Last week, Eduflack wrote about recent efforts by Congress to provide some needed funding for teachers’ jobs by cutting funding for many of the education reforms, like Race to the Top, just enacted or increased last year. Today, I’ve got some additional thoughts on the matter over at edReformer. In this post, I ask whether we really should be sacrificing school improvement for a year of teachers’ salaries, and if we do, who ultimately pays the price?
teachers
A Texas-Sized Workaround?
How do you solve a problem like Rick Perry?
As we all know, last year Congress made $787 billion available to the states, in the name of economic stimulus, to help unstick many of the funding streams that states were stuck on. Chief among these streams is K-12 education, as states were handed buckets of cash to jumpstart education spending, fill funding gaps, and ensure that school budgets did not face measureable cuts in the name of the economic downturn.
Most states put the money to use as intended (though Eduflack still offers that the original intent of ARRA was NOT to spend stimulus dollars on one or two years’ of teachers’ salaries, but I’ve clearly lost that argument). But a few, including Texas, didn’t quite do as they were told. Just as Texas refused to apply for a Race to the Top grant citing its independence and general superiority to every other state in the union, the state’s governor, Rick Perry, chose to violate the strings attached to those original stimulus checks.
When dollars were electronically transferred to the states in 2009, each state had to pledge that, when it came to K-12 education, the money was to boost education funding. States were not to take the federal handout and then cut the state’s own contribution to education, essentially playing a short-term funding shell game. The worry, of course, is if the states cut their share this year, and there is no federal support in the following year, that cut will never be regained.
Of course, Texas got $3 billion last year under the stimulus specifically designated for education. And Perry critics have been quick to note that the Republic of Texas cut the state’s share of education funding, using those federal dollars to make up the difference. So instead of the intended increased investment in public education, Texas held flat, with a real risk that future budgets will decrease, following the state contribution trend.
As expected, Congress is hot under the collar about Texas not following the rules (including the never shy Texas Democratic Congressman Lloyd Doggett). So the U.S. House of Representatives figured out a workaround for their Perry problem. In the supplemental appropriations bill passed by the House last week (the one including new funding for edujobs), Democratic congressmen decided to bypass Governor Perry and offer education dollars directly to Texas school districts (including Doggett’s home city of Austin).
The plan is simple. Texas school districts are eligible to receive more than $800 million to help pay for teachers’ salaries. But there is one catch. Those Independent School Districts seeking such federal assistance need to have the Good Governor certify that the state won’t cut education funding (or at least won’t cut it more than anything else in the upcoming Texas budget). Get the assurance, get the money. Fail to get it, and you can blame your governor for potential teacher layoffs. The full story can be found here in the Houston Chronicle’s Texas on the Potomac blog.
Congress definitely deserves points for creativity. But isn’t such an action just a little bit punitive? Are we slapping Perry’s hand because he didn’t want to play ball on RttT or because he doesn’t want to ride the wave that is common core standards? Are we angered that Texas continues to maintain its K-12 superiority? Are we troubled that the usually effective federal funding carrot wouldn’t work with this Texas mustang?
If the name of the game is indeed student achievement and boosting student academic performance, we can’t lose sight of that. If Congress is going to make edujobs money a federal requirement, like Title I and IDEA, then they just need to do that. But playing games like this (with a Governor who seems to enjoy a good game of chicken) is just bad politics. Lasting school improvement comes when the feds are supporting state and local efforts. It doesn’t come when the feds look to drive a wedge between the LEA and the SEA, making the school district choose between the governor and Congress like a bad TV divorce.
We should be looking for ways to bring Texas into the national ed reform fold, not offering reasons for the Lone Star State to snub DC and hurt its school districts in the process. Threats and ultimatums aren’t quite the way to get Texas to go along. Thousands of good teachers are likely to pay the price, by not getting that federal edujobs money, but tens of thousands of Texas students will truly pay as state- and district-led improvement efforts are slowed or diverted to make up for the lack of federal cash.
This quick little workaround in a quick little supplemental spending bill could have lasting impact.
Gutting School Improvement to Keep the Lights On
Short-term pain relief or long-term improvement? That seems to be the choice that is currently facing Congress, as the House debates how to fund “edujobs,” the federal relief necessary to supposedly save hundreds of thousands of teachers’ jobs in this difficult economy.
