Search results matching tag 'accountability'

What Does it Mean to Put Students First?

Anonymous — Fri, 01 Mar 2013 20:45:00 GMT

Normal 0 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;}

Last night, a student communicated with me her dilemma over taking the AP Psychology exam in May. This student is one of my best students and would more than likely score a five on the exam.

The college she will attend next year does not accept a score lower than a five, and she has a second AP exam scheduled the same day as the AP Psychology exam. She doesn’t want to risk taking two exams on the same day and not doing her best on both, and the other exam is more relevant to her future plans.

What I’m really thinking: Please, take my exam. Even if you don’t prepare for it I’m sure you’ll get at least a four. When students like you choose to not take the exam it makes me look worse.

What I know is right: The AP program and exams should provide a benefit to students. (actually, maybe all aspects of education should). Students and parents, with the informed advice of teachers and school support can make appropriate educational decisions.

What I could do: I could insist that every student take the AP exam for my class. If I want a true measure of how well this class prepares students then it would make sense that all students take the test—high achievers, low achievers, and everyone in between.

What I’m happy about: My end-of-course test isn’t as high stakes as many “core” classes. I can look at my students test scores to inform instruction without having to worry so much about how the numbers look.

So what do I say: As I suggest to all of my students, if you were successful in this course you should expect success on the test. If you haven’t earned at least a C, your chances aren’t so good. If you haven’t earned at least a B and don’t plan to make time to prepare for the exam, your chances aren’t so good. Check the colleges you plan to attend and determine their policy on AP exams, compare it with your expectations, and if needed, talk to me and make an informed decision.

In the end, I’m driven by the value that responsibility for educational outcomes are shared by myself, the instructor, and the students taking my course. The test provides a significant tool to evaluate the extent to which each of us live up to our part of the responsibility. I am able to compare class grades to test scores. When discrepancies arise between a student’s class performance and assessment score I can look at all of the variables that might have contributed.

From year-to-year, I am able to modify instruction in response to information gleaned from previous year’s data.

This test has become a tool to inform and improve instruction. Students are not forced to take it for the primary purpose of providing evaluation of their teacher. Students are given the choice of determining whether the test will ultimately be in their best interest. The teacher is freed from the burden of teaching to the test and able to cover the curriculum in a meaningful context.

Current education reform debate too often pits teacher vs. student and falls back to the argument of “students first.” Is the practice of forcing every student to test for hours every year for the primary purpose of creating a system to evaluate teachers and schools a system that is focused on the best interest of the child, or on the teachers and schools that teach them.

Moving Past Shallow Accountability

Anonymous — Tue, 29 Jan 2013 13:30:00 GMT

accountable (əˈkaʊntəb ^əl)

-adj.

1.	responsible to someone or for some action; answerable
2.	able to be explained

Since the early 1990's (perhaps before, but I wasn't particularly concerned before then) both state and federal politicians have been calling for measures to "hold teachers more accountable." Most of their ideas have lacked creativity and instead of searching for true measures of accountability, have searched for efficient and scaleable ways to sort the good from the bad. Instead of rich, multi-dimensional measures of accountability, we get mechanized testing.

Students corralled into auditoriums, gymnasiums, any available classroom in front of computer screens for several hours a day over a two to three week period taking mostly multiple choice tests. Schools and teachers are then judged on the results. Schools must go through great efforts to make sure that every child sits for a test. If they don't for any reason, it counts against the school. Testing coordinators must track down transfer students who've moved from out of state or who've failed tests in other Virginia districts to take the tests. If they do poorly, the school is accountable even if they haven't provided the instruction. Students only need to pass a set number of tests to graduate. If they've met this requirement, they still must take the additional tests. Their performance doesn't affect them, but again, it will count for the school.

Schools have had informal methods of accountability for decades. Whenever I give a grade to a student, or make a decision about their instruction I am accountable to a student, parents, and administrators at all levels. From A-F, my class policies are clearly defined and in print year after year. From time to time, a student or parent will ask for an explanation while a term is in progress or after a grade is received. I am answerable to them, and on more than one occasion in my career, that answer has not been acceptable.

Then it moves up a level. Those conversations are difficult and uncomfortable, but usually lead to growth. Sometimes a parent is left dissatisfied and angry. Sometimes the teacher is left unsupported and frustrated at having to make a change. Usually a compromise is reached, both sides having a chance to dialogue with each other, and future actions informed by the outcome.

Teachers live with accountability.

I can understand that what I described above doesn't always work so well. Some parents are not empowered to advocate so well for their child and some schools are not so inclined to responsiveness. But accountability should belong to the very individuals most influenced and invested in a given action. We're moving in the direction of making teachers accountable to the influence of corporate standard setters, test makers, and data gatherers.

