Posts Tagged ‘low performing’

« Older Entries

High-Achieving, Value-Added, and New Principal

Wednesday, August 25th, 2010

The fifth day of school and the year seems promising in spite of the constant buzz of depressing education news.  August 24 the news was that California didn’t receive Race to the Top funds.  Still, as a third year teacher, I feel more confident.

State testing news hit the paper August 17, not that teachers at my school were worried.  Our district does not have designated low-performing schools, and I don’t even teach at the strongest school in the district.

The day after we received student scores on the yearly California Standards Test (CST), the third grade teachers were basking in smiles. Third graders moving into fourth grade had done extremely well, 2 students were below basic, none were basic, the rest were proficient and advanced-about 80 students altogether.

I teach fourth grade, so it was lucky for me, but at the same time, I now know that my strategies for teaching must treat high-achieving students, not low performers.

The main difficulty for fourth grade students is the change from a class of 20 third graders to a class of 30 or more students and one teacher.  It takes a good month before the students have learned to support each other while working.  The first month is spent teaching student behaviors more than teaching curriculum.

Over the weekend I read in the August 22, 2010, San Francisco Chronicle editorial by John Diaz about teachers unions fighting with the Los Angeles Times about evaluating teachers using a statistical method called “value-added.”

From what I’ve read, the idea is to look at the effect of a year of teaching on student test scores.  Of course, this statistical measure depends on students who have scores from a previous year that can be projected to continue for the current year and then see the actual score received.  Teaching for the year is the “value added” and a teacher can receive a number (just like a student) to show how well he or she did.

I hear the rumble in the head of any teacher who knows all the variables that can affect scores aside from what the teacher is doing in the classroom.  No wonder the teachers unions are looking askance at this statistical measure.  Even the article’s discussion of the variables and how the “value-added” measure accounts for them leads to more questions than answers.  Go to the latimes’ article “Grading the Teachers” to find out more.

Get real.  Many Los Angeles schools are doing well.  But the schools that hit the headlines are so dysfunctional that it doesn’t take the money used to disaggregate student scores by teacher, flash it around to parents who for the most part are more concerned about the behavior of students in the school rather than test scores, and then say “see.”

In time I can understand using students’ scores as one aspect of evaluation of a teacher’s work.  The truth is each school community and each school district must have a defined program continuously supported by the school board.  Then a teacher can be held accountable so they are fired because of a measure of student test scores.

In my small district in which parents support their students-some call it hovering-the problem is only to keep scores up.  The union has been supporting the staff so that the primary grades manage to keep the 20 to 1 ratio and the district shaves off money from other budget lines.  We may have furlough days, but not one teacher was laid off because of lack of money.

Who would guess that the intervention specialist at the school used DonorsChoose.org and grants to get <!– /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:”"; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:”Times New Roman”; mso-fareast-font-family:”Times New Roman”;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} –> 10 iPod Touch instruments for her students?  I’m going to do what she did.  The applications are endless: reading fluency checks; math games from remedial to enrichment; stories not available in the library that can be read aloud to a student.

Or that our worry would be about the new principal and changes in office staff at the school-how to support the new principal and still spend time on high curriculum standards?

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in low-performing schools, public schools |
Be the first to leave a comment »

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.

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Posted in low-performing schools, program improvement, public schools, school reform |
Be the first to leave a comment »

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.

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Council of Chief State School Officers, National Governor's Association, low-performing schools, public schools, school accountability, school community, school reform |
Be the first to leave a comment »

How They Do It

Wednesday, May 12th, 2010

Argument after argument is tossed back and forth at conferences, in the newspapers and magazines about low-income, high ethnic population public schools that aren’t making it.

Then, lo and behold, three more great public schools and school districts pop up in the news.  In April 2010 at the National Association of School Boards convention in Chicago, Illinois, a presentation was made by Matteson School District (SD 162) near Chicago with 7 Pre-K to 8 schools. Three-fourths or more African-American students, second language, reduced price or free lunch, are all part of the list that indicates poor performance.

But, no, the district has won awards for meeting and exceeding proficiency on the state exams that are the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) benchmarks of success.

Not only Matteson public school district, but Marshall Elementary in budget deficit San Francisco, California, and Public School 172 in Sunset Park, Brooklyn, have overcome the odds.  Comparable schools-low-income neighborhoods, high number of minority students, second language issues.  How does it happen?

When reading the articles, it makes sense.  The factors that education studies have said make good schools were gripped by each school and the school district.  And it was done before the state superintendent or government came down with hands on hips, insisting on change.

Although specific programs may differ, four main traits identify the success of these schools.

* The school board, district superintendent, and principal have high expectations to do all possible to help students learn.  They have developed a long-range plan and stuck to it.  The faculty and staff are informed collaborators in the decisions to reach the achievement goals for the district and school.  The school community celebrates success.

