Archive for the ‘school reform’ Category

Vouchers for All

Wednesday, June 30th, 2010

As soon as someone uses the phrase “school choice” a debate ensues.  Most often, the words are spoken when the controversy concerns charter schools and vouchers.

Colorado public elementary school

Colorado public elementary school

The National Education Association (NEA) as well as the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) have written passionate criticism of vouchers.  A group called School Choices founded by Andrew J. Coulson defends them.  A number of educators defend them, including Charles Murray from the American Enterprise Institute in a New York Times article on May 5, 2010, “Why Charter Schools Fail the Test.”  It’s a play on words as studies have shown that the majority of charter schools do no better on state tests than traditional public schools, but in his thesis there are many other reasons why charter schools and vouchers are the best “school choice.”

Vouchers have been legislated in a number of Midwest school districts and famously in Washington, D.C.  However, the legislation permitting a 5 year field test of vouchers for D.C. school children was not reauthorized by Congress in 2009.  Only students already in school receive vouchers until they graduate and no new vouchers will be paid for with federal monies.

Why is it such a ‘hot’ issue?

Most people in the education world define the ’school voucher,’ (AKA ‘education voucher,’ or ’scholarship’) as “a certificate from the government that a parent can apply to tuition at a private school.” (see Wikipedia)  At first the vouchers were not valid for a parochial school because of the Constitution’s separation of church and state.  Of course, the “school choice” advocates did not like that exception.  Now the rules for use of vouchers vary.  In states like Wisconsin the courts allowed vouchers to be used for parochial school fees.

The theory is that families paying for a private school also pay taxes to support public school systems.  Those families look at vouchers as a way to offset their costs.  On the other hand, opponents, especially teacher’s unions, say vouchers undermine the public school system because taxes for vouchers are like paying subsidies to private schools.

What else has happened?

In the 1960’s, vouchers were valued in the South as a way to continue segregation.  Only white children obtained them to use at one of the many private schools that popped up at the time.  One voucher claim is that these certificates help low-performing students move to a school that isn’t failing.  A number of studies don’t confirm that proposition.

All of these policies were based on economist Milton Friedman’s free market theories that built a following especially in the 60’s.  He thought competition between private or charter schools (since 1992) and public schools would improve every school’s academics and cost efficiency.  Friedman’s line “the freedom of private enterprises to experiment” is music to the ears of those who love the business model for schools.  In fact, many school choice proponents emphasize the competitive market ideal that vouchers would foster in every feature of schools in the United States, although most private and parochial schools aren’t set up as businesses.

NEA and other groups make a case that privatizing schools allows for even further inconsistency in what is taught and learned.  They advocate consistent standards for students.  Also, the unions see further economic, racial, ethnic, and religious divides in the country if some students get vouchers and others don’t.  NEA and ADL both discuss the elitist strategy of subsidizing private school tuition rather than using every penny available to improve education for low-income students.

It is alarming how the issue of providing ways to get into a school other than public school is gaining traction.  In California, recent legislation altered the education code so that it fits with federal guidelines designed to provide help to improve schools.  The bills authorized a raise on the cap for school charters.  In addition, SBX5 4 allows students to move into another school if the school they attend is persistently poor-performing.  Next, someone in the legislature will introduce a bill to provide actual vouchers, defeated once before, but one never knows.

Spin the Arrow-Which Kind of School?

Wednesday, June 23rd, 2010

A lot has come to light about charter schools since the previous posts (9/9/09, 12/9/09, 1/29/10), none of which has made the choice clearer.  In fact, each school, whether public, private, charter, or parochial, depends on what the parent and student like.

Does the student want the school closest to home?  Does the parent want religion included in the curriculum?  Is the parent anxious about lack of discipline at the local school?  Does the student want to go where his friends are going?  Is some special program, like theatre arts or music, a drawing card at the school?

The list of choice questions goes on and on.

Note, however, that test scores have not been mentioned yet.  Except for the parents of high-achieving students that is not the first priority. Or parents who want high scores to improve the equity of their home.

But to educators, concerned about the lowest-performing students in poor inner city or isolated rural schools, student achievement on tests is the highest priority.  And the prognosis is mixed about the best model to improve learning in such schools.

Many in the education world say that those failing schools should be closed and reopened as charter schools which might experiment with curriculum and employment rules since most are not organized with teacher’s unions on hand.  However, studies keep appearing in the news with decidedly mixed results as to strong improvement in existing charter schools vs. local public schools.

At the first of May an evaluation by the School Choice Demonstration Project, comparing students in charter and public schools in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, found comparable performance, refuting one of the “pulls” of charter schools–that small schools allow more help to students and so better scores on state tests.

In April a charter school working with very low-performing children and run as a demonstration project by Stanford University had its charter rescinded by the public school district in which the school site was located.  The university staff was surprised, but the Ravenswood School Board, willing to try any model to improve student achievement, wasn’t impressed by the analysis of the test statistics and certainly didn’t like the scores.  The outcome was a ‘no’ vote with a condition to come back with another plan and maybe the New School would be funded once more.