We can create a better system of accountability. It's not as easy as giving a test and applying a score, but the informal systems of accountability like what is outlined above could become more formal through policy. It would also place accountability into the hands of the ones who deserve it the most.

Accountability for Some

Anonymous — Wed, 16 Jan 2013 17:55:00 GMT

accountable (əˈkaʊntəb ^əl)

-adj.

1.	responsible to someone or for some action; answerable
2.	able to be explained

"We must embrace a culture of innovation and accountability by adopting proven reforms"

-Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell, January 3, 2013

The last two years in Virginia have seen calls for limiting continuing contract status for teachers (similar to tenure), changing dismissal policies to make it easier to fire teachers, and increases in accountability measures to make sure that schools and teachers are doing a good job.

Governor Bob McDonnell is a strong supporter of teacher and school accountability. Apparently not so much for leadership accountability.

The Southern Association of Colleges and Schools is one of six regional accrediting organizations recognized by the U.S. Department of Education. K-12 public schools and colleges in eleven states receive accreditation from SACS. They are a recognized and legitimate source of accountability for institutions.

This organization issued an official Warning to the University of Virginia for non-compliance with it's standards. A warning that if not addressed could lead to loss of accreditation. This warning had nothing to do with academic quality at the University. The warning applies solely with leadership of the institution, specifically, minority control of the board and decision-making. This warning is a direct result of the Board of Visitors actions last summer in dismissing President Teresa Sullivan.

How did the Governor hold the Rector of the UVA Board of Visitors accountable for leading the board down this improper path?

He reappointed her to the position.

How is the Virginia Legislature holding her accountable for her actions?

They're moving forward with approving her nomination to the Board.

Don't pretend to care about accountability if you're only interested in accountability for some.

Maybe if teachers contributed more to political campaigns we'd get better treatment?

From the University of Virginia Website:

In response to the resignation and subsequent reinstatement of President Teresa A. Sullivan, SACSCOC required that the University document compliance with three principles – Principle 1.1 (Integrity), Core Requirement 2.2 (Governing Board), and Comprehensive Standard 3.7.5 (Faculty Role in Governance). After reviewing the response from the University’s Board of Visitors, the Board of Trustees of SACSCOC found the University non-compliant with Core Requirement 2.2 and Comprehensive Standard 3.7.5. In a recent press conference after the announcement, the president of SACSCOC cited concerns related to minority control of the board (Core Requirement 2.2) and policies surrounding faculty role in governance (Comprehensive Standard 3.7.5).

Joel Klein Wants a "Bar Exam" for Teachers

Anonymous — Fri, 11 Jan 2013 20:50:00 GMT

Yesterday, The Atlantic posted an article by Joel Klein titled "The Case for a Teacher Bar Exam."

On one hand he argues that American teachers are not valued as professionals and we need to make greater efforts at doing so. But, he seems to imply that teachers are not treated as professionals because they aren't. One solution- give them a test to enter the profession. That seems to be the answer to everything in education today.

Personally, I'd say if taking a test will lead to higher pay, better benefits and more respect, bring it on. Tests don't bother me in the least. I made it through elementary school in the highest leveled classes because even though I didn't like to do work, every year I finished above the 90th percentile on those old "SRA" tests that we used to take. In middle school and high school, I didn't have to spend much time on homework and still stayed in honor's level classes because as long as I paid a little attention in class the tests were never that difficult. I only took the SATs once because I got a high enough score to get into the college of my choice.

At college, things were a little harder. Some classes were graded on multiple choice and short answer type tests. But others actually expected me to engage in discussion, right papers, and participate in activities. That nearly killed me academically. I actually had to work, learn, and apply knowledge instead of just convincing someone through a test that I was competent.

I took the National Teacher Exam early, before even enrolling in education school just to get it out of the way. I found a review book and studied for a few days and earned the passing score on my first try. GREs weren't much harder.

If you create a test for teachers I promise I'll finish in the top ten percent. But it won't have much to do with how well I teach my students.

Klein's error is the classic field of dreams. If you build it they will come. He looks to teachers of Finland who come from the top of their university classes, who enter a competitive profession. From my point of view I would argue that treating teachers more professionally- raising salary, providing autonomy, etc.,- would lead to greater professionalism. Klein believes that increasing professionalism- testing teachers, increasing accountability, etc.,- will make the teaching profession more respectable.

Both views are one dimensional and flawed. There must be a middle ground. There are areas in which teacher preparation and accountability must be raised, but adding requirements and restrictions is not the way to either encourage the "best and brightest" to join our ranks nor to encourage the competent teachers already in the classroom to stay.

When the System Strikes, Refute.