Earlier this month, Eduflack wrote on the edu-jobs issue and how Congress could get creative in finding the $23 billion needed to protect classroom jobs. Since then, the edu-jobs issue has gone nowhere. The U.S. Senate, in particular, seems to lack the fortitude to vote for additional spending, even it was to save the jobs of K-12 teachers. So edujobs has just been left hanging, with no resolution in sight.
Until this week. In the U.S. House of Representatives, Appropriations Chairman David Obey has offered plans to move $10 billion in edujobs dollars. The full text of Congress’ spending plans can be found here, on the House Rules Committee website. But since the release of the report language, it begged the question — where is Congress finding the money to offset the dollars being spent on edujobs?
It is a question that Alyson Klein over at EdWeek and its Politics K-12 blog has refused to let go of. Now, Klein has the answers for us. It seems that, to ease the short-term pain of school districts struggling to meet payroll, that Congress is ready to sacrifice some of its commitment to wholesale school improvement efforts.
According to Klein, much of the money needed to offset the spending for edujobs comes from cuts to existing school improvement efforts. Chairman Obey and company are planning on pulling $500 million from Race to the Top, $200 million from the Teacher Incentive Fund, and another $100 million from innovation and improvement (which she reads as charter school moneys) to help fund the $800 million in budget offsets Democrats have promised.
In response, Rep. John Kline (MN), the top Republican on the House Education and Labor Committee referred to the move as exploitation, and said Dems were taking the first chance to “discard education reform.”
So it begs an important question — is the short-term gain worth the long-term pain? Is one year of supporting teachers’ salaries worth slashing one-eighth of the RttT pool? Is it worth eliminating the $200 million increase that the stimulus bill originally gave to TIF? And is it worth slashing charter dollars after we demanded that states change their charter laws and promote the establishment of more charter schools?
RttT, TIF, and innovation dollars are all long-term investments. Cutting $500 million from Race, for instance, likely means at least three or four states that won’t be able to participate in the Phase Two program. Those mid-sized states that could have taken a Race and done some real good with it over the next few years will now lose out. All to cover salaries for the coming school year (and one coming year only).
What makes such a move dangerous is that this is stopgap; it isn’t a solution. What happens next year when we need another $10 or $15 billion to help with teachers’ salaries? And more importantly, what happens with plans to add new phases to RttT or i3? Once these cuts to education reform efforts are made, it becomes near impossible to restore them. Supporting teacher pay becomes a long-term obligation, with little opportunity in the near term to add new programs or expand competitive grant programs.
Without question, it is important that our school districts figure out ways to pay their workforces, both this year and the years to come. But should that maintenance mean sacrificing real efforts to improve our schools and their outcomes? Do we really want to get into a position where we are choosing between paying teachers and improving student test scores? And do we really want the federal government to become more and more responsible for paying salaries in our localities?
Social Media Failure in Our School Districts
By now, we’ve all heard the concerns about social media in the K-12 setting. The fears of teachers revealing their personal lives of Facebook. The worry of what can be accessed and posted on YouTube, revealing the good, bad, and ugly of the 21st century classroom. Even ongoing tweets about both policy and practice in the classroom or the central office. The concern has grown so significant that many school districts have policies banning the use of social media, even erecting firewalls to ban access to sites like Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter with LEA computers or through LEA-based Internet connections.
Last month, Eduflack wrote on edreformer.com about current disintermediation efforts. The concept is a simple one. Rather than work exclusively through the traditional media, hoping they can offer a complete and balanced story, more and more folks are doing the storytelling themselves. Using blogs, Facebook, YouTube, and the like, they cut out the media “middle man” and get the story directly to those stakeholders who need it most. The Obama Administration has been particularly adept at the practice, using the powers of the Internet and social media to build lasting dialogues on the issues of the day.
This is a practice also pursued by the good folks over at the U.S. Department of Education, where, among other things, they have their own usedgov YouTube channel. To date, there are 139 videos up there. Some are of events that EdSec Arne Duncan and his staff participate in. Others are specific efforts to deliver the ED message directly to key stakeholder audiences.
