Posts Tagged ‘accountability’

Reduce Deficits, Eliminate NWP?

Wednesday, March 9th, 2011

In the fervor to reduce the United States deficit solely by spending cuts, Congress and state legislature members are, from a teacher’s point of view, kicking every dime down the drain, come what may.

What will come is a further downturn in education opportunity for public school children. For instance, vouchers take money from public schools to fund private schools-under the morally righteous statement that the legislation, as in Indiana, will provide a chance for low-performing students to improve their achievement by attending a private school. There are many ways to turn around the success of students in urban settings. The most obvious is for legislators to insist on reform in the public school, not buy off desperate parents and students.

Such an argument for good reform rather than reckless spending cuts was offered earlier this week at BostonTech, a school visited by President Obama and Melinda Gates of the Gates Foundation.

To reform low-performing schools, the legislation to cut national funding support for educational programs that actually work doesn’t make sense. Caroline Griswold writing a Letter to the Editor in the San Francisco Chronicle of March 5, 2011, noted the most egregious assault: cutting all support to the National Writing Project, a teacher designed and implemented program to improve instruction for the most difficult of all language arts subjects-written composition. All students, whether interested in science, math, English, history, or vocational arts, do better with written language skills.

Elimination of funding “jeopardizes a nationwide network of 70,000 teachers who deliver localized, high-quality professional development to other educators across the country in all states, across subjects and grades,” states NWP executive director Sharon J. Washington.  All told, 200 sites established at universities and colleges in fifty states, Washington, D.C., Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and international locations provide workshops using a model developed at the University of California at Berkeley in 1973 by high school English teacher extraordinaire, Jim Gray.

In addition, the National Writing Project is accountable for its results. In fact, nine research studies in five states have confirmed significant gains for students whose teachers have participated in NWP programs.

A model designed by teachers to teach teachers that holds itself accountable is the goal that will help improve public and private school education. Legislators should be slapping high fives over its success. Where’s the logic in stripping NWP of funding?

Same goes for Reading Is Fundamental (RIF) that offers books and models for parents to improve literacy for students. National funding is being dumped, in spite of the statistic that nearly two-thirds of low-income families in the U.S. own no books.

Fortunately, RIF is supported by corporations, foundations, community organizations, and thousands of individuals. The only hope for RIF is continued generosity. With dismal education budgets, Congress’ desire to cut NWP funds overwhelms its proven quality. Maybe the Gates Foundation will take up the cause.

Why slash funds from programs that work, all to satisfy citizens who think they are paying too much tax, but want to reduce the deficit? What’s the problem for the one-thousandth of citizens who have most of the money in this country and do not pay anywhere near the tax rate levied on the rest of us?

More on Tenure - Good riddance? Save Money?

Wednesday, February 9th, 2011

Two weeks ago a number of newly-elected governors joined a few die-hard education officials in another tirade about teacher tenure. The gist of the argument states that education improves when teachers unions give up tenure.

Even after labor’s one hundred years of bargaining to gain fair pay, safe working conditions, health and pension benefits, and the right to work without arbitrary dismissal, the easy thing to say when revenue dries up is unionized teachers have too much.

Anecdotes abound about highly paid teachers who are past their days of productive teaching. Classes full of students with low scores on state tests are the fault of those teachers. If they were gone, student scores would go up, schools would improve, and districts would not need so much to balance the budget. That’s what the rant tries to make the listener believe.

Nowadays, approximately 2.3 million public school teachers in the United States have tenure. It is true that the system can generate problems. The union system protects incompetent teachers by making dismissal difficult and time-consuming, by doling out money for paid leave and substitutes.

Here is what districts and states do to mitigate the problem of incompetent teachers. (From the November 17, 2008, Time article, “A Brief History of Tenure” by M. J. Stephey.)

The least effective is what California Governor Schwarzenegger called “the dance of the lemons” which means move poor teachers around to other schools. Then comes separation agreements, i.e., pay to leave-sounds like what happens to corporate CEO’s.

In 1997 Oregon abolished tenure, but replaced the benefit with two-year renewal of contracts and programs to help low-performing staff.

In other states, tenure is revoked, but due process remains before dismissal. A few states, like Colorado (see post 9-29-10), are trying a system to avoid tenure altogether by basing evaluation on yearly goals that determine salary and professional movement. A set of steps for improvement is provided before the teacher is dismissed.

The trouble with the obsession over abolishing tenure is that dismissing incompetent teachers and banking the funds will not save the low-performing schools, nor the funds that have disappeared because of a recession or a state legislature’s poor budget management.

Poor school finance measures fail to provide equal opportunities for students. In California in May 2010 (see post 6-2-10) a lawsuit on the behalf of teachers, students, parents, and school boards was brought to court against the state. To summarize, the status of California education finances are inequitable, inadequate, and overly complex.

Here are five proposals (At Issue: School Finance Reform by Margaret Weston, November 2010) from the Public Policy Institute of California, specifically devoted to California’s budget mess, but applicable to many states’ school budget problems. The steps are proposed with the funds available in California’s 2010-2011 budget. No revenue increase is expected.

Meet resource needs. No state can expect success using a one-size-fits-all spending ratio. Some students require more extensive help; for example, transportation costs are higher for distant rural students.