Anonymous — Tue, 08 Jan 2013 06:12:49 GMT

I’m stuck tonight unable to sleep. It seems dumb, but I cannot stop thinking about those HB555 changes. I’ve got this image in my head of what the end of the 2014-2015 school year will look like in Ohio, and it’s a little something like this:

We’re a year into holding kids back in third grade for the Third Grade Reading Guarantee. Elementary schools across the state are scrambling to find highly qualified reading teachers; principals are struggling to figure out the scheduling issues that go along with promoting students in some areas while retaining them in reading; teachers are still trying to figure out how to create effective RIMPs (once they’ve finally figured out what the *** that abbreviation stands for–”Reading Improvement and Monitoring Plan,” if you’re curious) and implement them and monitor them; we’re a year into the new tests, which extend all the way down to this already-clustered third grade level and the data from those tests are skewing (?), replacing (?), calling into question (?) the data from whatever diagnostic tests the school has been using for two years of 3GRG implementation.
We’re one year in to the new assessments. At the elementary levels, we’ve got teachers trying to teach advanced technology to kids because there hasn’t been enough guidance from testing companies in the previous two years to show teachers what technology skills the little ones should be developing. It isn’t until that first fall diagnostic assessment when the student sits down and pushes the “on” button that teachers across the state realize they should’ve been teaching advanced computer programming to 7-year-olds since 2012 at least. At the secondary levels, teachers have had a couple years to practice with the new standards, but haven’t had adequate time to make sure they are meeting rigorousness of the tests–they’re administering tests (whatever “administering” looks like in two years) and crossing their fingers that either the student scores high enough on the end of course test (given that end of course tests will account for some percentage of the course grade) or scored high enough on the rest of the coursework to manage to pass the class.
Everyone, K-12, statewide and beyond, is waiting to see this epic academic cliff. Some…are waiting to say, “I told you so! Our schools are awful!!!” Some…are waiting to say, “If we had adequate funding this wouldn’t have happened.” Some…are waiting to say, “It’s these standards, they’re terrible.” Some…are waiting to blame. Some…are going to use it as an opportunity to retire. Some (I’d say the minimal few)…are just waiting to see where to start picking up the pieces and moving forward. No matter the camp, everyone is anxious.
Evaluations (well, 50% of everyone’s evaluations statewide) are plummeting in response to the epic academic cliff. Why? Because HB555 set it up that way. Why not? Given this incredible storm of chaos, it’s the perfect time to base 50% of an educator’s evaluation on new, unknown, inadequately-planned-for tests….especially if you want to be able to say I told you so…or Our schools are awful.
Resident Educators, in only their 4th years of teaching if they started in year one of the program, fall right into this wonderful trap. Their scores on these new tests are low, they’re submitting giant assessment projects in the midst of the storm while their evaluations are affected by these tests. Again, what better time than this to say that our teacher preparation programs are creating poor teachers? What better time than an epic academic cliff, new evaluations, and a sizeable retained 3rd grade student population to say our teachers aren’t prepared? In droves….I see new teachers leaving in droves….unwilling/able to cope with this unbelievable anxiety caused by their true inherent desire to fulfill a calling and a system dumping more and more on them until they can’t swim out.

It’s bleak. I look forward and I don’t just see a “perfect storm”; I see one of those “hunker down all winter and stockpile the pantry with canned goods” kinds of storms that take a long time to thaw.

I’m not becoming negative or pessimistic. That’s not what I do. I see things for what they are, and I try my best to find ways to prepare–if you’re telling me there’s an ice storm coming, I’m buying salt for the driveway; if you’re warning me I’m going to be miserable stuck indoors, I’m jazzing up my queue on Netflix. I’m prepared.

So when the system strikes, when we can foresee what may come as a result of what is happening, it may not do us any good to scream and yell, but it will do us wonders to pull ourselves together in an effort to refute, rebut, and contradict what the system says. Here are the ideas I’m tossing around…

I go back to that clear communication post I posted recently. Communicate. Clearly. Frequently. Through many channels. Keep the message positive and simplistic: ”Changes are coming. We are preparing. Understand what the data means.”
Make sure the screeners, diagnostics, progress monitoring tools, etc. your district is using are research-based, quality tools. Whether or not legislation is going to allow us to include this data on any formal level doesn’t matter–we have data that shows children are learning REGARDLESS of what the unknown new tests say. Make sure that data is good, reliable, and valid. Let those numbers speak in your district as strongly as these state- and national-level numbers do.
Use the “Uniform Standards for Remediation-Free Status” report produced by the Ohio Board of Regents last week to your advantage. Start gathering your ACT and SAT scores from the last several years and compare them to the remediation-free ACT and SAT scores on this report. When the new tests say students are below proficient, produce your storehouse of data showing what percentage of students over several years meet these remediation-free numbers. Trust the data that has stood over time, and publicize that information alongside your new test scores.
Work with the willing. Focus on those who are on board.
Create a list of district-wide best teaching practices, preferably brainstormed, compiled, internalized by teachers, and communicate these outward. What is good teaching? What does it look like? Don’t focus on the buzzwords–we can all list differentiation, scaffolding, KWL charts, etc–focus on what it really looks like. How does a parent or community member know when they walk into a classroom if good teaching is happening? Then post these practices everywhere–posters in the school buildings, posters in offices, send a letter to the local paper, beg/plead for articles to be written about awesome teaching.
Recognize the accomplishments of the teaching staff and students on a constant basis. Perception in 2014-2015 is key, the perception will be that our schools are failing, so take that perception head-on and stop it before it can begin. Make sure the board, community, parents, and business leaders know just how successful and talented your staff and students are.