A number of charter schools on both coasts have been caught with their hands in the funding pot or audited for finagling the dollar numbers or for pocketing money to finance trips that just didn’t go with the purpose of a school.  Is that what happens when the school is animated by business models to provide incentives?  The U.S. Department of Education has stated concern with the number of charter school fraud issues that have come to its attention.

Another problem comes up when a group of knowledgeable parents gets together to write up a charter proposal and insists on finding a way to get the public school district to find a site for the school and to provide the instructional funds per pupil.  If, as in Los Angeles, the parents are from a neighborhood with a failing school, the school board may be sympathetic.  If it is being set up in a high-achieving school district without a lot of extra money to spread around, the process can be combative, not collaborative.

This blog post is being written in California, filled with 6.3 million students, almost 1000 school districts, 10,000 public schools, and 715 charter schools (elementary to high school).  Last month 188 California schools, mostly middle and high schools, were labeled persistently low-performing-including the New School mentioned above that had its charter rescinded.

If each of those schools were closed and reopened as charter schools, and every student chose those schools thinking change would happen, they would be surprised.  It would still take relentless effort before the students showed consistent improvement in their reading and math abilities, science and social science knowledge base.  KIPP (a for-profit charter system) regional leaders have already declined to take on the challenge.

Most students and parents won’t flee to another town or to a private or parochial school.  Looks like those persistently low-performing schools will have to meet with their school communities and find their own model to transform their school.

TAP for TIF

Wednesday, June 9th, 2010

June 1, 2010, states sent in their second round Race to the Top applications.  However, the U.S. Department of Education’s Teacher Incentive Fund (TIF) may be seen as the great idea to help states and school districts solve the dilemma of compensating all personnel fairly, evaluating performance objectively, and using bonuses to motivate strong employees to do their best.

public elemenatary school in Colorado

public elemenatary school in Colorado

Too bad the research for TIF guidelines didn’t use (as yet) Scholastic’s Primary Sources: America’s Teachers on America’s Schools. The March 3, 2010, survey clearly noted that teachers do not do a good job because they may get bonuses.  As long as the pay is fair and adequate, they are more interested in collaboration for student success, good relations with the school community, clear standards common across the states, and strong support from the school administrators, school board, and superintendent.

Even so, school districts and states are going to try for TIF.  With deficit school budgets, how else are school districts going to keep high-quality teachers needed to innovate to reach today’s students (a strong consideration in the Scholastic survey)?  In fact, how are the schools going to establish innovative evaluations which “accurately measure teacher performance” unless they receive a grant to make it happen?

TIF guidelines are premised on the concept that tenure following a “steps and levels” salary schedule and ‘time in the system’ priority for transfer options leads to implicit (if not obvious) incentives for teachers and administrators to move to the least challenging schools.  Thus, low-performing schools are left with the newest or those least willing to make change of any kind.

Five core elements to receive a TIF grant are

1) A plan that communicates clearly what a “performance based compensation system” (PBCS) would look like.  One component that will take determined leadership to design.

2) The entire school community, including unions, must come to the table.

3) Rigorous, transparent, fair evaluation procedures that include, but are not limited to, student achievement (i.e. tests) and multiple observations in the classroom.

4) Data management and analysis.

5) Professional development to improve teaching strategies and time to analyze data.

As of April 2009 seven schools have implemented TIF with TAP, the Teacher Advancement Program designed under the auspices of the Milken Family Foundation in Santa Monica, CA.  The model has been promoted since 2000 by Lowell Milken, lawyer and philanthropist, with strong business connections which are seen the moment one reads the philosophy and assumptions of the model.

Now that schools, districts, states are looking for ways to change the tenure-evaluation-compensation design, TAP is the go-to model.  Most districts, of course, don’t have time or money to spend to plan a completely new paradigm.

The website says TAP provides on-the-job teacher training, career advancement, instructionally focused accountability, and performance-based compensation.  It says that performance award programs are successful when integrated with strong teacher leadership, professional development, and reliable analysis of student achievement-three of the factors that teachers in the Scholastic survey wanted.

Actually, when one finds a description of the process at a school using TAP, it looks very similar to many turn-around models designed to improve student achievement by making the most of teacher preparation, coaching, and collaboration on data analysis.

The big difference is the focus on bonus pay as the incentive to get teachers to take on a model to turn around a high-need school.  And, so far, studies don’t address bonus pay as a determining factor for good schools.  Finally, the website for TAP doesn’t address the problem of tenure, a negotiating factor with unions.

Standards We Can Believe In

Wednesday, May 26th, 2010

The entire education world stands behind consistent core content standards to use as benchmarks for student evaluation.  But, what about teacher evaluation?

another California elementary school

another California elementary school

At this moment most school districts in the country are frozen by the disarray in state budgets and taxpayer angst, preferring to blame teachers when students aren’t doing well just as the oil execs pointed fingers at everyone but themselves for the latest catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico.

So with the uncontained controversy over funds for schools-think about it, we’re talking about money to make sure students are educated.  What would it be like to live in the countries where children don’t go to school at all, aren’t educated, struggle through life with little to sustain them much less lift themselves out of their hard scrabble existence?