About three weeks ago, ED offered up a video from Duncan for school principals. In the five-minute piece, Duncan lays out the Administration’s education priorities, funding commitments for programs like Title I and IDEA, and plans for improving the federal commitment to public education (particularly through ESEA). It is just Duncan in front of a blue curtain and US flag and the ED learning tree seal, but it is effective. A good video, with both good intent and a good message. And it also gives a strong pat on the back to those school leaders who are fighting the good fight each and every school day.
By now, we all know that ED has been investing resources to ensure that school principals are part of the ESEA reauthorization discussion and have bought into school improvement efforts like i3. We’ve seen teacher quality expanded to include principals. And we’ve seen school leaders better involved in discussions than we seen in years past. According to the Digest of Education Statistics 2008, there were 98,793 K-12 public schools in the United States. We assume most of these schools have principals leading them. So figuring out how to engage these nearly 100,000 school leaders on issues of policy and improvement is a good thing.
Yet as of this morning, there have only been 143 views of the video. In three weeks, only 143 people have watched the piece (and I assume some of them are like Eduflack, not principals, the intended audience). Nearly 100,000 school leaders, yet only 143 visits. Why?
One primary reason, it appears, is our school districts’ fear of social media. ED is using YouTube to distribute the video. Most school districts ban YouTube, fearing access to unauthorized materials and a general waste of instructional time. So even if ED puts all of the promotional efforts at its disposal behind the release of this video (and others like it) the intended audiences simply can’t access it. Classroom teachers can’t get to the usedgov YouTube channel Principals can’t peruse it. Even superintendents and central office personnel can’t get in. (Eduflack first heard about this video from educators in Houston who wanted to view the video, but were denied. Since then, it seems the ban is a pretty standard practice.)
We ask our schools to prepare students for the rigors and opportunties of a 21st century world, yet we are asking them to teach with access to only the most basic of 19th century tools? We continue to ask a technologically adept student population (for the most part) to unplug when they get to the schoolhouse doors, and forget how to access an unending wealth of information? We ask teachers to improve the quality and result of their teaching, yet deny them the ability to supplement instruction through shared technologies and content that are FREE to all?
Years ago, when the Edu-mom used to teach 10th grade English, she would roll out an old videotape of the Simpsons to help teach Edgar Allen Poe’s The Raven. It was nothing special, just Bart Simpson reciting the poem, word for word, with the requisite Homer and company as backdrop. But it helped make the poem more relevant for the students. It took it beyond the printed words in the textbook and brought it to life. (And the Simpsons then subsequently did the same with Hamlet, the Iliad, and other classics that should be covered in an English class in a way that even the most disinterested student would pay attention.)
ED should be complimented for offering up information distribution channels like YouTube and delivering information directly to the stakeholder audiences who need it the most. (Though it is important to note that ED’s own firewalls prevent most employees from accessing sites like Facebook or many education policy blogs.) The real failure here is on the school districts. Despite the fears of accessing unauthorized materials or wasting classroom time and resources on social media, these uniform bans are only handicapping educators and shortchanging students.
We should be encouraging intellectual exploration and finding new ways to engage new technologies and medias to make learning more interactive, more relevant, and more effective. We should be expanding educators’ access to the resources they need, not restricting them. If we are really focused on 21st century learning, we need to find ways to embrace and maximize 21st century tools. Now’s the time to embrace, not run away in fear.
A Work-Around for Edu-Jobs?
Edu-jobs. For the past month or so, we have been hearing how our K-12 public school systems need $23 billion in emergency funding from the federal government in order to keep teachers across the nation in jobs this fall. EdSec Arne Duncan has made passioned pleas on Capitol Hill for such funding. The teachers unions have stood behind Duncan’s request in a way far stronger than they have ever supported the EdSec. And House leaders like Education and Labor Committee Chairman George Miller (CA) and Appropriations Chairman David Obey (WI) have echoed the calls and urged their fellow leaders on the Hill to ask, “what about the teachers?”
To date, though, Congress has resisted. Many senators, wary of spending more and more money, have refused to move the issue forward. They even cite the absence of edu-jobs from President Obama’s request for emergency funding from Congress. Despite the best of intentions, right now, it seems like efforts to fund edu-jobs aren’t going anywhere.