There is still time. We cannot accomplish everything that needs to be done academically before 14-15, but we can begin to counter whatever negative images will result from uncontrollable factors of legislation and assessments that year.

We are in a state of asking our teachers for evidence (OTES/OPES), How do you know students are learning? we ask them, and we want to see proof–work samples, observation notes, effective feedback. In two years, people state- and nationwide are going to ask us, How do you know students are learning? and we can either respond with uncontrollably abysmal test scores from new assessments that don’t adequately represent us because of their newness, or we can respond with a multitude of data from several years that prove what we know to be true.

HB555 and What It Means for Ohio’s Schools

Anonymous — Tue, 20 Nov 2012 14:20:32 GMT

It wasn’t that long ago when I followed the report card legislation from first mention, through the “Yes, it’s happening/No, it’s not” debates, to the 11th hour NCLB waiver application, and finally to the May 30, 2012, NCLB waiver approval.

In May we were left knowing that the NCLB waiver application submitted by the state of Ohio included provisions for revising the current report card system for Ohio’s schools. In March, I posted the information available at that time about the potential new system:

Ohio’s No Child Left Behind Waiver Proposal

Ohio was one of the states to request a waiver from the regulations of NCLB. Unfortunately, I cannot find last night’s slides about this on ODE’s website, but I did find it with OEA.

Ohio proposed 5 elements: 1) Replacing that undoable AYP expectation that Ohio will reach 100% proficiency by 2014, 2) Reform SES, specifically Title I funding, 3) Targeted assistance for low-performing schools, 4) Cutting red tape, and 5) Institute a new letter report grading system. Let’s go through these one at a time.

1. Replacing AYP: Proposed the new goals of implementing CCSS (done), and cut achievement gap by half over six years.

2. Reform SES funding in Title I: Aim to give schools more control over selecting intervention services. Instead of allowing parents to dictate providers of services, services must have a proven track record, and schools would have final say.

3. Target Assistance: New designations of “Priority” (lowest 5% of schools), and “focus” (at least 10% of schools with larget subgroup achievement gap and graduation gap and not making progress)

4. Cutting Red Tape: Attempt to combine some of the reports required by districts (TIFF, SIG, CCIP), but Sawyer said the federal government did not sound on board with this proposal.

5. Completely Overhaul the current district/school rating system in Ohio……which is going to require it’s own section header:

NCLB Waiver Proposal (Continued): #5–Overhaul Ohio’s Ranking System (Pending legislation)

For the most updated information about the new report cards, be sure to read my other post in which I follow the legislation.

Current rating system is excellent with distinction, excellent, effective, continuous improvement, academic watch, academic emergency.

SB316 would modify state level report cards to reflect grade level ratings, and if it passes, the new report cards would begin this fall based on data from this school year.

Schools/Districts would receive a letter grade in four areas: Student performance (aka “Performance Index”), Student progress (aka “Value-Added”), School/District Performance (Percent of indicators met), and Gap Closing.

1. Student Performance

What you’re seeing: The Student Performance rating is Ohio’s old “Performance Index,” which was based on a percentage score out of 120 indicators. Under the new rating, a district gets an A if they meet 90% of the indicators, B if they meet 80%, C = 70%, D = 60%, and F = 59% and below. Also note the bottom line in the boxed area that will denote your building/district’s rank out of Ohio’s public schools.

2. Student Performance:

What you’re seeing: This rating is based on the school’s/district’s previous 2 years of data. If a school exceeds expectations for 2 years, it receives an A; if it exceeds 1 year and meets 1 year, it gets a B; if it meets both years, it gets a C; if it meets 1 year and fails another, it gets a D; and if it fails both years, it gets and F.

3. District Performance:

What you’re seeing: This grade is based on the % Ohio meets out of 26 indicators (previous “Percent of Indicators Met” on Ohio’s current reports). 90% = A, 80% = B, 70% = C, 60% = D, and 59% and below = F

4. District Performance Gap

What you’re seeing: The district performance gap will replace AYP. It is based on 6 years of data. Schools/Districts receive a grade (A, B, C, D, or F) based on how well (%) they met specific % growth in the areas of Reading/LA, Math, and graduation rates. If the school does not have a graduation rate (ex. a middle school), the performance gap will only include the LA and Math scores. The overall performance gap letter grade will be an average of the letters in each of the 3 (or 2, as applicable) areas. An A = 4 points, B = 3, C= 2, D = 1, and F= 0. Add and divide by three to get the letter for this area.

