Posts Tagged ‘professional development’

What was he thinking?

Wednesday, March 3rd, 2010

I received my pink slip two weeks ago, long before  March 15 (California’s education code rule) when layoff notices must be delivered.  A district personnel officer handed it to me in person.  I think the human resources office thought we’d feel better if a human being delivered it instead of getting a certified letter in the mail.

Why would I feel better when the guy walked into my class while I was teaching and said, “How are things going today?”  Can you believe how obtuse that was?

What was I supposed to say, “Oh fine, and how’s your day?” while holding up my hand to indicate wait to the child who was waving furiously for me to come help and accepting the letter in my other.  As if receiving a RIF notice was going to make my day.

After school when I calmed down, I thought he could have said, “Hello, I’m glad to meet you even if I’m the bearer of bad news.  Please know I’m sorry we are in such a bind.”  At least it would have been admitting the quandary.

Here is what the teachers in California are doing.  It started last fall when University of California students, initially over tuition increases, decided to have demonstrations up and down the state on March 4, 2010.  Then the State University students joined in, angry about all the cuts to state university public education.

Then the news came out that San Francisco schools would have a $113 million deficit beginning next year.  Parents began to devise ways to raise money. The usual: another parcel tax measure, asking businesses to match funds raised by PTA’s, a surcharge on movie tickets.  I laughed reading San Francisco  legislator Tom Ammiano’s pitch for regulating and taxing marijuana purchases to raise money for schools.

Of course, the district is doing the same as my district: layoffs, furlough days, no professional development, summer school cuts.

Same ole, same ole.  Too bad.

But teachers and students in public universities and community colleges and teachers in public elementary and high schools throughout the state and across 2 dozen other states according to the San Francisco Chronicle are demonstrating on Thursday.

In colleges, there will be marches.  I did my undergraduate work at San Francisco State and I’ve heard students there have built giant puppets, La Llorona weeping for her students and a skeleton with a graduation cap to show that students will still be paying off their fees when they’re dead.  I suppose humor helps you laugh instead of cry.

At our elementary school we will all wear black to signify the loss of school staff and support for students.  During social studies the fourth grade classes who, remember, study California history and government will have a lesson on how schools and libraries and the police and fire departments are paid for.  During the time for writing, they will compose letters to the governor describing which services are important to them and offering ideas to help the government.  Fulfills several grade 4 standards, but most important students are analyzing what they know to synthesize new ideas and write them down.

After school, I’ve heard many teachers will join demonstrations at city halls or along well-traveled intersections on the peninsula, but as of this post I’m not sure where my union will participate.

By the June primary elections I tell you, people are really going to be furious as cuts get worse and services collapse.  Even though initiatives are troublesome to me, seven likely to be on the ballot aim to increase funds to support schools and other social services.  All because so far the legislature has not found a way to finance support for state services or schools that used to be the best in the United States.

Whose Fault???

Wednesday, December 23rd, 2009

Having been a teacher, blame placed on teacher’s unions “that view reforms more for how they affect pay and job security than whether they improve student learning” is unfair and inflammatory.

The accusation by David Davenport in the article “Value-added education in the race to the top” San Francisco Chronicle, November 29, 2009, is based on the country-wide dispute about using data to help students learn, rather than to evaluate teachers.

This is not to go along with every position NEA, for example, has taken in the past, but the constant denigration of teacher’s unions about their position on evaluation and student testing performance is misleading about a complex reform.

Davenport, a research fellow at Stanford’s Hoover Institution, well-known for its conservative views, advocates the “value-added” model, originally a manufacturer’s economic theory, to address the problem of teacher evaluation with data, collectible from the vast pool of scores since NCLB began.

Actually, the teacher and student evaluation reform issue is touchy, easy to manipulate with statistics, and difficult to resolve because of the multitude of variables.

It’s easy for the media to grab onto student test scores and conclude the results are attributable to the skill, or not, of the teacher.  It doesn’t matter that a superintendent, a principal, or a teacher defends the year’s testing outcomes, if scores have not soared higher than a kite, those educators are said to be making excuses.