Here in the U.S. the latest way we value our students is to not approve school district budgets, vote not to pass parcel taxes, exact wage freezes and higher insurance premium concessions from teachers, and require furlough days–to name a few of the cutback options pervading not only urban districts but upscale suburban districts also.

On top of such turmoil, state legislatures are passing new education bills that feel to teachers like another slap.  Why?  Before common core standards for students are put in place, and no matter what the states say, teachers are being evaluated by one tool–analyzing the improvement in test scores for the teacher’s students.  For many states improvement in this area would mean SPENDING funds and time to make those test scores valid and available.

Here it is: the cart before the horse.

This is how academic standards for student achievement should affect the teacher evaluation goal.  Follow this path: consistent standards and benchmarks, preferably throughout regions of the country if not nationwide; then tests that actually assess those standards and for which proficiency is equivalent region-wide; after test analysis, provisions made for each school to support those students who need intervention; next yearly evaluation, non-threatening, designed collaboratively with teachers in a school, test scores being one aspect; yearly evaluation of the school as a whole and of the district as a whole, including the superintendent and school board; money set aside to provide professional development for aspects of academic achievement not met by teacher, principal, school, and district.  REPEAT EACH YEAR.

This process is not on the agenda.  Instead, teacher tenure, anathema for most lay people, drives the process, especially for those fixated on turning schools into businesses, which they aren’t and won’t be even if run for profit.  Why would anyone wish to make a profit on the backs of little kids just doing what their parents want and the state requires?

The tenure aspect of teacher evaluation ought to be seen as an outcome of consistent, agreed upon standards and benchmarks for student achievement.  The teacher’s standards must be clear, unequivocal, based on objective statements of good teaching.

In addition, an agreed upon framework is needed for how the school community works together to meet student achievement goals.  If one teacher can’t or won’t support that goal, then steps to lay off the teacher make sense.

If you are interested in details of national student core standards, part of the federal Common Core State Standards Initiative to make assessment and proficiency consistent and achievable across the country, you can go to the National Governor’s Association or the Council of Chief State School Officers.

Both groups have overseen the development of and recently set out a draft of national core standards K-12 from which the process outlined above would lead to results that teachers may feel adequate for successful evaluation.  Don’t forget the principal and school district administrators must be evaluated also.

You can go directly to look at the core standards and take a survey.  Do so.

When At First You Don’t Succeed

Wednesday, April 7th, 2010

The first winners in the Race to the Top competition were two small states: Delaware and Tennessee.  Good for them.

Being small compared to say California, they managed to get all school districts and teacher’s unions on board.  Not only that, it seems the two states wrote decent, clear proposals.

Too bad the other states didn’t take their lumps without fussing and excusing themselves, without criticizing the judges and scores on the proposals as if they were unfairly disqualified.

This is like any competition: the grant writers, state departments of education, and state legislatures knew the rules of the game.  Some states refused to take the cap off the number of charter schools.  Some states couldn’t persuade all school districts to collaborate.  Some states couldn’t manage to change their education laws to allow reform of teacher evaluation combined with state testing.

For some states-like California-the depths of fiscal collapse is the real reason that the state didn’t win a prize.  Like many contestants, the state needed the money to compensate for its own deficit and now complains because of a cap on the next set of awards.  California, for instance, asked for $1 billion in the first round and has found out it can only max out at $700 million if it wins in the second round of application.

Now, now, swallow your pride and dig in.  That’s what students are told to do.

For one, rewrite the grant to allow small rural schools and big urban districts to reform the issues that affect each individually.  If the school is persistently low-performing (whether large or small), there are at least two ways to restructure, not counting change to a charter, the least best of the ways to reorganize for most schools.  An adept grant writer could show how a school might combine parts of all the possible models; the point is to design a reform model and stick to it along with improvements as needed over time.

The most difficult issue to resolve and the one that held up many proposals is linking teacher evaluation and state testing.  There are those who can’t imagine how to design a teacher evaluation that is fair and accounts for the variables that lead to discrepant test results.  How can the two be combined?

Above all content standards must be agreed upon and assessments must be improved.  Common content standards are being revised right now.  A multiple choice test doesn’t assess all the learning skills a student needs.  Not all teachers are working in a grade or subject that the current state test assesses.

Next, systems must be set up to provide a community of accountability in a public school.  For example, yearly a principal with a formal evaluation rates plans to reach the many groups of student abilities in the class and analyzes assessments for improved student growth. Also observers come into the classroom frequently, using a checklist of items that teachers collaborate on to design a successful classroom.  Those are the techniques to observe.  Feedback is provided immediately, either from the check list or by conference and an ‘action plan’ is developed to help the teacher with any strategies that might improve class work.

Of course, this kind of reform needs financial resources to include administrators to take on school operations and observers who agree to help with this type of accountability, leaving the principal to attend to the learning in the school.  Please note that the district’s school board must focus on academic achievement for each school, high as well as low-achieving.

It will not do to leave the teachers to take on all of the above and then be handled roughly if achievement doesn’t immediately improve.  This blog has long maintained the relentless, consistent nature of reform for an entire school community.

So the moral for state is “try, try again.”