To get the school’s/district’s OVERALL LETTER GRADE, add up the letter point values from each of the four areas (A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1, and F = 0) and divide by 4.

Under these new guidelines, out of the 291 current “excellent” districts and 91 current “excellent with distinction” districts, only 22 will receive an A using simulated data from 2011:

Sorry for the bad iPhone pic (and my writing), but I thought it was important enough to post, and I can’t find it online. For another perspective on the new grading system, see think tank Shanker Institute’s analysis.

For more on the new school rating system and better graphic representations, see here.

For info on how these new ratings might affect charter schools, see this State Impact Ohio post from 4/5

When I read yesterday’s Dispatch article about the proposed HB555, it seems to me like most of the currently proposed provisions resemble those of last March. Specifically, we are looking at an A-F system that would replace current designations, raise benchmarks, show a drop of 35% or more in marks, and it would factor in standardized test scores, evaluations of grade-level reading abilities in elementary school, college and career preparedness in high school (remember that new 10th grade College and Career Readiness assessment Michael Sawyers mentioned at the OH Statewide Education Conference a couple weeks ago?), and the percentage of kids in AP and dual-enrollment classes.

My Thoughts on How NOT To Stress Out About An Already Too-Stressful Educational Climate in Ohio

I guess I’m talking more to myself here than anything because I, too, am stressed about how much is coming at teachers in Ohio. There is very little in public education that is untouched by the hands of reform right now. And yes, if we jump on every bandwagon that comes at us, we’ll be reforming ourselves (and our teachers) into total resistance. Right now, we cannot do anything to affect the outcome of the new report card system. When it comes down to it, those in charge will make the numbers on those report cards reflect what they want them to reflect, which may not be a reflection AT ALL of what we are working so hard to do inside our schools as we transition to new standards and work on shifting our paradigms. I would put these report cards on the back burner: we cannot prepare for them, we cannot affect them, we cannot change them.

What we can do, instead, and what is a much better use of our time is communicating clear and consistent messages to our communities. I advise focusing on three messages:

Changes are coming to our schools. Some good, some not as good. But our schools and teachers are rising to the challenge. Even if the data is a bit shaky at first, we will quickly meet new expectations.
Our teachers are continuing to provide excellent educational opportunities to students even as they undergo intense professional growth themselves and make adjustments to their classrooms. Shaky data does not represent bad teaching or bad teachers; it’s a result of adjusting to a new system. (Maybe put this in relevant terms, “Imagine if your workplace switched from biweekly paychecks to monthly paychecks and you got paid once a month on the last day of the month. You can prepare as much as you want in advance, but making that shift is going to be a challenge until you get adjusted and used to it.”)
Education is changing. What you experienced in school is not the same as what your kids need to experience. We’re working to prepare them for a different kind of future–one that didn’t exist before the technology craze of the 21st Century.

To me, these clear and consistent messages are what we need to be sharing with our communities because they somehow encompass everything that is happening. These messages provide proactive preparedness so when the data and misinterpretations of that data in 2014-2015 (with new assessments, teacher evaluations, new reporting systems, etc.) try to present one message about public education in Ohio, our communities are informed enough to be critical of that information. We can prepare for the unprepareables (like the report cards) by getting people informed.

Edit: If you’re a superintendent, you should be on Twitter. Twitter can be a POWERFUL tool for communicating positive messages about your district. Need an model? Try following @DrJoeClark, superintendent of Nordonia Schools. I have never been to Nordonia, couldn’t even point it out on a map of Ohio (though I’ve seen their buses in our district for sports, so I assume they’re close!), but from just his consistently positive messages about what going on around his district, in classrooms, at board meetings, I feel good about Nordonia Schools. Start making your communities feel good about your districts

Part of the Problem or Solution

Anonymous — Mon, 19 Nov 2012 09:00:00 GMT

Last week we reported on the new Virginia plan for meeting federal waiver requirements from No Child Left Behind. Pass rates were set at 82, 68, 52, and 45 percent for Asians, whites, latinos, and blacks respectively. After talking to several other educators, the state's explanation-- "if we look at where these children are starting from, we're making efforts to move them forward"-- sounds somewhat reasonable. Maybe you remember a little of your "forms of reasoning" from philosophy. If the premise is true and the logic is sound then the conclusion is true. For example-- all birds fly, penguins are birds, therefore penguins must fly. We could argue all we want about how sound the reasoning is, but anyone can see that penguins don't fly. We got something wrong.