It all has Eduflack thinking. In February of 2009, the U.S. Congress passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, a $787 billion spending bill designed to help states and localities IMMEDIATELY deal with the budget shortfalls and shrinking coffers just about everyone was facing. By spring, we saw roadside signs erected declaring that this public works project or these jobs were funded courtesy of ARRA. Our K-12 schools got a big chunk of that money as well, with ARRA funding Race to the Top, i3, and big boosts to Title I and IDEA funding just for starters.
We’ve also heard how a great deal of the education ARRA funds went back to the school districts to pay for salaries. Despite the initial guidance that stimulus dollars were meant to be one-time injections, and were not designed to pay for long-term obligations (like teachers’ salaries) that would have to be funded well after all the ARRA money was spent, we still used the stimulus for teachers’ salaries. Just last month, one of President Obama’s leading economic advisors declared ARRA had saved 400,000 educator jobs across the country (while saying that one out of every 15 teachers could now be laid off without the additional $23 billion).
Curiosity has gotten the better of Eduflack. We committed $787 billion to economic stimulus that was needed as soon as possible. The funds were made available in February of 2009. It is now June 2010. The nearly $800 billion is all supposed to be spent by September of this year. According to the Recovery website, of that $787 billion that was so desperately needed, $406 billion has actually been paid out. There is still $381 billion still sitting in the kitty.
In California, the state seen as having the most dire current economic position (and the most difficulty paying teachers), only $8.8 billion of the nearly $22 billion promised to the Golden State has been dispersed. In New York, they’ve gotten $2.5 billion of their $12 billion. Illinois has taken in $3.7 billion of its $8.1 billion. Georgia’s taken in $2 billion of its $5.4 billion. Oregon’s taken in just $809 million of its $2.5 billion. And even the cash-strapped Ohio has only tapped $1.7 billion of its available $7.6 billion.
So it begs the question, why don’t we just reallocate some of the committed $787 billion in stimulus money to pay for the $23 billion in edu-jobs? The money was designed to help states and localities save jobs. Check. Funds have already been used to save teachers’ jobs (those 400K that Christina Romer touts). Check. There is plenty of money that still hasn’t been spent. Check. And we need to spend this soon. Seems like a win-win for all involved. And one could even win over the reformer crowd (which has been concerned that edu-jobs funding will simply perpetuate the notion of last hired, first fired and prize tenure over effective teaching). Tie the dollars to the priorities in ARRA, using RttT language to ensure that new edu-jobs spending is aligned with teacher and principal quality provisions being moved through Race.
A simplistic idea? Perhaps. But new federal funding for teachers’ jobs isn’t going anywhere. If the goal is to protect those educators and avoid laying off the “one in 15,” then why not ask Congress to reallocate the funding they’ve already spent? At this point, it is just like asking if we can use our allowance to buy baseball cards instead of bubble gum. The money’s already left Congress’ wallet.
“The Incredibly Shrinking Education Commissioner”
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.
So, You Say It’s Not a Revolution
It is now official. Yesterday afternoon, the Washington (DC) Teachers Union revealed the vote on DCPS Chancellor Michelle Rhee’s ambitious plan to move toward merit pay for all teachers in the nation’s capital. While some suspected the vote would be close (with new teachers voting yes and the many veteran teachers having doubts), it wasn’t close at all. The new contract was ratified 1,412 to 425, giving the Rhee agenda a nearly 4:1 win.
The Washington Post’s Bill Turque offers us the full story here.
We’ve come a long way from when Rhee first offered up the plan back in 2007. When the DCPS Chancellor first arrived in Washington nearly three years ago, she was brimming with ideas and innovations. One of them was merit pay, offering huge incentives to teachers who could boost student achievement (as Rhee says she did as a Teach for America teacher in Baltimore two decades ago). At the time, few school districts had been able to truly do merit pay well. In fact, Denver’s ProComp program probably stood as the only true exemplar in the field.
Rhee was offering five-figure bonuses to teachers in a district that was already perceived as paying its teachers, particularly its veterans, extremely well. To get to her end game, Rhee enlisted the help of the philanthropic community, which pledged tens of millions of dollars to make this all happen.