* All members of the school community focus on providing the strategies to improve student achievement.  Teachers employ continuous assessment using multiple data sources which are analyzed and evaluated to improve instruction.  Teachers are given time outside of teaching for analysis and talk about how to improve instruction.  In addition, even with tight, tight budgets, resources are found to include speech therapists, nurses, tutors, social workers, and most important aggressive staff development.

*Parents are included in the school community.  For instance, at Marshall Elementary, the principal has hired a parent liaison who works on attendance, nutrition, transience-whatever impedes student success.  At PS 172 money was found for a dental hygienist who has dealt with the poor health issues that impede speech and energy to learn. At all schools, Matteson School district has trained parents to use the website in order to be knowledgeable about the programs going on at the schools.  Parent-school participation is encouraged at all schools.

* These good public schools report that art and music instruction has not been abandoned in order to improve test scores. Instead, the day is structured to use support staff during class time to reach the students with special needs. More than one teacher may be working with a group in the classroom. You can imagine that students are intent on learning, not “zoning out.” Money for after-school and Saturday instruction has been authorized.

Here’s the follow-up question. How was money found for the extra resources? So far we know only that principals scrounged for the funds and didn’t give up.

To ask about the report on Matteson School District (SD 162) in Illinois contact Dr. Blondean Y. Davis, Superintendent.  The article on PS 172 (aka Beacon School of Excellence) is found in The New York Times, April 26, 2010, “Poor Families, Rich Test Scores: A School Defies Odds” by Sharon Otterman.  Marshal  Elementary School’s story is found in the San Francisco Chronicle, April 20, 2010, “U.S. tapping school’s recipe for success” by Jill Tucker.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Posted in NCLB, No Child Left Behind Act, public schools, school community, successful schools |
Be the first to leave a comment »

Transience-Going and Coming and Going Again

Wednesday, April 28th, 2010

Reading and listening to the news, the huge bet in the education world is how many teachers and other staff are going to the unemployment office in June due to layoffs in each state and school district.

superintendent with students at a Los Angeles elementary school

superintendent with students at a Los Angeles elementary school

Worst of the worst, 300,000 teachers laid off will certainly clear the board of its latest spread of new teachers at low-performing schools just as those schools are identified as turn around targets.  How will it help any school when young committed new teachers who have been acknowledged as creative, innovative, self-confident, highly educated, and technologically competent are the first to be laid off when the roulette ball lands in their slot?

More pink slips than really needed are often sent out so as not to litigate layoffs that are identified too late in the school year, a no-no nationwide negotiated by unions and part of most state’s education code.  But even 100,000 is a huge number and leads to the problem to be addressed in this post-TRANSIENCE.

Begin with student transience.  In most states and definitely in California high transience in low-performing schools practically guarantees that few students will have proficient or advanced levels on the state tests given in May.  Generally, students who make strategic moves like those because of school safety issues, overcrowding, class size reduction, even suspension do not necessarily lead to worse academic achievement.  On the other hand, reactive transience due to financial stress, family dysfunction, and housing instability often lead to negative results in student achievement.  The more moves in a school year and over several school years generally indicate a worse outcome.  For more detail see the Urban Institute’s 2009 study “Student Transience in North Carolina.”

Like truancy, student transience can be reduced with relentless determination.  When a student moves to another attendance area, the child stays in the original school for the remainder of the year, a procedure dependent on buses and parent permission.  Speaking of parents, the district can educate parents on the short and long-term consequences to student achievement with constant movement.  In addition, within a school district, the speedy transfer of student records can be improved, especially with data being established on servers that can be accessed by every school.  Of course, over time in a city or region, the availability of low-income housing would ensure that students remain at the school.

Students coming and going increases teacher anxiety as each is preparing to be evaluated on student test scores.  Think, though, about the anxiety for children as teachers go and come and go again when layoffs are the way to balance the school district’s budget.

Students in low-performing schools usually need steady well-structured learning time.  One school in Los Angeles was described recently as losing half its teachers due to last year’s layoffs, and even now six months after school opened for the 2009-2010 school year, some classes are taught by a series of substitutes instead of full-time regular employees.

Teachers need to be in place in the school for an average of five years for the most effective teaching to take place.  What is going to happen in June 2010 as students see new teachers take home all their materials, still unsure of the location or grade level they will be called to teach when 2010-2011 begins?  If they get rehired.  Before the school year begins.

Last, in the Fall it’s a sure thing that some teachers laid off in the Spring will be assigned to a school when the enrollment is stabilized.  Think about the time that will be needed to train the new staff in the strategies, special programs, student discipline procedures, and myriad other details that make each school unique.  In the meantime, students review and wait for the real teaching to start.

Let’s hope student transience doesn’t begin until the transient teachers have had time to lay down the rules of the game.

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in layoff notices, low-performing schools, public schools |
1 Comment »

« Older Entries