Face” of Teaching

Eduflack AFT, NEA

We all like to believe our work life is our work life, and our private life is our private life.  But despite the best of intentions, we know those lines are blurred.  Employers monitor web traffic to see what employees are viewing.  Too many individuals use their work emails for personal things (including job searches).  Many of us spend far more than the traditional eight hours working, resulting in a blending of work and personal as we try to take advantage of those free moments when we get them.

This is particularly true of teachers.  They have their traditional work day, then typically have hours of grading or prep work during their “personal” time.  They give up evenings for parent-teachers and before- and after-school time for student conferences and tutoring.  Many teachers even make themselves available online to students, offering IM and email addresses for questions or concerns.

Now along comes Facebook.  For those living under a rock, Facebook (and similar sites like MySpace) seem to be designed to purposely blur the lines between public and private life.  Over the last year, Facebook has grown as a tremendous professional networking tool.  Even Eduflack has a Facebook page, with 61 current friends (I know, pathetic, but I am still waiting for fellow U.Va. alum Tina Fey to accept my invitation).  It is an interesting tool to keep up with friends and colleagues, and witness how circles of influence spread and grow.

This morning’s Washington Post has a story on the darker side of Facebook, with a piece on teachers “going wild.”  See the full story here at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/27/AR2008042702213.html?hpid=topnews.

It is a fascinating piece.  The special ed teacher who posts an online bumper sticker using the term “retard.”  Risqué photos of scantily clad educators.  Vulgar words and semi-smutty thoughts.  All the things you would expect from 20-somethings engaging in modern day versions of bull sessions.

These sorts of articles are unfortunate because they tag all teachers with this same judgment brush.  Now, when we hear a teacher is on Facebook or MySpace, we expect the worst.  It could simply be a way to keep in touch with members of the college honor society or the local bible study group, but all we’ll see is “Teachers Gone Wild.”

When Eduflack first started working on Capitol Hill as a wet-behind-the-ears 20-year-old, one of the first things he was cautioned on was elevator conversations.  Never say anything on a Hill elevator.  You never know who is in the box with you.  You never know what they hear.  You never know who they’ll repeat it to.

When I do media training, I always caution my clients about anything they say (or write in an email).  They can say it is private and confidential, but you need to be prepared for it to make the front page of the paper, the lead of the evening news, or the breaking story on a blog or website.

Teachers know this too.  You don’t see a teacher throwing back a six pack at the high school football game.  Too many people are watching.  Too many will talk.  The same is true about web content.  We’ve been googling people for years.  Now, we can learn far more than we want to from individual websites, blogs, twitter accounts, and Facebook pages. 

We have to believe that virtually all teachers show proper discretion and don’t post information on the web that would embarrass them, their families, or their employers.  Heck, we expect this of most professionals, whether they be educators or not.  Is it fair to question the professional judgment of a teacher who lacks the personal judgment to distinguish between public and private information?  Maybe.  Should we monitor the online postings of our children’s teachers?  Probably.  Is this a problem we need to add to the global worry list?  Of course not.

Perhaps newbie teachers just need a little sibling advice from their big brothers and big sisters at the AFT and NEA.  Caution new teachers about blogs and websites and such and how public school critics may be monitoring them.  Remind them that anything they post on their personal life could enter into their professional life.  Ask them if they really want their students and their parents to see those photos of the last beach week or the beer bash at last year’s homecoming.

If those photos and musings are so important to you, keep a scrapbook.  If you wouldn’t post it on your classroom’s bulletin board, it probably shouldn’t be on your Facebook site.

Eight-Dollar Words

Eduflack AYP, NCLB, NEA, Spellings

Secretary Spellings’ big national NCLB policy announcement came yesterday in Minnesota.  And the closely guarded secret was exactly what Alexander Russo and others thought it would be — greater flexibility in determining student achievement and AYP.

We all know it was an important step, and one that was a long time in coming.  The Commonwealth of Virginia is aggressively looking at pulling out of NCLB over the issue, willing to refuse its federal education dollars because of issues involving AYP and ELL students (among others).  For years now, the states have been clamoring for additional flexibility, noting unique demographic and data circumstances in their states.

Such flexibility is not an excuse for avoiding federal requirements, rather it is a recognition that some states have to take different paths to reach proficiency and to get every student achieving.  While we’re all heading to the same ultimate goal, it may take some longer and it may require more work and more innovation from others.

The U.S. Department of Education should be commended for finally offering this lifeline to those states trying to do the right thing when it comes to AYP.  And we likely have groups like CCSSO for helping push it forward.  Now, the spotlight will be placed on which 10 states will gain this newly found flexibility (and from the speakers list yesterday, it seems Minnesota and South Dakota are likely to be in the pool.  And Spellings also singled out Maryland, North Dakota, Louisiana, and Massachusetts.  Here’s hoping that Eduflack’s home state of Virginia makes the cut as well.

But in all of the excitement of a major education policy announcement, I can’t help but notice the need by some to secure a triple-word score on the announcement.  For years now, the talk has been on flexibility.  Yet if we look at all of the headlines from the “official” documents coming out of the Minnesota announcement, we’ve decided to rebrand flexibility as a “differentiated accountability pilot.”

If the goal is to win over the research professors in our schools of education and public policy, then the rebrand is genius.  But if our intent is to demonstrate that ED is listening, and has answered the call for greater flexibility, we are falling a little flat.

Over the past few years, one of the greatest criticisms of this Department of Education (and this Administration) is that it is inflexible.  It is their way or the highway.  And that has been particularly true of NCLB.  It is enforced the way those on the seventh floor intend it to, and there is little (if any) room for interpretation or flexibility.  That is why you have seen so many states (along with ed organizations like AASA, NEA, and the others) grouse about the law and its implementation for the last seven years.

We blunt that criticism by showing we are flexible.  We scream from the rooftops of our ability to recognize and adapt to the needs of our constituencies.  At this stage of the game, we should become virtual Gumbies of public policy, doing whatever it takes to reauthorize the law and recommit to boosting achievement in all students.  These last 10 months are all about legacy, after all.

Instead, we fly such flexibility under the banner of “differentiated accountability pilot.”  After reaching for our latest copy of Webster, we may figure out that ED is demonstrating flexibility.  Or we may just move on, seeing it as just the latest in policyspeak and education gobbledygook.  Worse, we may think there is something unknown and hidden in such a complicated term, fearing there is an enforcement shoe to drop that we don’t see or don’t understand.

Don’t get me wrong.  A differentiated accountability pilot is a good step, particularly if ED selects the right states — those who need the flexibility the most and those who can demonstrate that, with a little help, improved achievement is just around the corner.  But we should look to use common-sense words to describe complex issues. 

We don’t need eight-dollar words when a 50-cent one will do.  The name of the game here is flexibility.  Hopefully, educators and policymakers will overlook our Scrabble-speak and recognize the opportunity and possibility behind the actions.  After all, this is what they’ve been calling for for years.

“America’s Worst Teachers”

Eduflack AFT, HQT, NEA, Teacher Education

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.