Along the way, there were missteps. A Time magazine cover story with a broom. Significant teacher layoffs in the name of budget, then under the banner of misconduct. Concerns of the financial stability of the promise of such incentives. And, of course, the worry of what happens to all of that outside support should Rhee (or the mayor) move on. (And Eduflack is thinking, perhaps, of Rhee going to the Gates Foundation to do nationally what she has just done in the District of Columbia, but that’s just me thinking it fits nicely with Gates’ human capital push and the work currently being done at Gates by John Deasy.)
What was particularly telling about the ratification was the sentiment offered up by Kurt Schmoke, the former Baltimore mayor and the consigliere brought in to make peace between Rhee and WTU. As reported by Turque, in regard to merit pay, Schmoke said, “The ideas have gained currency at the national level … What was seen as bold is now reform, not revolution.”
It is a very interesting thought, and one the entire education community should reflect on. Just a few years ago, what Rhee proposed was seen as true revolution by most, and a breaking of an urban teachers union by quite a few. Since then, we’ve seen Houston beat DC to the punch on such a plan (though Houston doesn’t have to deal with unions the way DC does). We’ve seen threats of massive teacher layoffs and a growing feeling that last hired, first fired is no way to run school systems looking to boost student achievement. And we’ve now seen 40 or so states pledge to adopt ambitous teacher quality efforts in pursuit of the $4 billion Race to the Top grail. One can now argue that the DC teacher deal is no longer revolution, and may no longer even be reform. It is just keeping up with the Joneses.
Don’t believe Eduflack? Take a look at the public statements offered yesterday. Rhee, who should be declaring victory from every rooftop in the District, offered a very muted statement here. (And based on past experience, this was the right approach. Rhee should let others declare her victory for her.) AFT President Randi Weingarten, as to be expected, praised DC teachers here for putting their students first. And, interestingly, WTU still does not have a statement posted on its website, with interested readers being directed to last month’s missives on the “tentative” contract. This was far from a bold pronouncement of revolutionizing the education sector. In many ways, it read like DCPS has changed its chalk provider.
The real celebration (or protestation) will come next year, as teachers start feeling the 21 percent pay increases and start anticipating those $20,000 to $30,000 performance pay bonuses. The real fun is now in seeing if other urban school districts (particularly those in AFT cities) decide to “borrow” from the DC model and enact similar plans, or if we wait a few years to see if the DC approach works.
Looking at the history of real reform and improvement in the education sector, DC is likely to be extremely lonely in this pool for a bit.
Come Together …
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 …
Great Teachers, New Contracts, and Incentives, Oh My!
After a few days, the dust is finally settling on the supposed deal between Michelle Rhee and the teachers’ union in Washington, DC. By now, we’ve all heard the Cliff Notes version — significantly increased teacher pay, performance bonuses, elimination of full protection of tenured teachers’ jobs from budget cuts, huge financial assistance from national philanthropies.
A year ago, we thought the deal was dead as a doornail. Earlier this week, a tentative agreement was reached (the members of the DC union still have to vote. As always, Bill Turque of The Washington Post has terrific coverage of the issue, starting with the announcement story from earlier this week here and a very interesting story this AM about how former Baltimore Mayor Kurt Schmoke served as consigliere to bring this final deal over the finish line.
Whether intentional or not, the trio of chairs for the Education Equality Project — NYC Schools Chancellor Joel Klein, UNCF President/CEO Michael Lomax, and NCLR President/CEO Janet Murguia — weigh in on the general topic this morning’s Washington Post in a strongly worded commentary on the need for “great teachers” in historically disadvantaged schools.
The EEP trio offers up a three-point plan on great teachers and improved student outcomes:
* Attract teachers who performed well in college
* Create systems that reward excellence (including making it “easier to remove teachers who are shown to be ineffective”)
* Do more to attract teachers to high-needs students, schools, and subject areas (including ELL and special education)
Obviously, this is not the first time we have heard these tenets from EEP, but today’s treatise may be the clearest and most direct explanation of the EEP platform. It also becomes clear, when you look at the reports of the DCPS teacher deal, that Rhee was calling plays directly from the EEP playbook (or would that be from Chancellor Klein’s), seeking to model after some of the more successful policy and rhetoric on the issue of teacher quality and the incentivization of effective teaching.