To all of my educator friends-- if you think the logic behind this plan is sound, just look at the conclusion, something is wrong. If not the logic, then our premise. It would do our system well if instead of defending such an egregious plan we would step back and figure out how we got here because somehow good intentioned efforts at progress just resulted in some pretty serious regress.

First, the ever present statement that "teachers are the most important factors in student achievement." Most everyone who uses this line fails to add the caveat of the most important in school factor. Many out of school factors impact student achievement. Remind policy-makers and other high-ranking ed officials of this and the reply goes something like this-- "we only have the ability to control what is in our power to control"-- leading us to complacently accept the reality that no one is addressing the issues outside of school that impact our students. So yes, students are coming into our classrooms with different abilities, many times as a result of their environment.

Second, if students are coming into our schools (their starting point according to the Virginia Superintendent of Education) at such various levels of performance, why don't we try to find the reason. When colleges find that too many incoming freshmen are in need of remedial classes, don't we first look to the high schools from which they graduated as the reason. Why satisfy ourselves with the excuse of lower starting points instead of asking why these children are already underperforming by the time we get them.

I have a feeling that race may not be the answer. If it is, what does that mean? It means that there is some inherent difference in ability based on race. We know this isn't true, so what else could be the cause? George Bush is famous for saying that we need to fight the "soft bigotry of low expectations", but I don't know who added "instead of addressing the hard bigotry of poverty." Why are we still separating these children into categories in 2012? Won't we find the greatest correlation between school performance and economics rather than race?

In the end, consider the national narrative regarding education for the last ten years. We've increasingly focused on racial differences in performance and ignored the harsh reality that economic differences have the greatest impact. Last year, when the Teaching Underground attended the NCSS national convention, we listened to Geoffrey Canada's keynote address. He shared his heuristic on decision-making in his Harlem Kids Zone-- "when in doubt, do what the rich people do."

In this ongoing debate between so-called education reformers-- the people who want to measure everything, expand test-based accountability, evaluate teachers on growth models, get unions out of the way-- and people like us at the Teaching Underground, we're often cast as a voice for the status quo.

Come by my classroom one day and look out at the brilliant black students that are taking my AP Psychology course and explain to them why it's a good idea to have a lower pass-rate for "their people." When you put it like that, status quo doesn't sound too bad. But then again, maybe the progress we're being sold isn't really progress at all.

When Numbers Betray Reality

Anonymous — Thu, 15 Nov 2012 02:50:00 GMT

Target pass rate of 82% for Asians. Target pass rate of 68% for whites. 52% for Latinos and 45% for blacks. Those are the new performance goals for math in the state of Virginia and it's good enough for a waiver freeing us from the untenable mandates of No Child Left Behind.

No matter how reasonable the explanation sounds, the result-- 82% pass rate target for Asians, 45% pass rate target for blacks-- is absolutely unreasonable. My psychology class is in the middle of a unit on Testing and Intelligence and we looked at group differences in I.Q. scores last class. We discussed the 1994 book The Bell Curve and how sometimes inferences about race and ability based on testing results are seriously flawed. A diagram from the book shows overlapping normal curves of I.Q. scores between Asians, whites, hispanics, and blacks from right to left on the curve.

I was shocked to hear news of the new Virginia targets that evening after viewing this diagram in class. NPR's All Things Considered ran the story titled "Firestorm Erupts Over Virginia's Education Goals." The story stood out to me after hearing the percentage target rates that matched the order of I.Q. scores presented in the diagram.

We listened to the audio in class. I didn't anticipate how awkward the transition would be. "We've just listened to people talking about Asians and whites and latinos and blacks, but when you look to your left and look to your right you see people with names, your friends. And I can't look at any of you and say that I expect any less of you because of who you are."

Is it reasonable for an entire state to articulate that our expectations of performance are different depending on your race?

For over a decade now, schools, divisions, and entire states have struggled to prove their merit based on the primary metric of the standardized test. Percentages, percentiles, and pass rates have surpassed the noble goals of civic responsibility, critical thinking, responsibility, and achievement. Never mind that some schools don't even have high enough numbers of "sub-groups" to qualify in that reporting category, we've found a way to numerically rate and therefore compare quality from one location to the next.

When schools started meeting the required pass rates of state testing, No Child Left Behind came along and labelled them as failing because not every reporting category met the benchmark pass rate. It essentially created an all-or-nothing system. Success didn't matter unless it was complete success. Any partial failure became the character of the entire school.

Expectations of perfection looming in the next few years prompted the offer of waivers for NCLB. The education world has always promoted an "every child can succeed" attitude. You can't achieve excellence in this field without that attitude. But most teachers learn within the first year of teaching that just believing that every child can succeed doesn't make every child succeed.