Structure incentives properly. For instance, English Language Learners struggle to achieve academically, but if the state awards failing schools, where is the financial incentive to help those schools improve?

Allocate funds transparently. Dispensing funds to school districts is only understood by a few financial wizards. Why? If the state needs revenue for schools, the tax-paying citizens need to understand the system.

Treat similar districts equitably. Allocate base funds at equitable per-pupil rates. Allocate extra costs equally; for example, to ELL students and special education students. Now, the expenditure rationale is almost always based on historical factors, not the current reality.

Balance state and local authority. Individual school districts have unique needs. Plan for local decision-making authority in exchange for accountability.

The report never speaks of eliminating tenure as a tool to improve school budgets. It does mention accountability, where tenure issues meet a better evaluation process for teacher, administrator, and school board.

Give Us a Break

Wednesday, November 24th, 2010

Don’t lose perspective says Nicholas Kristof in the 10/31/10 issue of the New York Times.  Until 2008 we had only No Child Left Behind aka NCLB (the current name for the Elementary and Secondary School Act) which has been roundly criticized in education circles in spite of the initial bipartisan send off as the new century began.

By now, in California and other states minority groups form the majority.  See the San Francisco Chronicle November 17, 2010, “When minorities are the majority” by Arun Ramanathan.  You didn’t see this happening? Our education for those students is no longer the old style sit-in-your-seat-and-drink-it-in model.

middle school renovated after a bond passed

middle school renovated after a bond passed

It isn’t even the model that mostly white student schools use nowadays, especially when students reach middle school and begin to lag behind, if they haven’t already.  For anyone, studies describe what works.  For instance, Edsource’s report “Gaining Ground in the Middle School: Why Some Schools Do Better.”  You can leave it, but if you’re looking to change, you’d be wise to take it.

The latest anxiety is teacher education, never mind that educators have been hollering about it since the 1983 report Nation At Risk.  Give us a break–it’s a favorite worry of those who like to blame all on weak teachers.  If only teacher’s unions would let the experts get rid of “bad” teachers.  If only teacher training was upgraded.

The United States does need to look at what other nations do to find good teachers, accepting high quality scholars would help.  Raising salaries would help.  Training in critical thinking, problem solving, effective communication, and collaboration would help.  All were points made by Thomas Friedman in his Sunday, November 21, 2010, New York Times column titled “Teaching For America.”

Does the world think teacher training-whether pre-service or staff development– isn’t happening?  Does anyone think that various school boards haven’t analyzed the compensation issue, realizing that the old “steps” approach no longer works?  Do teaching institutions not try to accept the best?

Here is what everyone doesn’t remember.  In America individual states can listen to the federal government, but their decisions are made depending are where they are regionally and demographically in the country.  No one can tell all states to change.

The federal Department of Education can offer grants like Race to the Top which have excellent guidelines.  The president can be correct when he reminds the 300 million citizens of the U.S. that being well-educated is what makes a country strong.  The governors of the 50 states can designate a commission to come up with Common Core Standards and ask, but not require, the states to teach them.

However, three main things must be done no matter where you live.  State departments of education, school boards, and teachers must address the accountability issue and the assessments used to evaluate accountability.

They must address the gap in achievement for the minorities that are now the majority of traditional public, many charter public, and even parochial schools in this diverse country.  Every week another model is given accolades.

Last, state departments of education, school boards, and teachers must find a way out of the financial mess.  Whether it’s through changes in the pension system, a different road for compensation, changes in the structure of a particular school district, or the realignment of school districts, anything can be tried.  Keeping what is already there without paying is not an option.

The obstacle is to get states or regions in a state to agree on any of them.

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.”

Act on Acting Out

Wednesday, March 31st, 2010

Do you know the jingle?  “When she is good, she’s very, very good, but when she is bad she is horrid.”

In my 4th grade class I have a child who is like that, so little self-control.  Now that it is the middle of the school year, her outbursts are close to habitual and I’m running out of strategies to modify her behavior.  By now she is often “sent to the office” for a “time out.”

When reading through articles, I get answers like ‘teachers must be able to remove disruptive students immediately’ suggesting that charter schools and parochial schools are better because they have that policy.  Perhaps those schools are quieter, but I can think of a number of reasons why all is silent, not necessarily kind and helpful reasons, and not simply because they get rid of disruptive students.

Of course, all teachers want their students to be quiet, studious, busy in productive activity-that’s what I learned in my credentialing classes.  After all, this is an intense phase of the school year when state tests are coming up in a month and students must have mastered all the subjects to be tested on California’s current criterion-referenced assessment tool.

At the same time, this is a school year of instability.  Though the Education Foundation is trying to cobble together funds, our school district deficit is large which means 102 teachers, including me, face lay offs.  In addition, guidelines for accountability are going to change due to new California legislation, and articles advocate a variety of evaluation mechanisms to lift up the highly qualified teachers and weed out the poorly qualified, all of which will take money, lots of money.  How will that happen?  The state is facing a budget deficit of $20 million for 2010-2011.

Do you see what I mean?  The ground is shaking under us and it’s hard to think of one more way to get this child to have a successful year.

Never give up.  We hold daily morning class meetings to review the business of the school day, remind ourselves how to act to help the class get through a successful day, talk over problems that might come up, defining over and over what happens if you choose to act out.