Superman?

My focus is constantly divided. I'm always thinking about my classroom/school/district, and how successful they are (how successful they can be). But I am also looking at the bigger education picture, which currently seems to be dominated by the Waiting for Superman documentary. You can also toss in the Oprah show from this past week (I'm not home when Oprah is on, so I go based on the twitter-sphere) or the NBC "Education Nation" show that is kicked off by Sunday's Meet the Press.

As a point of full disclosure: I teach in a public school, but in a district that is more affluent (and successful) than other large "city" districts in the state. I also have a friend that is a principal for KIPP, a charter school outfit that gets lots of publicity. Lastly, I have never set foot inside of a charter school.

As I watch my DVR'd copy of Meet the Press, I find myself getting increasingly irritated. The conversation is essentially centered on the fact that public schools are "failures" and that the teacher's union is an impediment to student success. What is befuddling, but not surprising, is that they haven't defined success! Is a student's success defined by the winner take all standardized test? On this show, and in many arenas, the answer is yes. It is assumed by all of those on the show, that input equals output, and a student passing the standardized test should be the output. My problem is that it doesn't always work that way. I've seen really bright and hardworking kids not meet standard. Why? I couldn't tell you. Bad day? A family thing? Missed breakfast? Poor teaching? A combination? Who knows. There are kids who miss things everyday in my classroom (forgetting a topic sentences, miss reading a question, overcomplicating a question). They are not any less bright because of that. Perhaps they need to me more careful, but not any more/less intelligent.

As the show concludes before me, I find myself exceedingly angry. Not surprisingly the panel took aim at teachers and the union as an impediment, blocking the progress of millions of school children across the country. "I fire bad teachers, and the union files a grievance," Michelle Rhee states. Well because I would be willing to bet that not all of the 241 teachers that were terminated were "bad teachers." The unfortunately reality is that their kids didn't meet the growth relative to the standardized test.

Solutions? Dan Brown mentioned a few (which the Radical quotes in a post about the show). In my district I feel like there are some items that are worth replicating. Our New Teacher Support Program is highly effective, and inspires reflective practice. During my first year we had quarterly cohort meetings, weekly observed lessons (informal), and opportunities to observe inspiring teachers in the district. Additionally, we have an online portal where documents related to teaching and learning can be found. Wondering what district assessments should be used for fall? Check the portal and download it. Wondering what is at standard for fluency in the winter? Check the portal. Want to see the scope and sequence that the district proposes for particular curricular materials? The portal has it. The tools are available, and you are expected to use them and not be on an island.

The last two things are crucial. How about an hour and a half for planning every week (beyond your specialist time)? Love it. You mean I have time to look at student work, talk about it with my peers, and collaborate on how to scaffold for particular students? Whoa. It was striking at first, but some of the most important time we have. Lastly we have an evaluation system aimed at our growth. I set a goal for a particular domain of teaching (last year was classroom environment, this year is instruction) aimed at increasing student achievement. The achievement can be measured in many ways, but I do link it to our standardized test. We use them for our grade level and school goals, so it is best to be aligned. But I can see where I am, and speak to the evidence that shows I am proficient in a particular area.

Solutions exist. They are being done in schools across the country. Firing teachers in favor of the charter schools that educate 3% of our nation's kids is foolish without first exploring what innovative districts are already doing.

What Makes a Great Teacher?

We are at Spring Break. Hooray. Breaks are welcomed, not because it is a chance to go on vacation but rather because it is an opportunity to recharge. My current plan is taking Saturday-Wednesday off from all things school, then spending at least one day in the classroom and another doing some planning/grading. How am I doing so far? Pretty good, blog reading aside.

In cleaning out my google reader, I stumbled upon a response to this article in the Atlantic Monthly. As a whole, I'm not really sure where to start. In the big picture, I think articles like these are written for educated people who wonder "what has gone wrong with our schools?" I'm not sure the motives of the Atlantic piece. Is it to make teaching seem accessible to anyone might consider a career change? Is it trying to advocate for a larger economy of scale for programs like Teach for America or KIPP? To be honest, I'm not sure what the motives are.

I'm on record as thinking that those programs (toss in most, if not all, charter schools and the Harlem Children's Zone as well) are not replicable on the broader scale. Using economic terms, which business people can relate to, you would seem to make a good thing great by increasing the economy of scale. You have less of a cost if you expand it to a broader audience. Have those programs had success? In some cases they have, their statistics bear that out. I say "their" because there has been one independent study of teacher efficacy in TFA (showing better math scores than public scores, but negligible gains in reading). Are they as successful as they are purported to be? No.

Keep in mind that charter schools (not TFA) have total control of their population, and have the ability to skim off those students that are low achieving for academic or behavior reasons. Do they say that they do this? Yes and no. In many cases they say that you can be asked to leave the program if you don't abide by their rules, which is essentially a blanket excuse for skimming without actually saying it. Ahhh but where do those "troubled" kids go? They dropout or they end up in public school, exacerbating the disparity. Each kid taken away from the charter school means fewer students in the equation for statistical purposes, while adding one to public schools makes the percentage look a few percentage points worse. In addition, the shelf-life of a TFA or KIPP teacher is typically 3-5 years. A revolving door of teachers is NOT what our public schools need. In my next post I'll look at the micro issues in the article.

Conversations

This post came through my blog feeds this morning. I think it is interesting, even if part of the conversation turned to TFA. TFA isn't scalable, nor are the charter school outfits. Additionally, it is debatable what the statistics actually reflect- charter school success? skimming high achievers? or what?

What I always wonder is why the public conversation rarely (if ever) turns to what good pedagogy is, and what exemplifies it. High test scores, which are often tied to merit pay, seem to assume good pedagogy but is that true? Additionally, why is it that we give a single test (used for achievement- not formative assessments in this case) where other professions look at a broader spectrum of results? Oy vey.