We hear that new state pass rates are set with the understanding that these racial groups aren't starting at the same place. So we want to look for growth. We hear that what's important isn't where we finish, it's how much improvement we've accomplished.

Either way, we're left with numbers. 82, 68, 52, and 45, and they define success depending on your race.

If that doesn't wake you up to the damage that our reliance on test based accountability has done to education and American society I'm not sure what will. Welcome back to 1954 Ms. Brown.

Doing Versus Thinking

Anonymous — Fri, 26 Oct 2012 19:09:00 GMT

Which is the more noble task? Generating the idea or carrying it out? Action without thought is ineffective, but thought without action is useless. The dichotomy reminds me of James' warning in the Christian Bible's New Testament. He reminded early Christians that "faith without works is dead." For two millennia, Christians have debated the role of faith and works, but most would agree, they are not mutually exclusive expressions.

Likewise, ideas and execution-- thinking and doing-- cannot exist in isolation. As teachers, we plan, we do, and after it's over, we think some more and evaluate so that next time we can do it better. At least that's how it should work.

I'll admit, there are times when I don't see that I have time to think. I simply "do." I taught U.S. Government the first six years of my career. It was my only consistent prep, so every year I had to prepare for a new class in addition to teaching Government. I didn't have time to plan or think about what to teach so I relied on the previous year's material. After six years, even I was tired of what I had to teach. I started throwing away materials after I used them just to prevent myself from going back to them the next year. But too often as a teacher we get so caught in the busyness of everything that needs to be done that thinking becomes a luxury that our time can't afford.

In regards to education, some people spend more time thinking than doing. Educational structures facilitate this. A recent article noted that with the exception of Administration, there is little room for vertical movement of teachers. Making the choice to move upward in the world of education usually removes one from the classroom. Many capable teachers do not seek higher level positions because of this, but do we really want to encourage good teachers out of the classroom anyway?

Administrators, guidance counselors, tech support, etc., all have their jobs to do; "Thinkers" don't include everyone that serves our schools outside of the classroom. But from created positions in individual schools all the way up to our Secretary of Education, too many education professionals spend their day "thinking" without very much "doing."

How do we bridge this divide of "doers" who don't think enough and "thinkers" who don't do enough?

Thinking takes time. We put quite a bit of thought and time into the Teaching Underground. Still, we fail to match the depth of content or frequency of posting that so many others manage to handle. The frequency and quality of the Underground is a product of how much "real" work we have to manage as teachers. I'm sure most bloggers feel this stretch. I've often thought "why do I do this, there is not enough time in the day and what do I really accomplish in the end? I'm simply thinking about my profession and sharing those ideas with others."

My answer: because thinking is just as important as doing and I refuse to give up the power of ideas to drive the efforts of my work toward meaningful ends.

To the doers: Take a break. Think about what you're doing, why you're doing it, and what you'd like to do next. Learn about what's happening around you and figure out your appropriate place within the context you live and work. If you have to leave somethings "undone" to protect your time and energy for thought, do it. If you're too busy to stop and think, you're too busy. You're going to harm someone if you keep going.

To the thinkers: Get your hands dirty. Not a casual drop in or guest appearance in the classroom. Find a regular consistent way to directly impact a teacher, student or group of students. Don't overburden the "doers" with good ideas that you can't test out yourself. Remember that ideas don't have a life of their own, don't treasure them so much that when the doers tell you the ideas aren't working that you don't believe them. If you don't remember what it's like to miss your lunch or postpone a much needed bathroom break because you're occupied with students, you're not connected with the place where your ideas are carried out. If that's the case, stop thinking so much and do something. You're going to harm someone if you keep going.

To everyone who can make a difference: Give teachers the power to think and trust them to make good decisions. Provide the space and time for their experience and practice to gel into sound theory and plans for moving forward. Don't make decisions in isolation, but build systems that give teachers the ability to engage in deliberate thought about policy and practice. Don't provide opportunities to attend after-school forums, complete surveys, or serve on another committee and consider it teacher leadership. Consider placing certain decision-makers in the classroom more often, and give certain teachers a break from full teaching schedules in exchange for leadership roles.

Effective education requires a proper mix of thinking and doing from everyone, not a cadre of thinkers to direct the activity of the doers. This is education after all, not a beehive.

In Support of Standards-Based Reform

Anonymous — Tue, 23 Oct 2012 00:10:47 GMT

Sometimes I wonder what the word “reform” even means in the world of education today. When I scroll through my Twitter feeds and Google reader, I see far leaning left reformists who want a total overhaul to schools as we know them. They idealize schools without borders, totally individualized and student-driven learning paths, no standardized testing. At the same time, I see far leaning right reformists who support choice and charter schools, vouchers and accountability. Everybody critiques something about the state of schools as they currently are, but nobody can agree about what to do. Even the word “reform” has become almost cliche in a field where we are “reforming” ourselves to death from a million different angles and in a million different ways. The only constant in education is change.