The term “value-added” education, partly referring to the student’s gain in reading and math proficiency over a year, has been around for nine years, at least, in California.  Every school knows its exact place in relation to other schools in the state.  Those in need of program improvement are deep into the change process.

Several reports can be found (Mass Insight Education & Research Institute and the California Governor’s Advisory Committee on Education Excellence are two) elaborating on conditions for bringing change to schools so that students actually learn more and more each year.

In addition, “value-added” refers to the other attributes in the school and classroom that can be assessed, such as the instruction received.

None of the “turn around” measures advocate evaluating a single teacher solely on the improvement in scores of his/her students.  As I’ve read it, unions are against that particular type of evaluation (which is the magic bullet whirling around in the media air), but NEA and AFT have offered suggestions to use the test as one part, along with other tools, to assess the teacher’s skill in the classroom.

As part of Race To The Top grant preparation, California’s Governor Schwarzeneggar has signed two bills to support data availability for teacher and school evaluation.

Next problem.

While reading that the “value-added” proposal can provide a foundation on which to build accountability, to be practical, how can time be spent to develop these evaluation tools when there is so little money?

And what will be done when the evaluation procedures are developed?  Will there be money to set in motion the practices needed to truly and fairly move unsatisfactory teachers from a school district?

Besides, does Mr. Davenport surmise that just getting rid of weak teachers is going to fix a school?  The article notes Eric Hanushek’s comment that replacing 6-10% of the nation’s poorest teachers with average teachers will make a difference in the quality of American education.

How will that happen?  A bit of research into Mr. Hanushek’s theories may provide some insight.  See next post.

Having supervised teachers in a program improvement school, the advice is every Race To The Top dollar should be spent for program evaluation, professional development for highly-qualified teachers, facility improvement, parent education so they know how to keep track of their children’s work and expect achievement, and school community celebration of effort and success.

While each teacher must be accountable, the overall success of those “good” school characteristics is the key.  That’s how the program improves.

Dodge the Bar or Leap the Hurdle?

Wednesday, June 24th, 2009

Teachers know that school programs come and go.  No wonder they roll their eyes and say just wait it out.  I can verify this claim.  I was a long time teacher and have seen plenty of “new” programs, solutions for any difficulty possible to name.

However, the one worthy mandate of the original No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation is that schools across the nation are required to be accountable for student success.  First implemented in 2001, that’s a long, long time ago in the K-12 education world.

Of course, little federal money was authorized to assure the mandate’s success.  States chose from a myriad of assessment tools.  Each state decided at which point students were considered proficient in reading and math.  School districts were left to come up with teacher training and the models of curriculum and instruction to help students succeed.

All those hurdles were enshrined in the NCLB Act during eight years when legislatures were in a constant budget struggle to find funds to support public education.

Until now, many states did the minimum, as has been reported in numerous news articles, so few comparisons have been made to see how children across the nation are doing.  For example, proficiency was set at a ridiculously low level.  The selected assessment tools were poorly designed and offered little information.  Teachers were not provided training to analyze assessment results and plan lessons to improve student achievement.

In spite of the urge to dodge the bar, a number of states and schools and school districts managed to set high standards and show success, especially important in low-performing schools found in neighborhoods with many students “at risk.”  Homelessness, second language issues, and low income levels all set obstacles for student success.

Slowly, with conscientious support at the district level and competent, relentless school personnel, student levels of achievement improved and will continue to improve as long as all components that support the outcomes are kept in place.

We should be relieved that some schools took on the challenge and leaped the hurdles.  Now that models of success have come to the fore, the education community must not let go.

I looked at studies of three models in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Cincinnati Public Schools, and Hamilton, Tennessee, all of which are good, if not perfect, examples of schools making progress.  Such schools, found in neighborhoods across the country, do not use the exact same curriculum, or have the same daily schedule, or rely on the same organization of staff.

They do all have certain components of attitude, teacher collaboration, professional development, and parent and community support.  They can demonstrate how students have achieved.  That’s being accountable.

If interested, the website for the Consortium for Policy Research in Education (five universities pooling resources) is filled with articles that address studies and research about successful schools.  Search for articles on ‘accountability.’