Charting a new path?

Cleaning out the blog posts in my google reader, I came across this post. The original op-ed piece can be found here. Now one thing to know up front: the original blog, Schools Matter, is very anti-charter and anti-KIPP. They forward along more stuff about how bad both entities are than I've seen in any blog. That being said, it is interesting to read, and provides interesting prospective. Read the post (as it has the op-ed in it).

Real Problems

I came across this blog post from over at NYC Educator today. Additionally, I went to the link in the post, which can be found here. The crux is that a high school student was shipped from a "public charter school" to a regular public school, largely because of inconvenience to the charter school (with there being many meanings to inconvenience in this case).

As a whole, I am conflicted about charter schools. They must be doing some things right, otherwise they wouldn't be getting all of the publicity saying they are the magic fix (right?!). I also have a friend that is a principal of a new KIPP school on the east coast (and when I say new, I mean just opening this fall... or next week). But, thinking they are the magic fix to our education woes is laughable at best. Additionally, there is a significant issue with regards to the statistical achievements they are often lauded for.

That really isn't the issue here for me. What kills me (no irony intended) is that charter schools can be allowed to ship students off because they are inconvenient. One of the teachers quoted in the secondary link is that many of the students she receives come with incomplete evaluations. What the??? How is that fair by any stretch of the imagination? They cry foul because they don't have the resources?! And the larger public school system does? Really?

Don't Read the Newspaper

Reading newspaper articles and op-ed pieces on education can be infuriating. This morning I read a Seattle Times Op-Ed that I couldn't make heads or tails of. At best I disagreed with her assessment that our kids are thriving in schools. At worst I was confused by comparing education to being science-based like medicine.

Personally I believe that education needs reform of some sort. Does it need to scrapped in favor of charter schools? I don't think so, particularly as the data comparing charters and public schools don't support the huge gains that charter school supporters champion. But I do believe that we need an education system that isn't a slave to assessment. Assessment should inform instruction, and help teachers target instruction at appropriate levels. I am not quite sure what is so science-based about education either. Perhaps it is the number of case studies that eventually lead to best practices. Then again, hasn't a case been made for virtually all of the "best practices" that have been in education, many of which competing against each other?

I think there are some great things happening at schools, but by no stretch of the imagination are they thriving. If they were thriving, and preparing all students for higher ed and the great beyond then we wouldn't have programs like Rainier Scholars. There was a great article about RS in the Seattle Times as well. What kills me are the comments, which show a complete lack of understanding for why a program like Rainier Scholars exists.

Charter Schools

My wife and I went to the Second Ascent Twilight Criterium bike race over the weekend. There we ran into a friend who was also in education. Naturally the conversation turned to schools, as it always seems to with folks in education. We were weaving through topics ranging from my wife's classroom to my student teaching to hiring, and somehow to charter schools.

Our friend is a believer that the system, as it currently stands, is broken. We are educating kids, but we aren't meeting the needs of all of the kids in the system (not by a long shot). I certainly agree. The parent group pushing for merit pay, or at least a system that doesn't jettison its youth, was also mentioned. Our friend mentioned how the push for merit pay, and charter schools, could be something that helps deconstruct the system so that it can be rebuilt to better serve kids.

That got me thinking about charters as a whole, particularly as Geoffrey Canada will be here in the fall for Solid Ground's Annual Luncheon. He, if you will remember, is the creator of the Harlem Children's Zone. The HCZ got a ton of press when Obama was campaigning, as was seen as what our nation needs more of. The hubbub around the HCZ makes me shake my head in amazement.

The program isn't scalable for starters. Those that think it could be done without the money are fooling themselves. I am sure there are many great elementary schools with far less money, but they represent a vast minority not the majority. Comparing HCZ to the public schools in Harlem would also show a massive disparity in funding. But let's get away from funding, as Jonathan Kozol has been pushing that for years and people still don't want to believe him!

Charter schools can take liberties that public schools can't. If you don't cut it in their system, from grades to decorum, you can be shipped out. What does shipping a student out do? First is that it takes that student out of the statistical equation for the charter school. Second is that the student needs to go somewhere, with the likely landing spot being public school. When people go to look at the statistics, the charter school can pump itself up... but also benefits from a bump down for the public school it is comparing itself to! Bridging Differences does a great job of looking at charters, particularly Mr. Canada's.

I have nothing against Mr. Canada or the HCZ. I even have a friend that is a principal of a new KIPP school in Baltimore (opening this fall). What I have a problem with is turning our backs on kids and families. We have an obligation to teach all children, not just the ones that we think will help us most.

Thanks For Sharing

NYC Educator had a comical story today following Jay Matthews' (WaPo ed blogger/correspondent) ways to fix schools without spending a dime. Matthews' article was on the heels of Nicholas Kristof's op-ed in the Sunday New York Times. I certainly don't mind reporting about education. One thing that I learned while an undergraduate political science major was that too few people are participating in the discussion. Without discussion you end up with only a few people having their ideas being pushed, and it becomes a government of the priveledged, not one of the people (changing government is a whole different story).

My issue with Matthews and Kristoff is that they aren't really pushing great ideas. Charter schools, calling parents with kind words, and good pedagogy aren't going to make a dent in education. For one, while charter schools are all the rage they aren't shown to be the great education savior that is being pushed. They aren't a magic elixir, and pushing them to the public only further dilutes public faith in restoring public schools. Why help public schools when you can go to the magic charter school that cures everyone?

The shame in all of this is that Matthews and Kristoff write for large metropolitan newspapers. Others actually read their writing, and may start to drink the Kool-Aid. Why do we have to have people who aren't teachers, and have never experienced teaching, telling everyone what needs to be changed about teaching and education?