It is also incredibly difficult to quibble with these three points. Who is opposed to attracting successful students into the teaching profession? Who doesn’t believe we should reward excellence, regardless of field? And who doesn’t see the need to get our best teachers in the areas that need them the most, including historically disadvantaged schools and subject areas that have long been neglected.
But the devil remains in the details. How do we sustain — over the long term — incentives for teachers, knowing that philanthropic and government support for teacher quality efforts may wane in a year or five? When the outside support dries up, are our states and school systems positioned, financially, to continue to support those systems that are rewarding excellence?
How do we transfer that recognized excellence to the schools, classes, and students that need them the most? For decades, many have talked about National Board Certification and how National Board Certified Teachers (NBCTs) were the best of the best. Through federal dollars and private supports, NBCTs were financially incentivized to seek seek certification and stand as an NBCT back in their schools. But there is still much disagreement on the impact of NBCTs, both as to whether they increase student performance AFTER teachers have gone through the certification process and if NBCTs are more or less likely to relocate to the schools that may need them the most.
But the real head scratcher is the issue of attracting teachers who performed well in college. Based on the rhetoric, we are clearly looking at the Teach for America model, believing that academic superstars will make the best K-12 teachers. EEP even offers up the urban legend that most teachers come from the bottom third of college graduates (Eduflack has heard the statement time and again, but has yet to see the research that actually proves it).
Without question, we need smart teachers in our classrooms, particularly in those classes that have been struggling for far too long. But good teaching requires both book smarts and “street” smarts. Good teaching requires educators who know the subject matter (their math, science, history, or English) but also know the pedagogy behind it. Good teaching requires educators who can pivot off the “script” when faced with a challenging student or a challenging classroom. Good teaching requires educators who understand what good teaching is, moving beyond the content knowledge and making those connections between teacher and student that can last a lifetime. Such qualities cannot necessarily be taught through a textbook, an online course, or a pedagological bootcamp. But they are qualities that are non-negotiable when it comes to good teaching.
As DCPS heads down the strongest path to date on teacher quality and teacher incentivization, and as EEP and others continue to spotlight the need to recruit and reward great teachers, we can’t lose sight of what comprises great teaching. Test scores are, and always should be, an important part of how we identify effective instruction. But there are other elements — both inputs and outcomes — that need to be factored in as well.
The EEP trio is absolutely right, schools and teachers are the differentiators between a good education and a lousy one. And they couldn’t be more right when they say:
Different teachers get very different results with similar students. So as reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act is considered, we should look closely at those whom we attract and retain to teach, with regard to their quality and to ensuring that they are distributed equally across our school districts. If we can do those things, we could at least make Detroit students perform like those in Boston, and make Boston students do a lot better.
Different teachers do get different results with similar students. Our goal should be identifying why those teachers in Boston are doing a better job than those in other cities. And then we need to replicate, replicate, replicate both the inputs and the outcomes. It isn’t just about how Boston attracts those teachers, it is about the training and support those teachers receive.
Standing and Delivering
Yesterday, the education community received some sad news out of Los Angeles. Jaime Escalante, the famed calculus teacher depicted in the 1988 movie “Stand and Deliver,” passed away.
Eduflack assumes that just about everyone in education policy has seen this movie, and knows the story of what “Kimo” was able to do for the students of Garfield High School. The tale is actually quite remarkable, and is incredibly told in WaPo’s Jay Mathews book, “Escalante: The Best Teacher in America.”
Escalante’s story is about more than just getting a group of students, previously given up on by just about every corner of public education, to succeed on one of the hardest tests (AP Calculus) that high school student can take. In many ways, Escalante embodies many of the issues we face today. He was a mid-career transition teacher, giving up a corporate career to follow his passion for teaching. He demonstrated that it is possible to close the achievement gap, and it is possible by pushing students harder and accepting no excuses. The cinematic version of his tale forced many to better understand the issues of cheating on standardized exams and what sends up red flags. And Escalante was a textbook example of what is possible with an effective, passionate, and skilled teacher leading a classroom.
The Los Angeles Times has the full story here.
For more than two decades, many have said we need more Jaime Escalantes in our classrooms. Eduflack couldn’t agree more.
Eduflack By Patrick R. Riccards 