I often hear teachers say they are tired of fads and trends and that elements of education come and go in cycles and waves. These are the teachers who don’t jump on board when policies change because they know reform; they’ve taught through many of the cycles, and they know by the time we adjust to this most recent reform movement, the next one will be on the way.

But to me, there are tiny shifts of true reform that seem to persist through all the ups and downs of change. These are small changes that make little ripples when they first come about and become great waves of change over time. While most “reforming” is really guessing in the dark and hoping to find something that sticks, these shifts are strong, educated guesses that force us to shift our entire approach to education and how we see ourselves and our students.

I think of tiny shifts over time that slowly but surely chipped away the boundaries of having students with disabilities mainstreamed into our typical classrooms. That didn’t happen overnight; it trickled through reform movements, withstanding the test of time until it became our new educational paradigm, until we recognized the equity and equality involved in educating all of our children to their maximum potential.

I think of tiny shifts that brought about desegregation. Again, small changes, small shifts over time until we recognized that students of all backgrounds were entitled to the same quality of education.

I think of how curriculum has changed over time to meet our societal needs. Our current curriculum stems from its foundations in religious instruction; over time we have recognized there is more to being an educated American than simply reading the Bible.

Our understanding of students as learners has changed significantly over time. How we engage our children and work with them to raise their individual achievements is very different than our educational predecessors who believed in rote memorization (over and over and over), recitation (over and over and over), and raps on the knuckles to establish obedience.

These are small changes over time. Little shifts that stuck and brought us to where we are today.

I like to think that all the “reforms” happening to us at least in the last few decades are leading us to some even greater shift, so I look for the tiny shifts of change that keep persisting and that have enough of an impact on equality and equity to actually shift our mindsets as we keep trudging forward. In my opinion, the standards movement is having that impact.

I recently read an Alfie Kohn article that was very critical of reform. In it, he lumped standards-based reform (what I would liken to actual instructional-level changes) and market-based reform (which I liken to a political tennis ball being used by both parties to manipulate our system) into one challenge to be overcome. He discusses the dismantling of the education system through standardized assessments, deprofessionalizing of teachers, standardized curricula that ignore individual student needs. I think his critiques are more than appropriate when applied specifically to market-based reform movements–Yes, making schools into mini businesses, setting up competition as a way to improve education, and using assessment data as a means of ranking and punishing will have that kind of impact. But I fail to see the sustainability of such reform movement because it doesn’t reach into actual instruction. Sure, some schools (out of desperation) purchase standardized curricula that guarantee improved standardized test results, but teachers who teach these curricula don’t internalize them; they don’t shift their mindsets and change their core beliefs in teaching and learning as a result. Market-based reforms, then, are superficial. They are transitory. They are the fads. They come from outsiders who want to impact instruction, but because they are outsiders they don’t have the same reach. They don’t ensure equality or equity; they don’t change the game the way desegregation did.

But to me, standards-based reforms do have this reach. We have been through two+ decades of standards, and every classroom has been affected by them. Teachers have had to dive in and do the leg work of figuring the standards out, making appropriate shifts in instruction, working harder to figure out each student’s strengths and weaknesses and keep them learning. Teaching changed as a result of our first round of standards, and it’s arguable whether these were for the better or worst. These were just our first couple rounds of work with standards–nobody could’ve expected to get it right the first few times. But they keep coming back, and each time they get better, stronger, more clarified, driving students (and subsequently, teaching and learning) deeper. Teachers cannot help but to shift their classroom instruction because new standards require new demands.

For true standards-based reformers, the standardized assessment doesn’t need to be punitive. It’s sole purpose should be formative/summative in nature, but not for passing judgment, comparing, or ranking schools. True standards-based reform focuses on the teacher-level analysis of data to inform instruction and drive learning forward. After all, the focus in this movement is each student’s individual learning path–with a progression of standards as the vehicle for learning, and standardized assessments as checkpoints along the way.

It is when market-based reformers put such a negative spin on standardized assessments that we all feel negatively about them. There’s a whole lot of value in a group of teachers collaborating and pouring over assessment data to analyze the needs of students, but there’s not a whole lot of instructional value in politicians using assessment data to pass judgments on entire systems (though, one may argue there is an entirely different kind of “value” involved in using data this way….).

I am very optimistic about standards-based reforms, and I’m also optimistic and positive about how standardized data can help teaching. I do not think what we’re experiencing now in terms of our standards and tests is the be-all, end-all, but I feel like we’re still moving forward. Standards give us equality and equity that penetrate our classrooms, change our thinking, and keep improving our instruction. Sometimes we just need to focus on the trees instead of the entire forest; I believe we should focus on these tiny shifts that pervade rather than those political shifts that don’t.